Full text of Changing Aspects of Rural Relief, Research Monograph XIV

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

CHANG.ING ASPECTS
OF R:U.R-•At \:·R.ELIEF
~

.·
•

.I

..

f

.

r

•

.

•
1>

.,

,l
,,.

,:,,,

~

...

. ,.

...

. '

~

',.

-----

----.........
~ ~,~

'W ORKS

~.. .

.

PROGRESS

DJ VISION

OF

'

'

'

ADMINISTRATION

,5 0 CIA L

RESEARCH

,. .

l

L'i1 .it. 'fl by I _,{_)()~ (:

Pu1,lications
oJ the Division oF Social Research
, W orlcs Progress Administration .
Research Monographs
I. Six RUN1I Problem Area., Relief-Resources-Rthabilitatlon
II. Con1par.ati~e Study of Rural Relief and Non.Relief Houteholcls
Ill. The Transient Unemployed
IV. U.-n Worken on Relief
V. Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation
VI. Chronology of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
May 12, 1933, to December 31, 1935
VII. The Mltratory-Casual Wodcer
VIII. Fann.,. on Relief and Rehabilitation
IX. Part-Time Farming in the Southeast
X. Trenc:liln Relief Ex~nclitures, 1910-1935
)(I. Rural Youth on Relief
XII. lnterdty Differences in Costs of Living In March 1935, 59 Cities
XIII. Effects of the Worlcs P,osram on Rural Relief
·
XIV. Chan9in9 Aspects of Rural Relief

Special Reports
legl1lative Trench in Public Relief and Aulltance, December 31, 1929,
to July 1, 1936

Survey ol Casa Certified for Works P109rom Employment in 13 Cities
Survey of Worlcers Separated From WP A Employment in Eight Areas
During the Second Quarter of 1936
A Survey of the Translent and Homelen Population in 12 Cities,
September 1935 and September 1936
Areas of Intense Drought Distress, 1930-1936
The People of the Drought Stata
Relief and Rehabilitation in the Drought Area
F.ive Year, of Rural Relief

WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
Hany L. Hoplrlns, Adminisfrotor
Conlntton GIii, Assistant Ad•inlstrotor

DIVISION OF SOCIAL RESEARCH
Howard B. Myers, Director

CHANGING ASPECTS

OF RURAL RELIEF
By
A. R. Mangus

RESEARCH MONOGRAPH XIV

1938
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON

Digitized by

Google

GIANNINI FGUNDATION

Digitized by

Google

Letter of Transmittal
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D. 0., June 1, 1938.
S1R: I have the honor to transmit a report, Changing Aspects of
Rural Relief, which describes the characteristics of people receiving
relief in rural areas. These at one time numbered over 8,000,000.
They were a widely varied group. They included all gradations of
employability from totally incompetent to fully employable, all degrees
of employment from totally unemployed to those working full time
but unable to make an adequate living. They included all ages, and
normal families as well as the widowed and orphaned were represented.
Their previous employment experience represented the full range of
rural occupations, and within the farm group dependence on agriculture varied from the displaced tenant who had moved into the
village to the full-time operator who because of drought, flood, or
poor land had failed to remain self-supporting. The planning and
administration of a program for such a large and diverse group of
distressed people is a complex problem and should be based on the
type of analysis contained in this volume.
Since this report contains the complete results of the rural relief
censuses taken in 1935, it constitutes a comprehensive picture of the
situation and should serve as a source of general information on this
problem. It is basic to any program for improving the conditions
under which the ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed in the farm and
rural-nonfarm populations live.
The study was made in the Division of Social Research under the
direction of Howard B. Myers, Director of the Division, and under the
general supervision of T. J. Woofter, Jr., Coordinator of Rural
Research.
The collection and tabulation of the February data were made
under the immediate supervision of T. C. McCormick with the
assistance of T. G. Standing and Leland B. Tate. Collection and
tabulation of later data and the preliminary analysis were done under
the immediate supervision of A. R. Mangus, with the assistance of
Wayne F. Daugherty, J.E. Hulett, Jr., and Daniel D. Droba. The
report was prepared by A. R. Mangus and edit~d by Ellen Winston
and Rebecca Farnham.
Respectfully submitted.
CORRINGTON GILL,

Assistant Administrator.

Hon. HARRY L. HoPKINs,
Works Progress Administrator.
in

"
Dg1 ze

byGoogle

Dg,

zE'dbyGooglc

Contents
Page

Introduction

XIII

Summary - _

XVII

PART I. BACKGROUNDS OF RURAL RELIEF

Chapter

I. Baclc9rounds of rural relief - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3

The rural-fann situation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Predepression weaknesses in American agriculture
Effect of the depression on agriculture _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The rural-nonfann situation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Long-time factors causing nonfe.nn distress _ _ _
Effect of the depression on nonagricultural industries
Governmental measures for rural recovery _ _ _ _ _
N onrelief programs _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Agricultural Adjustment Administration _
Relief programs_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Federal Emergency Relief Administration _
Federal Surplus Relief Corporation _ _ _ _ _ _
Rural rehabilitation program_ _ _ _ _ _
Drought relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4
4
7
8
9

11
12
12
12
13
14
14
15
15

PART II. RELIEF TRENDS AND RELIEF TURNOVER

Chapter

II. Relief trends, 1932-1935 - - ___ - - - - -

Volume of rural relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ratio of rural cases to all general reliof cases
Area differences in relief intensity _ _ _
Types of relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Average relief benefit per case_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chapter

19

_
_
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _

19
22
24
26
26

Ill. Relief tumover, March through October 1935 - - - -

31

March-June turnover _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
July-October turnover ______ _
Turnover in major agriculture.I areas __

31
32

33
V

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

VI • CONTENTS
Page

Chapter IV. Reasons for opening and closing relief

35

CCIHI

Reasons for opening_ _ _ _
February 1935 cases_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
June 1935 cases _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Openings July through December 1935 _____
Ree.sons for closing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Closings March through June 1935 _
_ ___
Closings July through October 1935 _______
Net effect of private industry_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _

_
_
_
_
_
_

35
35
38
38
42
42
43

46

PART Ill. CHARAmRISTICS OF THE RURAL RELIEF POPULATION

Chapter V. Size and structure of households - - - - __ - __ _

51

Size of rural relief households _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Changes in size of households, February through October 1935 _________ _
Structure of rural relief households _
The rural relief family _ _
Normal families _
Broken families _ _ _ _ _ _
N onfamily groups_ _ _
One-person households_ _

51

Chapter VI. Age and sex - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Age distribution_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Age composition of households _ _ _ _ _
_ ___ _
Children in relief households _ _ _ _
Aged persons in relief households _
Cases without children or aged persons
Fertility of relief families _ _ _ _ _
Sex distribution _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Age and sex of heads of relief cases _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Regional and racial differences _ _ _ _ _

Chapter VII. Marital condition _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Sex differences _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Residence differences _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Relief and total population com pared _
Area differences _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Marital condition of heads of relief cases

D91

52
53
54

55
56

57
57
59
59
61
61

62
62
62
65
66
67

69
69
72

73
75
76

zeabyGooglc

CONTENTS • VII
Page

79

Chapter VIII. Education - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _

Age differences in school attainment _ _ _ _
Residence differences in school attainment _ _ _
Sex differences in school attainment_ _ _ _
Area and racial differences in school attainment
School attendance_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

82

_ _ _ _
_ __ _
___ _
_

83
83
84

87

Chapter IX. Employability composition and employment experience-

91

Workers and dependents on relief _____ _
Unemployable households _ _
Age and sex of workers _ _ _ _
Employment experience of workers _
Usual industries ___ ·__ _
Usual occupations _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Usual occupations of heads of relief cases
Current employment of workers _ _ _ _ _
Industry of current employment ___ _
Income from current employment _______ _
Unemployment of heads of relief cases _ _ _ _
Employment of heads of relief cases at usual occupation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - Relief history in relation to usual occupation __ _

91

Chapter

X.

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

104
105

106
108

112
114
114

115
117

119
123

B. Methodology of rural current change studies - -

D. List of tabla

103

116

Appendix C. Method of clauifying relief cases by household composition - - - - - - - - - - Appendix

99
100
101

117

Appendix A. Supplementary tabla - - - - - - - - Appendix

95
96

111

Migration _ _ - - _ - - - _ _ - - - - - -

Mobility of the relief population
_ _ _ _
Lifelong residents _ _
_
Recent migrants _ _ _ _ _
_ Interstate migrants _ _ _ _
_
Employability and occupations of rural migrants
Employability _ _ _ _
Usual occupations _ _ _ _ _
Current employment __ _

93
94

159
219
223

-

229

Index - - - - - - - - - - -

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

VIII• CONTENTS
Fiaure

AGURES
Page

1. Areas represented and counties sampled _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2. States represented and counties sampled _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3. Incidence of rural relief, by residence, February, June, and
October 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4. Prices received and prices paid by farmers, 1910-1935 _ _
5. Trend of rural relief and Works Program cases (estimated),
January 1932 through December 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6. Rural and urban cases receiving general relief, July 1933
through December 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7. Incidence of rural relief, by area, October 1933, 1934, and
1935 _____ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
8. Average monthly general relief benefit per case in rural and
town areas, January 1934 through December 1936
9. Average monthly general relief benefit per case in rural
areas, by State, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
10. Reason for accession of rural cases receiving relief in February and June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11. Reason for accession of rural relief cases, July through
December 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
12. Reason for accession of rural relief cases, by usual occupation of the head, July through October 1935 _ _ _ _ _
13. Reason for separation of rural relief cases, July through
October 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
14. Size of rural relief cases, June and October 1935, and of all
rural families, 1930 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
15. Type of households on relief in rural areas, by residence,
June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16. Type of families on relief in rural areas, by residence, June
1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
17. Age and sex of the rural relief population, June 1935, and of
the general rural population, 1930 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18. Children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20 through
44 years of age in the rural relief population, by State,
October 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
19. Marital condition of the rural relief population 16 through
64 years of age, by sex, October 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
20. Percent of married persons in the rural relief population,
October 1935, and in the general rural population, 1930,
16 through 64 years of age, by sex _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
21. Marital condition of heads of rural relief cases, by age and
sex, October 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
22. Percent of rural relief persons 10 through 64 years of age
without schooling, October 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dig t,zed by

Goog IC

xiv
xiv
4
7
21
23
25
28
29
36
40
42
44
52
54
55
60
64
70
73
77
81

CONTENTS • IX
Figure

Page

23. Median school grade completed by rural relief persons 16
through 64 years of age, October 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
24. Median school grade completed by rural relief persons 10
through 64 years of age, by area, October 1935 _ _ _ _
25. Percent of the rural relief population 5 through 24 years of
age attending school, October 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
26. Employability composition of rural relief cases, February,
June, and October 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
27. Type of rural relief cases without workers, by residence,
June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
28. Usual industry of rural relief persons 16 through 64 years of
age working or seeking work, by residence, February,
June, and October 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
29. Usual occupation of rural relief persons 16 through 64 years
of age working or seeking work, by residence, February,
June, and October 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
30. Median weekly income from wage employment of rural
relief cases with a member employed, by area, October
1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
31. Length of time between loss of last job at usual occupation
and accession to relief by heads of rural cases in their
first relief period, by usual occupation, June 1935 _ _ _
32. Year of migration to county by heads of rural relief cases, by
State, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

82
85
88
92
94

98
101
104

109
113

[)91.zedbyGooglc

Dig llzed by

Goog IC

Changing Aspects oF Rural RelieF
XI

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

INTRODUCTION
THE COUNTRY has suffered from the effects of a prolonged depression
following the crash of 1929. No large group was fortunate enough to
escape entirely the distress caused by that mighty disruption of economic life. Residents of rural areas were doubly victimized. Agriculture, the major industry of rural America, was already in a depressed state, having never recovered from the postwar collapse in
1921. Rural-nonfarm industries, such as lumbering and mining, had
been on the decline for years in many sections of the country, owing to
wasteful exploitation of forests and of mineral resources. Hence, the
depression of the 1930's served to intensify a situation already serious
for large segments of the rural population.
Added to the effects of the depression were the devastating results of
drought. Crop destruction from drought and grasshopper plagues,
more or less localized in 1932 and 1933, became widespread in 1934
and again in 1936, leaving thousands of farms desiccated and thousands of farmers destitute and dependent on public relief. Those
nonfarm elements of the population which provided goods and services
for the farmers were deprived of their market and likewise became
dependent on public assistance in large numbers.
In October 1933, when a complete enumeration of the relief population was made, rural persons on general relief rolls numbered more than
5,000,000. 1 By the first quarter of 1935 the number of rural persons
on relief had risen to a peak estimated at more than 8,500,000, a
number equal to about 16 percent of the total rural population in
1930. It is the purpose of this monograph to discuss the unprecedented conditions which forced such huge musses of rural people onto
relief rolls, to analyze relief trends and relief turnover, and to provide
a summary analysis of the changing characteristics of persons and
families which received general public relief during 1935.
The main body of data analyzed was obtained from a sample study
made during 1935 and known as the Survey of Current Changes in
the Rural Relief Population. 2 That study was made in February and
I Unemployment Relief Cemus, October 1933, Report No. 2, Federal Emergency
Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., 1934, p. 12, table A.
1 For methodology of this survey see appendix B.
XIII

D~11·

zeobyGooglc

XIV • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
FIG. I·

AREAS REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES SAMPLED*
SI.AVEY OF CURRENT CHANGES IN THE
RURAL RELIEF POPULATION

•IM COldlN rep,...n,19
9 ogricullurol

oreas

AF•216l. WPA

succeeding months of 1935 in 138 sample counties representing 9
agricultural areas (fig. 1 and appendix tables 1 and 2). Additional
counties and New England townships were added to the sample in
June and were retained during subsequent months of 1935 in order
to make possible a breakdown of the data by States as well as by areas.
The State sample included 300 counties and 83 New England townships selected from 32 States (fig. 2 and appendix tables 5 and 6). 3
FIG. 2 • STATES REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES SAMPLED
SUNEY OF MRENT CHANGES IN THE
RURAL RELIEF POPULATION
1935

.___It..

Nole:
ecrv-ttcur.
Ntw Hamplhn earnpltd by lownlhlpo.
Ntw HampoNre earnpltd In Joall 1935
only. Arizona ~ from JlAy 1935.

oF•ZOII.W PA

1

For derived estimates of the rural relief load by areas, States, and residence,
see appendix tables 3, 4, 7, and 8.

Dg1

mlbyGoogle

INTRODUCTION • XV

Data are presented both by areas and by States in this report. The
discussion has been confined to the area sample when it was desirable
to make comparisons between February and June or between February
and October data. When such comparisons were not involved, the
larger State sample has frequently been used. Average results given
by the two samples are in close agreement on most items, and it is
believed that the general results of either sample a.re applicable within
reasonable limits of error to the entire rural relief population of the
United States.

Dg1

mlbyGoogle

0,0112

rJbyGoogle

SUMMARY
RuRAL RELIEF needs depend largely upon the interrelationships of
agriculture and nonagriculture. Although only about cne-hall of all
rural workers are engaged in agricultural enterprises, the fortunes of a
large part of the nonagricultural workers tend to rise and fall with
those of the farmer.
The collapse of agriculture in the early 1930's was due not only to
the impact of the depression following the crash of 1929 but also to the
fact that agriculture had never recovered from the postwar collapse
of 1921. From 1929 to 1932 gross fa.rm income dropped from 12 to
5¼ billion dollars, returns on investments largely vanished, land values
dropped, bankruptcies and tax sales rose, and farmers were unable to
pay for hired help. Added to the depression, severe drought and
insect infestations began to plague farmers in many sections.
Meanwhile the nonfa.rming rural groups dependent on the farmer
for marketing their goods and services saw their livelihood vanish.
Other nonfarming rural workers were victims of depression unemployment, especially in such important rural industries as mining,
building, steam railroads, iron and steel, street and road construction,
sawmills, and clay, glass, and stone. Depletion of natural resaurces
and technological improvements had reduced employment opportunities in mining and lumbering long before the depression.
MEASURES FOR MEETING RURAL DISTRESS

The major depression of the early thirties brought to light the weak
spots in the rural economy, and soon local and State provisions for the
care of the needy proved inadequate to meet the increasing burden of
distress. In July 1932 the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was
authorized to lend $300,000,000 in Federal funds to the States and
localities for emergency relief purposes. Ten months later the
Federal Government entered into the business of direct relief when in
May 1933 the Federal Emergency Relief Administration was established under an act of Congress to make grants to the States for relief.
Until late in 1935 when the Federal Works Progrnm, coordinated
by the Works Progress Administrntion, became operative on a large
ecale, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration carried the bulk
XVII

Dg1

mlbyGoogle

XVIII • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

of the assistance burden. In December 1935 final Federal grants for
direct relief under the Federal Emergency Relief Administration were
determined and responsibility for this type of aid was turned back to
the States and localities. Federal funds became available for the
aged, for the blind, and for dependent children in February 1936 in
States which had enacted legislation approved by the Social Security
Board.
Other assistance programs developed by the Federal Government
were directed especially at rural distress. Among them were farm
loan banks, higher tariffs, cooperative selling agencies, wheat and
cotton purchases, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and
its successor, the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Program,
and the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation, now the Federal Surplus
Commodities Corporation.
The rural rehabilitation program established by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in 1934 and transferred to the Resettlement Administration in July 1935 aided farm fomilies by advancing
them goods needed for farm production and for subsistence and by
furnishing them technical advice on farming. In November 1935
the Resettlement Administration introduced a program of emergency
grants for farmers. Beginning in 1933, drought relief in the form of
livestock feed, seed for planting, and human subsistence was provided in stricken farm areas by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in cooperation with other Federal agencies.
The discussion of relief trends and relief population in this study is
limited largely to general relief as distributed by agencies expending
Federal Emergency Relief Administration funds.
RURAL RELIEF TRENDS, 1932-1936

While the volume of general public relief rose sharply in urban areas
after 1929, the limit of assistance that could he extended by local
relief officials was soon reached in rural areas. During the first 9
months of 1932 the estimated number of rural cases receiving assistance
under the terms of State poor laws was foirly constant at little over
100,000, amounting to about 1 percent of all rural families in the
United States. After Federal funds became available in the last
quarter of 1932, rural relief case loads rose rapidly to a million and a
quarter cases by :March 1933 when one-tenth of all rural families in
the United States received relief. The upward trend in volume of
case loads continued with minor interruptions over a 2-year period.
It reached a peak in January 1935 when nearly 2 million rural
families were estimated to be receiving relief, amounting to 16 percent
of the total rural families in the Vnited States. During the remainder
of 1935 the number declined as the rural rehabilitation program, the
Works Program, private industry, and administrotive closings rt>duct>d
the load.

Dig llzed by

Google

SUMMARY • XIX

Rural relief loads were particularly heavy in the Appalachian-Ozark
and Lake States Cut-Over Areas, both of which are regions of selfsufficing and part-time farms. They were lightest in the relatively
prosperous Com Belt and in the Hay and Dairy Area. The 1934
drought was reflected in the high relief rates of the Wheat, Ranching,
and Western Cotton Areas. In the Eastern Cotton Area relief loads
were heaviest in the early period of the Federal Emergency Relief
Administration program and declined steadily through 1934 and 1935.
A majority of the general relief cases in rural areas received work
relief until the latter part of 1935 when the Works Program began to
furnish emergency employment and the emergency work program of
the Federal Emergency Relief Administration began to be liquidated.
At least two-fifths, however, received only direct relief grants throughout the period.
Average amounts of relief granted per month in rural areas varied
from $10 to $18 during the years 1934-1936. The high point was
reached in January 1935, largely because of the development of the
emergency work relief program, which paid higher grants than direct
relief, and after drought had caused a concentration of relief in areas
where payments were relatively high.
Cases were constantly coming on and going off rural relief rolls as
a result of changing economic conditions and administrative policies.
The peak load of almost 2 million families and single persons on
rural relief rolls in January 1935 represented only a major fraction of
all rural families which received relief during the depression. About
half of the rural families on relief in February 1935 had left the rolls
by June, but more than a third of their number had been replaced
either by other families seeking reinstatement or by families newly
applying for assistance. Similarly, about half of the cases on relief in
June had left the rolls by the end of October, but about half of these
had been replaced by other families. Even in the last 2 months of the
year, when the Works Program wns getting well under way and was
removing substantial numbers from general relief, cases continued to
come onto general relief rolls in considerable numbers in some regions.
The moving on and off general relief rolls wns due to a variety of
economic factors. About three-fourths of the cases on relief in rura.l
areas in February and June 1935 and of those which came on relief in
the period July through December 1935 were accepted on relief rolls
because of recent loss of employment, loss or depletion of savings or
other resources that had maintained the family since it lost its usual
source of income, crop failure, loss of livestock, and, in the later
months, reduced earnings from employment. During the last 6
months of the year administrative rulings, presumably reinstating
cases which had previously been closed for reinvestigation or ot-her
purposes, accounted for a signific1mt. proport.ion of the opf'nings.

Digitized by

Google

XX • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

When cases left relief it was also usually because of economic conditions. Of the cases closed in the spring months, nearly three-fifths
left relief because of increased opportunities in private employment,
crops marketed, and advances from landlords. In the summer and
fall months over one-fourth of the closings of general relief cases were
due to receipt of Works Program wages or Civilian Conservation
Corps allotments, or to assistance from the Resettlement Administration or local agencies. Aside from these cases the majority of the
relief closings in the latter period were accounted for by such factors
as employment obtained, increased earnings, and crops marketed.
Although private industry absorbed many workers from relief,
particularly the skilled and semiskilled, during the last part of 1935, the
total net effect of private industry on relief rolls was not striking.
For every 100 cases closed from June to October because a member
secured a private job or obtained increased earnings in private employment, 76 were opened because of loss of such jobs or reduction in
earnings. In October, in fact, the number of cases that left private
industry to go on relief exceeded the number removed from relief
because of opportunities in private industry.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 1935 RURAL RELIEF POPULATION

The characteristics of the rural relief population are important in
relation both to the problem of restoring households to self-support
and to the problem of financing public assistance.
The average household receiving relief in rural areas in 1935 included
about four persons. The size of the average rural relief case decreased
slightly during the year as the larger households, especially in the open
country, left relief to become rural rehabilitation clients or to take
private employment.
About 1 out of every IO cases consisted of only 1 person. These
one-person cases tended to concentrate in villages. They were
particularly numerous in the Lake States Cut-Over Area where many
single men had been left stranded by the decline of the lumber industry.
On the other hand, nearly 3 out of every IO cases included 6 persons or
more. This was a somewhat higher proportion of large households
than was found in the total rural population of 1930.
More than 8 out of IO of the households consisted of family groups of
husband and wife with or without children or of 1 parent with children.
Of the other 2 households out of every IO, 1 was a I-person case and the
other was usually a nonfamily group, that is, a group of 2 or more
persons living together without immediate marital or parentalfilial ties. The head of this latter type of household was often an
aged woman. The tendency of households to "double up" was
revealed by the fact that about IO to 12 percent of the families on
relief included persons from outside the immediate family group.

Dg1

mlbyGoogle

SUMMARY • XXI

As compared with the general rural population of 1930, there was a
great overrepresentation of children in relief households. The large
proportion of children was due only in part to the fact that the largest
families are most likely to require and to receive relief. It was also
due to the fact that much of the relief population came from normally
low income groups whose birth rates are characteristically high.
Another factor, however, was the younger age of women in the relief
group and the greater proportions of married women on relief than in
the total population.
Heads of rural relief cases were 43 years of age on the average, but
8 out of every 100 were under 25 and 10 out of every 100 were past 64
years. About 14 out of every 100 household heads were women.
The tendency for widows, single women, and those who had been
divorced and separated from their husbands to concentrate in villages
is reflected in the greater percentage of female heads of households in
villages than in the open country.
Compared with the total 1930 rural population, there were fewer
single women and more widows in every age group on relief. There
were more young women married in the relief group than in the total
population. The proportion of older women who were married was
smaller in the relief group than in the general population while a larger
proportion of women on relief were widows. Also, there were fewer
young divorced women on relief than in the total rural population of
1930, but among the older women there were relatively more divorcees
on relief than in the general population.
Men showed an almost completely different situation in regard t-0
marital condition. In every age group there were more married men
on relief than in the general rural population and fewer single and
divorced men. There was little difference in the proportions of widowers on relief and in the total population.
· As would be expected, most of the women heads of households were
widowed, divorced, or separated, whereas most of the men household
heads were married and living with their wives.
Unlike the indigent population found in periods of business prosperity, families on relief in 1935 contained a vast army of able and
willing workers who were without remunerative employment. About
30 percent of all persons on relief in rural areas were workers. Hence,
for each worker there were more than two dependents, including
children, the aged, homemakers, students, invalids, cripples, mental
defectives, and others not working or seeking work.
The cases without workers, amounting to 13 percent of all rural
relief households in June 1935, rarely included more than three persons. Many of them consisted merely of aged individuals; others were
couples without children or broken familes usually of the mother-andchildren type. The proportion of unemployable cases increased

01g 11,ed by

G oog Ie

XXII • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

throughout the year as the rural rehabilitation program, the Works
Program, and private employment began to remove employable cases
from relief rolls.
Of the workers on relief 27 perceut were past 44 and 31 percent
were youth less than 25 years of age. Household heads, who accounted
for two-thirds of all workers, were 40 years of age on _the average,
whereas other workers were 22 years of age. More than one-tenth of
the household heads who were workers were women, and more than
two-fifths of all other workers were women. The latter groups
included many housewives as well as young girls recently out of schoo1.
Women workers were older on the average than were men.
Most of the household heads who were workers had had employment experience. Of the workers other than bends, however, more
than one-fourth were without such experience in most cases because of
their youth. At least half of all workers on relief in the open country
had worked in agriculture. Most village residents reported work
experience outside of agriculture, usually in w1skilled labor.
About one-half of all rural workers on relief in October 1935 had at
least 1 week's employment during the month, usually as farm operators
or farm laborers on the home farm. Only 12 percent of the cases had
members with private wage employment during the month. Earnings
were so small, averagi11g $5 a week, that the families required supplementary relief.
The average unemployed head of a relief household had been without any nonrelief job for nearly a year, but had stayed off relief for
from 4 to 5 months after losing his job. Farm laborers managed to
stay off relief rolls for only 3 months on the average after losing their
last farm labor jobs, whereas farm owners remained off relief rolls for
16 months after losing their farms. Professional workers remained
off relief rolls for 1 year on the averuge after losing the last job in their
profession, but domestic servants maintained themselves for only 3
months without relief.
The rural relief population represents an educationally underprivileged group, suffering under the double disadvantage of living in
rural arell.S and being economically dependent. Fewer educational
opportunities are open to rural than to urban children, and fewer
opportunities are open to rural children in relief families than t-0
children in the higher economic groups in rural areas.
Of the heads of rural relief cases nearly one-tenth were without any
formal schoolmg, and nearly one-fourth had had no schooling or had
completed less than four_ grades. The median number of school
grades completed by household heads was slightly over six.
Improvement of rural educational opportunities in recent years was
reflected in the fact that educntfonnl achievement wus greater for the
younger than for the older persons on relief. Each successive ago

Digitized by

Google

SUMMARY • XXIII

group past 20 years had had less formal schooling than the preceding
age group. In no age group, however, had children of relief families
made normal school progress.
Children of rural relief clients attended school with about the same
frequency as other children. Above the compulsory age limits, however, school attendance rates were much lower for rural youth in the
relief population than in the general population.
Although the rural population is considered by some a stable an<l
isolated group, students of niral life are aware of a constant flow of
people from farms to cities and towns and from cities and towns to
farms in addition to movements of families between forms and between
villages and towns.
Large numbers of migrants appeared on the general relief rolls in
rural areas in 1935. More than one-fourth of all heads of relief cases
in the counties surveyed had moved to those counties since 1925.
Only a little more than one-third were lifelong residents of the survey
counties.
Migration of persons whose households were receiving relief in the
open country in June 1935 was to some extent stimulated by the
depression. This is indicated by the fact that those who arrived during
the 4 years following the onset of the depression slightly outnumbered
those who moved in during the preceding 4 years. Drought wus
probably responsible for much of the recent movement, as indicated by
the numerous migrants from other States who appeared on relief rolls
in the West.
Those heads of relief cases that moved after 1925 to the counties
where they were receiving relief in June 1935 were more likely to be
workers than were the older residents but were also more frequently
unemployed than were older residents. Disproportionately large
numbers of farm luborers, white-collur workers, and the higher skilled
manual workers appeared among them.

Dig l1zed by

Goog lC

I

I
l

'I
I

(
I

I

Dig ltzed b~

Goog IC

I

Part I
Backgrounds of Rural Relief

01g 11,ed by

G oog Ie

Cg,

zedbyGoogle

Chapter I

BACKGROUNDS OF RURAL RELIEF
~

......

J

:

::-.--J: :.

J-

IN 1930 the total rural population,1 as defined by the, U~ted States
Census, included approximat~ly 54 million persons. Of these, 30
million resided on farms while 24 million occupied nonfann residences.
Studies of the rural relief situation lrnve u,;11ally divided the rural
population into open country 2 and villnge 3 groups corresponding
roughly to the farm and nonfarm categories used by the census. The
relief problem of the open country, usually farm, population has
differed from that of the village, usually nonfarm, rural group. This
<lifference is reflected in relief statistics.
To&le 7.-lncidence of Rural Relief,1 February, June, and October 1935, by Residence
[ 138 counties]
Residence

February

Total rural •.••• ---·-···-·-·-·····-·---·····-··--···-·Open

rountry ... ----. ___________________ ____ .. .. __ .. . ___ . _. __

Village ...... ------··--··-·-·-·--············--···-·-·-········
1

15. 2
15. I
15. 2

June

Octo her

10.6

7.11

1----1-----

9. 5

7. 0

12.6

9. 7

Percentage ratio or cases on general relier to all ramilies in IIJaO.

In February 1935 the open country population was receiving geneml
relief in about the same proportion as was the village population. In
both residence classes the number of relief cases was equal to 15
percent of all families found in those residence classes in 1930 (tnble 1
and fig. 3). By June 1935, however, the relief intensity rate was 1.3
times greater in villages than in the open country and by October it
was 1.4 times greater in villages. These differences were due in part
to the expansion of the rural rehabilitation program, which had been
developed to meet the special relief problem presented by the farm
I Persons living outside cities or other incorporated places having 2,500 inhabitants or more.
1 Territory outside centers of 50 or more population.
a Center of 50 to 2,500 population.

3

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

4 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
group and which removed many farm families from general rnlief
rolls in the spring of I 935. Other factors, such as greater opportunities
for seasonal employment in the open country, also caused differences
in the relief intensity rates.
~ Open
0

country

5

■ viI1011e

Percent
10

15

20

June

October

F1G. 3 - INCIDENCE OF RURAL RELIEF,* BY RESIDENCE
February, June, and October 1935
*Percentage ratio of coses on general relief
to all families in 1930.

AP•l417,W.P.A.

THE RURAL-FARM SITUATION

The economic well-bt>i11g of the rurnl population depends to a very
large extent upon the condition of agriculture. More than one-half
of all gainful workers in rural areas are engaged in farming, 4 and a
large segnwnt of the rurnl-nonfnrm workers are persons whose fortunes
rise and foll with those of the former. They sell the former the commodities used by him for muintnining his family and for producing his
crops nnd livestock; they construct his buildings and repair his tools,
build and maintain his roads, tench his children, and serve him in
innumerable other ways when he can afford their services.
Predepression Weaknesses in American Agriculture

The collapse of agriculture cnme as a result of factors which had
developed over a long period of years. 6 Rapid industrial expansion
' Fifteemh Cen.<Jus of tM United Stat&: 1930, Population Vol. III, part 1, table 30,
p. 22.
6 For a discUBSion of some of these factors not presented here, such as soil
erosion, inadequate size of farms, growth of the tenant system, increasing
dependence on a single cash crop, excess birth rate in poor land areas, decline of
opportunities for supplementary employment in rural nonagricultural industries,
and the progressively unsatisfactory place of the farm laborer, see Asch, Berta
and Mangus, A. R., Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation, Research Monograph
VIII, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington,
D. C., 1937, pp. 7-12.

Dg1

zeelb,-Google

BACKGROUNDS OF RURAL RELIEF • 5

during the 19th century, and consequent development of both foreign
and domestic markets for agricultural products, caused the American
farm to change from a self-sufficient unit to a business venture in
which production for the market more and more took the place of
production for home use. By 1929 only 8 percent of all farmers in the
United States consumed as much as half of the products of their
farms. 6
During the early years of the present century farmers attained a
favorable position in the national economy. Domestic markets increased rapidly. Farm prices rose and with them came increases in
land values, giving the farmers substantial unearned increment in
total worth. During the pre-World War period agricultural and manufactured products were exchanged on a relatively stable basis.
It was the World War that laid the groundwork for the farmer's
undoing. During the war the United States became a major source of
the food supply for much of Europe. American farmers needed no
urging to produce for the great foreign market, for prices were soaring.
Wheat rose from about 80 cents a bushel at the beginning of the
World War to more than $3 soon after its close. Under the stimulus
of such prices millions of additional crop acres were brought under
cultivation and put to the most profitable use.
High prices brought higher incomes. Higher incomes led to a mad
scramble among individual farmers for more land. Land values_ skyrocketed to unheard of peaks. Redoubled efforts were made to produce more on the land already available through the adoption of
•improved methods. Millions of horses disappeared from farms to be
replaced by motor trucks and tractors. 7 As a result of extensive purchasing of abnormally high-priced land and of farm machinery, the
farm mortgage debt rose rapidly. For every $100 in interest on farm
mortgages that the farmer was paying in 1914, he was paying $200 in
1920 and $237 in 1923. 8 His other fixed charges rose simultaneously.
In 1920the amount of his taxes was more than twice as great asin 1914.
Soon after the close of the war, when the European debt to the
United States had reached some 10 billion dollars, this country stopped
extending credit and set up tariff barriers to keep out foreign goods.
By the fiscal year 1923-24 the total volume of agricultural exports
• Where the value of farm products used by the operator's family was 50 percent or more of the total value of all products of the farm, it was classified as
"self-sufficing" by the United States Census. In 1929 only 7.9 percent of all
farms were self-sufficing. Source: Fifteenth Census of the United StaleR: J.980,
Agriculture Vol. III, table 6.
1 Cooper, Martin R., "Displacement of Horses and Mules by Tractors," The
Agricultural Situation, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural
Economics, Washington, D. C., June 1937, pp. 22-24.
• AgricuUural Statistics 1936, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D. C., p. 338.

[)91.zedbyGooglc

6 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

had fallen to only 72 percent of the 1918-19 level. Barring cotton,
it had fallen to 60 percent of the 1918-19 level.9
The farmer did not curtail his production accordingly. The total
volume of agricultural production actually increased by nearly 9 percent from 1919 to 1923. 10 There could be only one result-deflation
of farm prices, income, and farm values. The crash came in 1921. In
that year agricultural prices dropped more than 40 percent.U The
farmer's gross income dropped 34 percent, and the current value of
his capital dropped 9 percent. 12
During the I 920's the farmer's debt burden became more and more
unbearable. The value of his fields,his buildings, his machinery, and his
livestock did not recover after 1921 but continued to decline. By 1929
the current value of his capital was only 73 percent of the 1920 level. 13
Since the bulk of the farmer's interest charges was fixed at peak prices
and peak values, those charges became more and more burdensome.
During this time the food habits of the Nation changed. The
consumption of cereals declined nearly 100 pounds per capita between
1909 and 1930, and the number of acres required to feed a person for
a year declined more than 15 percent. 14 The rate of population increase
slowed down, owing to the falling birth rate and to the blocking of the
stream of immigration following the World War. Although the number of animals to be fed actually decreased, efficiency of agricultural
production increased, and production per acre and per man rose. 16
Surpluses of agricultural products inevitably piled up.
The relative position of agriculture in the so-called general prosperity of 1929 may be judged by reference to the gross income from
agricultural production. The median value per farm of all products
sold, traded, or used on the farm was only a little more than $1,000. 18
Cotton farms, which comprised more than one-fourth of all farms,
averaged only $800 gross income. Self-sufficing and part-time farms,
which comprised more than one-eighth of all forms, had less than $400
gross income. There were 36 counties, concentrated in the southern
sect.ions of the country, in which the average income per farm was less
than $400, and there were 405 counties in which it was less than $600. 17
Ibid., p. 294.
Ibid., p. 332.
11 The Agricultural Situation, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of
Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C., October 1, 1936, p. 22.
12 Agricultural Statistics 1936, op. cit., p. 338.
13 Ibid.
14 Kolb, J. H. and Brunner, Edmund deS., A Study of Rural Society, Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1935, p. 281.
16 See the series of studies, Changes in 7'echnology and Labor Requirements in
Crop Production, Works Progress Administration, National Research Project,
Philadelphia, Pa.
18 Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Agriculture Vol. III, table 6.
17 Ibid., cuuuty table 6.
1

JO

og,

zed bi

Google

BACKGROUNDS OF RURAL RELIEF • 7

Elect of the Depraalon on Asrlculture

The plight of the farmer during the 1920's, while severe, was only
a foretaste to what was to come during the early 1930's. The farmer's gross income in 1932 was only 45 percent of the 1929 level. 18
What happened in that 3-year interval is well known. Following
the stock market crash in the fall of 1929, many economic indices
reached lower levels than ever before recorded. From February
1929 to February 1933 the prices of industrial stocks fell 82 percent.
Commodity prices dropped 37 percent, while the income of urban
consumers fell 46 percent and factory pay rolls dropped 63 percent.
Production of manufactured articles fell 49 percent and construction
contracts awarded fell 88 percent. 19

50t-t------11-----+-------+-----+-----t---t50

O 1910

1915

1920

1925

1930

1935 O

FIG. 4- PRICES RECEIVED* ANO PRICES PAID** BY FARMERS
1910-1935
• AveroQe year, AUQUSI 1909-1914 • I00
•• AveroQe year, AuQusl 1910-1914 • 100

Source: The A9ricullural Situation, U.S. Department
of AQriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
October 1936, p. 22.

AF-231!1, WP A

Agricultural Btatutica 1988, op. cit., p. 338.
Ezekiel, Mordecai, and Bean, Louis H., Economic Basu for the Agricultural
Adjwtment Act, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., December
1933, p. 4.
11

11

Dig 11zed by

Goog Ie

8 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

Agriculture suffered a terrific deflation. The damage cannot be
fully measured by any simple index, but a fair measure is the exchange
relationship between farm commodities and manufactured goods.
This relationship is shown by computing the ratio between the prices
received by farmers for their products and the prices paid by farmers
for goods used in production and for family maintenance. Such a
ratio provides a measure of the farmer's purchasing power.
In 1932 the farmer was receiving only 65 cents for products that
he sold for $1 before the World War, but he was paying $1.07 for goods
that cost him $1 before the war (fig. 4). The farmer's purchasing
power was only 61 percent of normal if the 5 prewar years are regarded
as normal. Hence, for the same amount of clothing, food, or fertilizer
for which the grain farmer exchanged 50 bushels of wheat before the
war, he was exchanging 82 bushels in 1932.
The results were serious. Gross farm income dropped from 12
billion dollars in 1929 to 5½ billion dollars in 1932. 20 Returns on
investments largely disappeared. Land values dropped sharply,2 1
while bankruptcies and tax sales rose. 22
Faced with such conditions, farmers could not keep their hired
help. The number of hired workers per 100 farms declined from 114
in 1929 to 90 in 1932, and the monthly wage without board of those
laborers who found jobs on farms declined from $49 per month in
1929 to $27 per month in 1932. 23
THE RURAL-NONFARM SITUATION

Of the 24 million rural-nonfarm residents in 1930 about 18 million,
or three-fourths, lived in villages outside metropolitan areas 24 or were
scattered throughout the open country. 26 The other fourth lived in
the suburbs of large cities.
Some of the villagers lived in small manufacturing centers, whose
economic life revolves around canneries, textile mills, sawmills,
potteries, brickyards, railroad shops, coal mines, or other decentralized
AgricuUural Stati'.stics 1986, op. cit., p. 338.
Ibid., p. 350.
22 Ibid., p. 351.
21 Survey of Current Business ( 1936 Supplement), U. S. Department of Commerce,
Rureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Washington, D. C., p. 34; and
Yearbook of AgricuUure: 1936, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D. C., p. 1152.
21 A metropolitan district includes a central city or cities of 50,000 or more
population and all adjacent and contiguous civil divisions having a density of
150 inhabitants or more per square mile, and also, as a rule, those civil divisions
of less density that are directly contiguous to the central cities, or are entirely or
nearly surrounded by minor civil divisions that have the required density. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Population Vol. II, p. 16.
25 Woofter, T. J., Jr., "The Natural Increase of the Rural-Nonfarm Population,"
The Milbank Memorinl Fund Qunr/er/11, Vol. XIII, October 1935, p. 312.
20

21

Dgi

zeclbyGoogle

BACKGROUNDS OF RURAL RELIEF • 9

industries. Others were residents of commercial centers, occupied
in supplying the wants of the surrounding farm population. Many
were retired farmers who had grown too old to farm and had moved
to town, leaving the farm operation to a son or a tenant.
Some of the open country dwellers catered to tourists through
crossroads filling stations, "hot-dog" stands, or room rental. Others
worked as farm laborers, railroad workers, miners, woodsmen, or
fishermen. Still others eked out a precarious living from subsistence
gardens and day labor on farms or in nearby towns or villages.
The suburban residents were from many standpoints more a part
of the adjacent city than of the surrounding country. Some engaged
in local industries of various types. Many participated almost
exclusively in the social and economic life of the nearby city.
The heterogeneous character of that segment of the rural population not living on farms was reflected in the way rural nonagricultural
workers were distributed industrially. In 1930 there were more
than 9 million rural nonagricultural workers 10 years of age and over
in the United States.2&
Nearly one-third of these workers were engaged in manufacturing
and mechanical industries, especially building, iron and steel, textile,
lumber, and food and allied industries. More than one-eighth were
engaged in transportation and communication. Coal and metal
mining, stone quarrying, gas and oil extraction, forestry, and fishing
were other important rural-nonfarm industries. The remaining
workers included tradesmen and their employees; teachers, doctors,
and other professionals; persons engaged in domestic and personal
service; and persons engaged in public service.
Long-Time Facton Causing Nonfann Dim..

The relief problem of the rural-nonfarm population is due only in
part to depression factors. In many rural counties serious economic
conditions exist which are not of an emergency nature-virgin
timber stripped to the ground, mineral resources exhausted, teclmological displacement of human labor, closed factories, and rural slums.
Problems associated with the depletion of natural resources and
the displacement of man labor by machines in rural areas are described
in a field report from a county in the Lake States Cut-Over Area. 27
"The major factors responsible for the present relief situation in
this county are the curtailing of activity in iron mining and lumbering, combined with technological unemployment in mining. There
has never been much agriculture in the county, although many families have lived in the open country on tracts of uncleared land. An• Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Population Vol. III, part 1,
table 30, p. 22.
11 County background report on file in the Rural Section of the Division of
Social Reaearch, Works Progress Administration.

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

10 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

other factor is the inability to collect high taxes from owners of mining and lumbering property, as was formerly done, with which to
carry on extensive programs of county road construction and maintenance. It was only through road work that many 'farmers' were
able to make a living, and, when that work was no longer available,
they had to be given relief * * •
"* * * the mines that are closed down now or which are working on a part-time basis, even if a condition should call for a large
increase in the production of ore, would not absorb a sufficient number of families to eliminate the relief question. Efficient and improved methods of mining have cut the man labor to approximately
one-third of what it used to be. Therefore, if the mines were to go
again to peak production, there still would be at least a thousand
families which had worked in the mines previously which could not
obtain employment."
The exhaustion of timber and of fishing grounds is described in
another field report from the Lake States Cut-Over Area. 28
"While the last of the really heavy stands of marketable timber
were cut or destroyed by fire 15 years or more ago there remained a
considerable quantity of timber too scattered for organized logging
operations. These smaller areas have been gradually eliminated by
small-scale operators until at the present time the few real woodsmen
remaining are very fortunate indeed to secure a month or two of employment during the winter cutting cedar posts, ties, pulpwood, etc.
"As the timber began to disappear a number of woodsmen acquired
farm lands and attempted to make a living for their families from
the soil. However, the more productive farm lands had been bought
up by the earlier settlers and, as it takes a farmer to farm successfully, a considerable number have only succeeded in eking out a most
meager existence. * * *
"Commercial fishing has suffered extensively during recent years.
Most of the known productive fishing grounds have become exhausted
due to scarcity of fish or their migration to other grounds. This
has resulted in at least six vessels of companies operating out of one
town moving their headquarters to other lake ports and causing the
layoff of many men who had been connected with that industry for
years and now are unable to secure other employment."
The results of the removal of a factory from a small town in Michigan
are described in the following quotation from a field report. The town
described was a thriving center of 2,800 in 1920 but, after the loss of
its 1 industry, it had only hnlf that number of inhabitants in 1930. 29
"The depression started in the United States in October 1929, but
it started in this county in the month of January 1926. Early on the
28
19

Ibid.
Ibid.

Dlgtized by

Google

BACKGROUNDS OF RURAL RELIEF • 11

25th day of that month, fire broke out in the woo<l rim plant in the
county's second largest town. Due to the buildings being of wooden
construction and the contents highly inflammable, the fire quickly
enveloped the entire plant and completely destroyed it.
"In order to insure fulfilling requirements of contracts the company immediately began seeking quarters suitable to permit resumption of operations with a minimum delay. None was available in
the county but one was found in another part of the State. The more
valuable of the employees were moved to the new location; others
obtained employment elsewhere with the result that the homes owned
or rented by those leaving were abandoned. These homes were
vacant for some little time, then gradually began to be occupied by
resident and nonresident families to escape paying rent elsewhere.
"Today the town presents a sorry appearance. Naturally the
homes have not been maintained by their irresponsible tenants. A
goodly portion have reverted to the State for taxes; others are entirely
beyond occupancy through neglect. Many have been condemned
by town and State officials as fire hazards and demolished.
"As a result of the foregoing, approximately 60 percent of the relief
load of this county is in the stranded town and its vicinity."
EFFECT OF THE DEPRESSION ON NONAGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES

Nonagricultural industries employing large numbers of workers in
rural areas were hard-hit by the depression. Mining, for instance,
which is an important rural industry, was especially depressed, with
employment in the different types of mining falling from 33 to 65
percent below the 1929 level. 30 During 1935 miners formed an
increasingly larger proportion of rural relief clients (table 52, p. 97).
Building offers another example. The unprecedented contraction
of building operations during the depression added hundreds of
thousands of workers to the army of unemployed. The plight of
those workers was reflected in relief figures. In March 1935 nearly
200,000 skilled and semiskilled workers and foremen from the building
and construction industry were on relief rolls in rural areas, their
number comprising 20 percent of all experienced nonagriculturn.I
workers on rural relief rolls. 31
Other important rural industries, including steam railroads, street
and road construction, iron and steel, sawmills, and clay, glass, and
stone, reached much lower levels of employment during the depression
and recovered more slowly than all industries combined. Rural
workers employed in textiles, in food and allied industries, and in
chemical and allied industries were more fortunate, for employment
Survey of Current Business (1936 Supplement), op. cit., pp. 33 and 40.
Hauser, Philip M., Workers on Relief in the United States in March 1935,
Vol. I, A Census of Usual Occupations, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washin~on, D. C., part III, United States table 3, 1938.
18

11

Dg1

zedbyGooglc

12 •

CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

in these industries did not fall so low during the depression and
recovery was more rapid.
Some persons who lost their industrial employment during the
depression found jobs on street and highway construction and maintenance projects. After 1931, when employment indices were generally declining, 32 employment on such projects increased as a result of
public works programs initiated by Federal, State, and local governments as a reemployment measure.
Faced with the plight of the farmer on the one hand. and with that
of the rural-industrial worker on the other, persons engaged in trade
and professional service in rural areas were particularly hard-hit during the depression. With the purchasing power of their clients
markedly decreased or entirely dried up, many small business and
professional men were able to gain only the barest living or found
themselves face to face with bankruptcy. Likewise, the domestic
servant group and those engaged in catering to the tourist trade found
that the public could no longer afford their services.
GOVERNMENTAL MEASURES FOR RURAL RECOVERY

As the major depression of the early thirties brought to light the
weak spots in the rural economy, the Federal Government undertook
both relief and nonrelief programs designed to aid the rural population.
Nonrellef Programs

The Federal Government had made many attempts to aid the
farmer prior to 1933. Special farm loan banks had been organized,
and higher tariff barriers had been raised against foreign wheat, cattle,
flaxseed, and potatoes. New markets were sought for agricultural
products, and farmers were aided in establishing cooperative selling
agencies. When all these efforts failed to improve the farm situation,
a Federal Farm Board was set up for the purpose of raising prices of
wheat and cotton by purchasing them with Government funds and
withholding them from the market. Even this drastic measure failed,
and farm prices continued their downward course.
Agricultural Adjustment Administration

One of the earliest laws enacted to relieve the burden of depression
was the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which aimed to do three things:
(1) to adjust agricultural production to current demand and to restore
prewar parity prices; (2) to provide a coordinated farm credit program
through the Farm Credit Administration; and (3) to increase the
amount of money and credit in circulation through controlled inflation.33
Survey of Current Busimss (1936 Supplement), op. cit., p. 34.
u Horne, Roman L., The Farm Bus-imss, Chicago: University of Chicago
PreBS, 1935, pp. 42-43.
12

Dgi

zeclbyGoogle

BACKGROUNDS OF RURAL RELIEF •

13

Under the Agricultural Adjustment Act farmers received in rental
and benefit payments 278 million dollars in 1933, 594 million in 1934,
and 480 million in 1935.34 The act was declared unconstitutional by
the United States Supreme Court in 1935 and was replaced by the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act which, in addition to
its soil conservation provisions, provides for the "reestablishment, at
as rapid a rate as the Secretary of Agriculture determines to be practicable and in the general public interest, of the ratio between the
purchasing power of the net income per person on farms and that of
the income per person not on farms that prevailed during the 5-year
period August 1909-July 1914, inclusive, as determined from statistics
available in the United States Department of Agriculture, and the
maintenance of such ratio."
Relief Programs

Prior to the depression of the 1930's general relief for the destitute
was the responsibility of local governmental units or of private
charitable agencies. In accordance with this traditional method of
extending assistance, neither the States nor the Federal Government
were expected to participate financially in the relief program.
As the effects of the depression deepened, local public welfare
agencies found themselves unable to cope with a rising tide of destitution. These agencies lacked both funds and personnel adequate to
meet the problems confronting them. In 1931, when it became
obvious that widespread suffering would result unless the local welfare
units were helped, some States began to participate in the supervision
and financing of relief. The State of New York was the pioneer in
this field. In the foll of 1931 New York created a State relief administration which was authorized to reimburse local units for part of their
expenditures for home relief and work relief. 36 Other States initiated
similar relief programs in rapid succession. As a result, more needy
were cared for, and relief became more adequate than before.
In 1932 the amount of destitution reached new heights, and it
became apparent that the combined resources of State and local
governments could not meet the increasing problems of administering
and financing relief to the needy. With local funds exhausted and
with unemployment mounting, demands for Federal aid became
insistent. During the last half of 1932 Federal cooperation became
effective on a limited scale through the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation created by an act of Congress, January 22, 1932, to aid
in financing agriculture, commerce, and industry. A later act, passed
N Yearbook of Agriculture: 1936, op. cit., p. 1149; and The Agricultural Situation,
U. 8. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Eoonomios, Washington,
D. C., February 1, 1936, table 1, p. 4.
15 Hodson, William, "Unemployment Relief," Social Work Year Book, 1937,
Fourth Issue, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1937, pp. 518-524.

og,t,edbyGooglc

14 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

•

July 21, 1932, added functions to relieve destitution, to broaden the
lending powers of the Corporation, and to create employment by
providing for, and expediting, a public works program. The Corporation was authorized to make available $300,000,000 under specified
terms, to the several States and Territories to be used in furnishing
relief and work relief to needy and distressed people and in relieving
the hardships resulting from unemployment. The Corporation was
further authorized to make loans to State or local public agencies or
to private corporations for projects of a self-liquidating character,
including loans for the purpose of providing housing for families of
low income and for the reconstruction of slum areas.
ederal Emergency Relief Administration

In May 1933 the Federal Emergency Relief Administration was
established at a time when about one-sixth of the Nation's population
was, qr had been, on public relief rolls. 116 The act authorizing the
FERA directed the administration to make grants to the several
States "to aid in meeting the costs of furnishing relief and work relief
and in relieving hardships and suffering caused by the depression."
From the establishment of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration until late in 1935, when the Works Program became operative on a large scale, the bulk of the assistance burden was carried
by the general relief program. About 3 billion dollars in Federal
funds were spent by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration
through June 30, 1936, mostly for general relief. 37 Under that program needy families, rural and urban, were provided with cash or
commodities. Relief was extended either as direct grants or as payments for work. For a few months during the winter of 1933-34 the
Civil Works Administration shared the relief burden by providing
employment for large numbers of both relief and nonrelief workers.
In December 1935 final Federal grants for direct relief were determined and responsibility for this type of aid was turned back to the
States and localities. Some of the States attempted to meet the need
through State-administered and -financed relief agencies. Other
States made no provision for relief and left the entire responsibility
to counties and towns. Funds from the Federal Social Security
Board to assist the States in providing aid to the aged, to the blind,
and to dependent children did not become available until February
1936.
Federal Surplu., Relief Corporatim

Several special assistance programs were developed. Among these
was the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation chartered in the fall of
It! 1\/onthly Report of the Federal Bmergency Relief Administration, June 1
Through June SO, 19."36, Washington, D. C., p. 169.
a1 JbiJ., table M, p. 182.

Dgi

zeclbyGoogle

BACKGROUNDS OF RURAL RELIEF •

15

1933 under a board of directors including the Federal Emergency
Relief Administrator, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works, and the Governor of the Farm
Credit Administration. The Corporation, a nonprofit organization,
was devised to carry out a two-way relief program. It aimed to help
agricultural and other producers by purchasing their surpluses and
to help destitute families by distributing these commodities to them. 38
The Corporation had, up to the end of November 1935, distributed
more than 800,000 tons of foodstuffs, including meat and meat products, dairy products, cereals, and fruit and vegetables. In addition,
it had distributed huge quantities of clothing, house furnishings, materials used in work projects, coal, seed, and livestock feed. 39
After November 1935 the corporation was placed under the administration of the Department of Agriculture. Its new name,
Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation, reflected an emphasis
thereafter on the commodity-purchase aspect of the work with the
relief-distribution function becoming of secondary importance.
Rural Rehabilitation Program

The rural rehabilitation program, originally under the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration but later transferred to the Resettlement Administration (July 1, 1935), was designed to assist
families to become self-sustaining, lurgely by advancing them equipment, fertilizer, seed and livestock, and other necessary goods, including subsistence, on a loun basis and by furnishing technical advice
concerning farm management. 40
The program expanded rapidly during the first 6 months of 1935.
The number of cases receiving advances during the month increased
from 72,000 in January to 205,000 in :May and 204,000 in June. During June, the last month of the program under the FERA, the
rural rehabilitation program reported 367,000 clients, including those
in debt for past loans as well as those receiving advances during the
month. 41 The Resettlement Administration liberalized the loan
policy and beginning in November 1935, when the Federal Emergency
Relief Administration was about to be terminated, inaugurated direct
grants for needy farmers.
Drought Relief

Shortly after the Federal Emergency Relief Administration began
to function in 1933, it was reported that drought was devastating
18 "Report of Federal Surplus Relief Corporation,"
Monthly Report of the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, December 1 to December Sl, 1933, Washington, D. C., p. 39.
• Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, November 1
ThroUflh November 30, 1935, Washin~ton, D. C., table 8, pp. 64--69.
t0 See Asch, Berta and Man~ns, A. R., op. cit., pp. 15-22.
"Unpublished data, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.

[)91.zedbyGooglc

16 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

crops in the plains area. With the cooperation of other Federal
agencies the Federal Emergency Relief Administration launched a
drought relief program in September 1933. The Farm Credit Administration made loans to families for the purchase of livestock feed
when first mortgages could be obtained. The Federal Emergency
Relief Administration, in addition to administering relief to distressed families, furnished funds for feed and seed for fall planting to
those who were unable to obtain loans.
The Agricultural Credit Corporation liberalized its policies in extending loans to drought-stricken families. Road projects were
established under the supervision of the Bureau of Public Roads
with funds provided by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, State and local governments, and the Public Works Administration. The Federal Surplus Relief Corporation shipped millions of
bushels of grain for distribution in drought States.
The need of a drought program became even more urgent in the
spring of 1934 when the development of extreme drought left families
and livestock without water, crops parching in the fields, and livestock perishing on the ranges. By mid-August of 1934 more than
one-half of the land area of the country was designated by the United
States Department of Agriculture as an emergency drought area.
Between July 3, 1934, and February 1, 1935, 1,400,000 cattle were
shipped from drought States to other States for pasturage or slaughter.
From September 1933. through June 1935, $151,000,000 earmarked
for drought relief were allocated to the States by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration!2
u Castle, H. H., "Summary of Drought Relief," Monthly Report of the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, November 1 Through November SO, 1985, Washington, D. C., pp. 11-23.

Dlgtized by

Google

Part

II

Relief Trends and Relief Turnover
17

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

01qllzedbyGooglc

Chapter 11
RELIEF TRENDS, 193 2-1935

PuBLIC RELIEF on a large scale in rural areas is of recent origin. While
the volume of general public relief rose sharply in urban areas after
1929, the limit of assistance that could be extended in rural areas by
local poor relief officials was soon reached. Only as Federal funds
became available could rural areas begin to meet the need for unemployment relief.
VOLUME OF RURAL RELIEF

During the first 9 months of 1932 the estimated number of rural
cases receiving general relief under the terms of the Stat(l poor laws
rose slightly from 104,000 in January to 127,000 in September. In
the latter month the total case load was equul to only 1 percent of
all rural families in 1930 (uppendix table 9).
When Reconstruction Finance Corporation funds became available
during the last quarter of 1932, an enormous increase in rural relief
loads occurred as local officiuls found it possible to accept applications
that had been pending for months. The estimated number of cases
aided increased from 127,000 in September to 694,000 in December
1932, and the proportion of all rural families on relief increused to 5.5
percent. By March 1933 a million and a quarter rural cases were on
the relief rolls, a number equal to 10 percent of all rural families in
1930.

The Federal Emergency Relief Administration wns created in l\Iny
1933, and a half billion dollars were mnde nvailable for grants to the

States. The relief program wns now expanded to include many rural
counties that had not previously hud any provision for outdoor relief.
Si.'!: months later, in November 19:33, t.110 general rural relief loud had
reached a million and a third cnses, amounting to 11 percent of ull
rural families, more thun twice the number aided a yenr earlier.
Employment on Civil Works projects removed great numbers of
rural families from the general relief rolls in December 1933, but the
trend turned upwurd ngnin in Jnnunry 1934 and continued in an almost unbroken upward curve throughout the year. Severity of the
19

[)91.zedbyGooglc

20 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

winter season, loss of jobs by those who had been employed under
the Civil Works Administration, and the extension of relief activities
in several States to areas or groups which had not received relief in
previous months 1 all contributed to the increase in the early months
of 1934.
In April 1934 a reinvestigation of all rural relief cases I and the end
of the CWA brought a temporary decline in the rural relief load.
In the following months, however, the upward trend was resumed as
State after State was visited by drought. The rural rehabilitation
program, inaugurated in May 1934, was not yet an important factor
in reducing general relief rolls. In August 1934 the rural load reached
a new peak with nearly 1,800,000 rural cases on relief, a number equal
to 14 percent of all niral families in 1930.
During September and October 1934 the total volume of rural relief
declined largely because of administrative a.ctions. In Tennessee and
Pennsylvania, for example, the emergency work program was greatly
curtailed. In Texas reinvestigation of relief cases resulted in the
removal from the rolls of many cases declared ineligible for relief.
Large numbers of drought relief cases were dropped in Arkansas in
October. In Alabama "unemployables" were transferred from the
Emergency Relief Administration to local authorities and numbers
of "employables" were dropped from the general program pending
their absorption by the rural rehabilitation program. In addition to
these administrative factors seasonal employment in agriculture, 3 in
connection with the harvesting of crops, as usual helped to reduce
relief rolls.
Beginning in November I 934 with the end of seasonal employment,
with the increased requirements of the winter season, and with the
continued exhaustion of personal resources because of prolonged unemployment or drought, rural case loads began to increase again. They
reached an all-time peak in January 1935 when nearly 16 percent of
all rural families were on relief.'
In February 1935 rural relief rolls began a decline which continued
throughout the year. So-called "unemployables" were transferred
in a number of States from emergency relief rolls to local poor relief.
More efficient social work personnel became available in rural areas
1 Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, April 1 to
April 30, 1934, Washington, D. C., p. 6.
2 Carothers, Doris, Chronology of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
.May lfl!, 1933, to December 31, 193/j, Research Monograph VI, Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937, p. 51.
• Monthly Rep&rts of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, October 1
Through Ociober 31, 1934, pp. 1-4, and November 1 Through November !JO, 1934,
pp. 2-10, Washington, D. C.
• lr!on,hly Reports of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, December 1
Through December 31, 1,934, pp. 4-5, and January 1 Through January 31, 1935,
pp. 7-8, Washington, D. C.

Dg1tzedbyGoogle

RELIEF TRENDS, 1932-1935 • 21

for checking up on the actual need of cases on relief. Relief activities
in certain States were curtailed because of insufficient funds, and in
other States cases were transferred from general relief to the expanding
rural rehabilitation program. Opportunities for employment in private industry increased, the agricultural price situation improved,
and there was abundant rainfall in parts of the drought-stricken areas. 6
The reduction in the general relief rolls was intensified during the last
months of 1935 when the new Works Program and the emergency
grant program of the Resettlement Administration became effective. 8
The Works Program was established in 1935 to provide jobs for
3,500,000 families on the general relief rolls. The work of transferring
clients from general relief to the new Works Program began in July
of that year. By October 136,000 rural cases, exclusive of households
with members in Civilian Conservation Corps camps, had received
pay for at least one full period of work performed under that program

.•.
.
Cl

u

2.5

2.5

2.0

2 .0

~

1.5

:/

0

C

~ 1.0

i

I

0.5

,-....I I'\ \

I' \-JI\ ~ V
'

\

1.5

~

•••

Cl

u

.

0

""'

C

1.0

~
i

05

I
)

0

0
-~M~~~M~~-~~~-~~~
...L

1932

..L

1933

..L

1934

..L

1935

F1G. 5· TREND OF RURAL iELIEF ~ND WORKS PROGRAM CASES (Estimated)
January 1932 through December 1935
Note: v.l:>rks ProQrom coses are included from August 1935.
Sources: Estimates of general relief coses July 1933
throuoh December 1935 from Smith, Mopheus and Mangus, A. R.,
Cases Receiving General Relief in Urbon and Rural Areas,
,My l93.3·December 1935 (Estimated), Research Bulletin
Series m, No. I, Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Mninistration, August 22, 1936; reports to the Division of
Social Resean:h, Works Progress Administration from 226
rural and lawn areas in 24 States; and Survey of Current
Chon98s in the Rural Relief Population, Division ol Social
~ h , Works Progress Administration.

• Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, March 1
Through March St, 1935, Washington, D. C., pp. 4-6.
1 For detailed reasons for closing eases see ch. IV.

Dg1

zedbyGooglc

22 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

nnd had been dropped from general relief rolls. By the end of the
year the number of rural relief cases that had been closed because of
receipt of Works Program wages had reached approximately 700,000
(appendix table 9).
Although the trend of general relief in rural areas continued downward throughout the year 1935, the estimated net number of cases
receiving general relief or Works Program wages increased from
1,101,000 in September to 1,180,000 in November. The number of
Works Program cases rose rapidly in December, but general relief
cases fell even more rapidly so that the net effect was a decline in the
load carried by these two Federal programs (fig. 5). However,
Federal assistance other than general relief and Works Program
earnings wns being extended in rural areas at the end of 1935. In
December about 130,000 rural families received Resettlement Administration emergency grants and of these families it is estimated that
81,000 received no other form of assistance and were not, therefore,
reported as either Works Program or general relief cases.7 Other
rural families were receiving aid from the Civilian Conservation
Corps. Some States were granting special assistance to the aged, to
the blind, and to dependent children.
RATIO OF RURAL CASES TO ALL GENERAL RELIEF CASES

During the years 1933-1935 rural relief cases comprised from about
20 to 40 percent of all general public relief cases, rural and urban
(table 2 and fig. 6). The proportion was smallest prior to Federal
participation in aid to the destitute when tural relief needs were largely
unmet. At no time did the proportion of rurnl cases in the total case
load quite equal the proportion of rum} fnmilies in the total population (42 percent in 1930). The maximum proportion reached (40
percent) was during Jnnunry and February 1934 when the Civil
Table .2.-Ratio of Rural Cases to All Cases Receiving General Relief, January 1933
Through December 193 5
[Estimat.ed]
Month
Jannnry ___ - ________ -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - ---- - - -- - Fehruary _.• _... ·- __ ···- .•.... _________ . ___ . _. _... -· _..... - - __
Marcb __ •••••....... _.. _... _. _. _.... _... ___________________ . _.
ApriL
.•. ·--·--·--··-·--------------- ________________________
··----·-----·-·-·--------_
May
_________________________________

1933

1005

1934

19
24

40

40

2.~
23

:m

June _________________________________________________________ _

21
ZI

:II

July
•. ··------------------------------------------------·----·
Aul~ust.
____________________________ . _______________________ _

3;1
3~

3i

Hepteinber ___________________ . ________ . ____ . ___ . ____ -- - . -- . -- .
()('t<1hf'r ______________________________________________________ _

No,·ernl>er. _. ___________ . _____________ ..... _____ . ____ . ______ ..

Decewber __________ .. ____ ·-·. _··-·- ____________________ . -·- __

:m

:w

a,;

:m
3i

:12
:l!i

36

33

37

3')

Rourc.-es: Computed from nppendi:<: table 9 nnd from 3ati8fical Summarv of Emergenc11 Rt'lid Aclirilira.
Januaru J9!J,j Through !Jr·aml1n /4.J,?, Divi~ion of He~arch, :,;,atisties, t1.0tl Records, Fei}eral J.:mer~enry
Relief Administration, Wa.sbin!(toa, D. C., table 2. p. 2.
7 Data. on file in the Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administr~~
tion, Washington, D. C.

D,gllzed by

Google

RELIEF TRENDS, 1932-1935 • 23

Works Program was removing relatively more urban than rural
cases from the general relief rolls. Dropping of rural clients pending their reinvestigation or their absorption by the rural rehabilitation program and seasonal reductions in case loads caused the rural
proportion of the general relief load to decline in the spring of 1934.
6 r - r - - , - - - - . . - - - - , - - , - - - . - - - r - - - - r - - - - - r---r--"""T""""f 6
t - C.W.A. ----l

f- Works _
Program

Program

51-+---+----+---+----+-

'J

-±c---t---+---t--

2

.

'

\:

0

Jul
1933

Oct

Jon

...1...

Apr

Jul

Oct

1934

Jon
...L

Apr

Jul
1935

Oct Dec O

FIG 6-RURAL AND URBAN CASES'~ RECEIVING GENERAL RELIEF
July 1933 through December 1935

* Urban ond rural coses estomoted separately and
OdJusted to tatal coses reported to Federal Emergency
Relief Adm,nistrohon.
Source: Smith, Mopheus ond Mangus, A. R., Ca~s
RKeiving General Relief in Urban and Rural Areas,
.Ally 1933 -December 1935 (Estimated), Research
Bulletin Series m, No. I, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, August 22, 1936.

Widespread drought in 1934 caused the proportion to rise to 39
percent in August. The rural proportion of general relief cases did
not again fall below 35 percent until the spring of 1935 when the rural
rehabilitation program became a major factor in removing farm
families from the general relief rolls. Thereafter it declined steadily
to 23 percent in December 1935 when the final Federal Emergency
Relief Administration grants to the States had been determined and
when the Resettlement Administration emergency grant program
was aiding about 130,000 rural families. 8
1

Ibid.

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

24 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

AREA DIFFERENCES IN RELIEF INTENSITY

Relief was extended to a much larger part of the rural population
in certain sections of the country than in others. Soil conditions,
prevailing types of farming, drought, decadent rural industries, administrative differences, or a combination of these factors were responsible for variations in relief intensity.
Of the nine agricultural areas delineated for this study, the two
areas of self-sufficing and part-time farms-Appalachian-Ozark and
and Lake States Cut-Over-showed consistently higher than average
relief intensity rates throughout the period studied. In the Appalachian-Ozark Area about one-sixth of all rural families were on relief
in October 1933 as compared with less than one-tenth in the country
as a whole. In succeeding surveys, October 1934 and February,
June, and October 1935, the proportion on relief in this area remained
fairly constant at about one-fifth of the total, well above the national
average. From one-fifth of the rural population on relief in the Lake
States Cut-Over Area in October 1933, the proportion rose to almost
one-third in October 1934, to two-fifths in February 1935, and was
still over one-fourth in October 1935 when rural relief rolls in general
had been sharply reduced as a result of the Works Program, the rural
rehabilitation program, and increased private employment (table 3
and fig. 7).
Table 3.-lncidence of Rural Relief, October 1933 Through October 1935, by Area
[138 countle•l
Rural reuer cs.se~ per 100 rural famllleo

All rural
lamilies,
JYJU I

Area

r--------------Ortnher
rn33

I

October February
!Y34 I

1935

June

October

1935

)935

-----------,----,--- ------ -----All areas__________________________

1154, 870

9.0

13. 7

15. 2

10. 5

6'i, 252
86,6-'>-I
12.044

6. I
M.5
18.6
2. 8
5. 1
12.0
9. 8
6.8

21. 2
1~. 5
32. I

24. 9

38. 9

11.0
19. 6
31.7
7. 7
7. 6
10.6
22. 9
12. 3

7.11

1----1---------------1'---13/'i,OIO
12. 4
11.3
8. 5
6.7
3.3

Eastern Cotton _____________ .-------····
\\'est-ern Cotton ____ . _______ . _______ .. __
Appalachlan-Ornrk. ·-···· .. ·-···--···-Lake States Cut-Over_ .• ___ ...... ·-·· ..
Coro Belt··-·-··-··--·--·····-··----·-·Hay
andWheat.
DairY----····-·········------Winter
_____________ ··-·· ______ _
Spring Wheat_ ___ .. ___________________ _
Ranching _______ • ___ - - _- ---- - ___ ---- -- - -

97, I02
113,985
12, 112
14. 76,5
15,346

8. 7
8. 1
16. 4
32. 4
13. 0

19. 8

12.0
11. 5

16. 8
33. 5
16. 5

8.4
19. 7
26.3

3. 2
5. 7
7.0
14. 2
7. 1

• Fiffunth C,n,u, oflht Vnit,d ,</Inf,-: /P!I(), Population Vol. VI.
• f'ompnte,I lrom data In l'11,mplo1•mtnl Rtlitf Crmu,, Octobtr 1933, Report No. 2, Federal Emerirency
Relief Administrntion, \\' ashin~ton, D. C'., 1~34, table 9.
• Data from Survey or the Hnral Relier Rituation, October 1934, Division or Research, Statistics, and
Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C.

In contrast were the Com Belt and the Hay and Dairy Area,
relatively prosperous farming regions, where the proportions of rural
families on relief were always below average at every survey count.
At the peak of the rural relief load in February 1935 less than oneeighth of the rural population in these areas was on relief. By October
1935 only 3 percent of the rural families in the Corn Belt and 6 percent
in the Hay and Dairy Area were receiving relief.

Dgi

zeclbyGoogle

RELIEF TRENDS, 1932-1935 •

25

The effects of the 1934 drought are seen in the relief intensity rates
for the Spring Wheat, Winter Wheat, Ranching, and Western Cotton
Areas. Only 10 percent of the rural population was on relief in the
SpringWheatAreainOctober 1933, but byOctober 1934 the proportion
had increased to 32 percent and in February 1935 it was 34 percent.
In June and October 1935, because of transfers to the rural rehabilitation program, better farming conditions, and closings caused by changes
in administrative policy, the proportions had fallen to 23 and 14 percent, respectively. Similar sharp increases in the fall of 1934 as
compared with 1933, rising to a peak in February 1935, and then
decreases in the later months of the year were observed in the relief
intensity rates of the other three areas especially hard-hit by the 1934
drought.
35
30

"j

35

■ Ol:toblr 1933
■ October 1934

30

~Ol:toblr 1935

"

25

251

I 20

20

1

l

15

l

~

15

I

~

I

10 ]i

'.i

;t

!

Cl'All

Easttm Western Appa·
Lolce
Cotton Cotton lachian• Stat11
Oiork Cut-Over

Corn

Hay

· Winter

Bell

and
Dairy

Wheat

SprinQ
Wheal

Ranchi!lcJ

F10. 7•1NCIDENCE OF RURAL RELIEF, BY AREA
October 1933, 1934, and 1935
Sowca: Fi"-tlll c.,,..,. of the Unir.d Stotn: 1930,
Pllpulatian Vol. VI; u..n.,io,m.,t Ret;.f C.,,..,., October
l9JJ, Federol EfflltlJlflCY Relief Administration, Report
No.2; Survay af the Rurol Relltf Situation, October 1934,

Division al ~ . Stotlstica,and F i - , Fldlral
EmlrlJlflCY Relief Administration; and Survey af Current
Changas In the Rural Relief Population, Division of Social
~ c h , Works PrOQreH Administration.

The Eastern Cotton Area showed an entirely different trend from
any of the other areas studied. In October 1933 more than 12 percent of the rural families were on relief, a proportion exceeded only
by the two self-sufficing and part-time farming areas. Succeeding
surveys, however, showed a steady decrease in the proportions re- ·
ceiving relief in the area. The rural rehabilitation program of the
FERA, first introduced in this area in 1934, partially accounts
for the steady removal of families from relief in the Eastern Cotton
Area after October 1933.

Dg1

zedbyGooglc

26 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
TYPES OF RELIEF

Under the general relief program administered by the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration in cooperation with the States two
primary types of assistance were extended-work relief and direct
relief. Figures for the general relief program in February 1935
include, however, relief extended in connection with the drought
relief activities of the FERA.
The emergency work relief program was inaugurated by the FERA
as a part of its general relief activities in the spring of 1934 with
the termination of the Civil Works Administration. By October of
that year about 58 percent of all rural cases were receiving work relief
exclusively or were receiving both work relief and direct relief.'
In February 1935 more than one-half of all rural cases were receiving
emergency work relief and less than two-fifths were receiving direct
relief exclusively. The remainder (11 percent) were receiving drought
relief in the form of feed or seed with or without additional benefits
for subsistence needs (appendix table 10).
In June 1935 three-fifths of all general relief cases in nine agricultural areas were receiving work relief while the remaining two-fifths
were receiving direct relief only. The proportion of work relief cases
declined sharply during the last half of 1935 after the Federal Emergency Relief Administration terminated its connection with the work
program on July 1 of that year. In October less than.one-fourth of
all rural cases receiving general assistance were receiving work relief
while more than three-fourths were receiving direct relief exclusively
(appendix tables 10 and 11).
A VERA GE RELIEF BENERT PER CASE

The average monthly amount of relief per case showed decided
fluctuations during 1934 and 1935 but became stabilized in 1936.
Monthly statistics of cases aided and obligations incurred for general
relief in 385 rural and town areas indicate that the average relief
payment per case rose from less than $11 in January 1934 and less
than $10 in February of that year to more than $18 in January 1935.
By the end of 1935 it had declined to around $12 or $13 and it remained at about that level throughout 1936 (table 4 and fig. 8).
The upward and downward swing of average relief payments in
rural and town areas during 1934 and 1935 was closely associated
with the rise and decline of employment on emergency work relief
projects. Beginning early in 1934, when the Civil Works Administration program was being liquidated, the average relief payment
per family advanced almost every month-from less than $10 in
February to a peak of approximately $18 in January 1935. The
9 Mangus, A. R., Type and Value of Relief Received by Rural and Town C<Uu,
October 1934, Research Bulletin F-8, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance,
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., April 24, 1935.

DgltzectbyGoogle

RELIEF TRENDS, 1932-1935 • 27

Tol,le .of.-Avera9e Monthly General Relief I Benefit per Case in Rural and Town Areas,1
January 193-4 Throu9h December 1936

Month

1934

January ______ .. ______________ . ___ .. ____ .......... __ ._. ______ . _____ _
February ______ . ________________________________________________ .. __
March _____________________________________________________________ _

~--.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Juoe_______________________________________ . _____ . _____________ . _...

July _______________________________________________________________ _
August_ - ----------- -- - - -- - - - - - ---------- --- -- - -- -----. -_____
- - -------_
.
September
____________________________________________
.. -_____
October ______ . _______________ . ________________ ----- .. _--- --- .. --- .. .
November __________________ ....•. ___ . __ . _____ . ___ .. ____ ... _____ ... .
December_----------------. - - --- ------- ------ -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - -

1936

$10. 80
11. 50
10.00
12. 60
13. 80
13. 80
H.40
14. 90
14. 80
16.90
17.10
17.00

SIR. 30
17.10
17.30
17. 20
17.60
lG. 10
lG. llO
16. 80
13. 70
14.90
13. 10
12.20

11138
$13. 10
13.40
12. 90
12. 80
12. 00

11.80

11. 20
11. llO
12. 10
12. 60
12.llO
13. 10

• Does not Include veteraos' relief.
• 385 areas ID 36 States ID IW5 and 19311 and 374 areas ID 36 States ID 1934..
Souree: Boney of Cases Aided and Obl!l(atlom Incurred tor Public and Private Assistance lo Rural
aod Town Sample AteaS, Dlv19.loo ot Socia.I Research, Works Progress Administration, W ashlogtoo, D. 0.

increase was largely due to the development by the Federal Emergency
Relief Administration of work relief projects which replaced the
CWA projects. The FERA work projects were included as part
of the general relief program, whereas the CWA projects were
not. Work relief cases generally received larger benefits than did
direct relief cases since they required funds for transportation
and larger clothing allowances and since local sentiment generally
favored larger payments when work was performed.
Another major factor responsible for the rapid rise during 1934
in the general average payment to relief clients in rural areas was a
shift in the geographical concentration of case loads from relatively
low-payment areas to relatively high-payment areas. In 1933, for
example, there was a concentration of relief cases in the Eastern
Cotton Area where average payments were lower than in any other
section of the country. When drought intensity increased, the regions
of concentration shifted to the Wheat Areas, the Corn-Hog States,
the western part of the Hay and Dairy Area, the Pacific Coast Region,
and to other areas where higher relief standards prevailed and where
higher payments were the rule (fig. 9 and appendix tables 12 and 14).
Another factor possibly associated with the increase in average relief
payments was the rapid rise in the cost of food during this period. 10
From December 1933 to November 1934 the Bureau of Labor Statistics
index of food costs rose 8.3 percent. 11
A third factor which probably played some part in the upward
trend of relief payments was a change of attitude on the part of a
large segment of the general population toward relief. Once it began
to be generally recognized that a major portion of the relief problem
was due to circumstances beyond the control of the individual, there
IO

Study (in preparation) of the average amount of relief extended to cases,

Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.
11 Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 42, April 1936, p. 1162.

D~11·

zeobyGooglc

28 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

.
£!

15

15

.

£!

;g

0

0

10

10

Jon
.J_

Jul
1934

Jon
.J_

Jul
1935

Jul
1936

Jan
.J_

F1G. 8 - AVERAGE MONTHLY GENERAL RELIEF BENEFIT PER CASE
IN RURAL AND TOWN AREAS

January 1934 through December 1936
Source: Survey of Coses Aided and Obli9otions
Incurred for Public and Private Assistonce in Rural
and Town Somple Areas, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Adminislrolion.

AF•l4H, W. P.A.

was less opposition to the payment of more nearly adequate benefits. 12
After January 1935 the general trend in amounts of average relief
payments to rural and town families was downward, decreasing from
about $18 in January to about $12 in December. The decline was
most rapid during the last 6 months of the year as employable cases
were trans£erred from relief rolls to the new Works Program and
work project earnings again, as in the Civil Works Administration
days, ceased to be regarded as general relief. In some States, also,
the emergency work relief program was liquidated prior to the
establishment of the Works Progress Administration, and all cases
were carried on direct relief for a period. Average monthly relief
payments were also reduced by the fact that many cases received
relief during only a part of the month, pending receipt of payment
for a full period of work performed under the new program.
Another factor associated with the downward trend of average
relief payments in rural areas was widespread uncertainty beginning
12 Minor irregularities in the trend from month to month were caused by
differences in pay roll periods. In May, August, October, and November of 1934
and in January, May, July, and Oct-0ber of 1935, certain States included five pay
roll periods instead of the uRual four.

D,gllzed by

Google

RELIEF TRENDS, 1932-1935 • 29
FIG. 9-AVERAGE MONTHLY GENERAL RELIEF BENEFIT
PE R CA SE IN RURAL AREAS
JUNE 1935

Dollars

§ Not sampled

0

Less than 10

~ 10 - 19

II

20 - 29

■ 30 -39
■ 4 0 - 49
&f'-2437, WP A.

early in 1935 regarding the amount of Federal funds that would be
available for general relief purposes. In many localities this uncertainty led to a considerable curtailment of relief payments. Still
another factor associated with the decline in average relief grants
was the increasing proportion of single resident persons or small
families remaining on general relief as the Worlcs Program tended to
select larger families which were more likely to include eligible workers.
The average relief payment per case receiving relief under the
general relief program was consistently lower in rural than in urban
areas. During the years 1934 and 1935 the average amount of relief
paid to urban cases ranged from $9 to $18 higher than payments to
rural cases (table 4 and appendix table 13). This was true in spite
of the fact that rural relief households are on the average considerably
larger than are urban households. 13
Higher standards of relief in urban areas partially explain the
higher urban payments. These higher standards, in turn, result
from higher living costs in cities, from longer experience with public
assistance, and possibly from a greater tendency for city unemployed
to organize and exert group pressure for higher relief standards.
The higher relief payments in urban communities also result from
the fact that less supplementary and part-time relief is administered
in cities than in rural areas. A much larger proportion of the rural
relief population has current employment and therefore some income
in addition to relief payments.
ll Carmichael, F. L. and Payne, Stanley L., The 1955 Relief Population in 15
Cit:ea: A Crou-Sect,ion, Research Bulletin Series I, No. 23, Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., December 31,
1936, table 1.

Dig llzed by

Google

01911,ed by

Google

Chapter 111
RELIEF TURNOVER, MARCH THROUGH
OCTOBER 1935

THE TOT AL incidence of rural relief is only partially reflected in
monthly case loads. Economic conditions and opportunities fluctuate rapidly in rural areas. Families that are able to support themselves one month are destitute the next. Other destitute families
sell produce, find jobs, or otherwise achieve a self-supporting status
which may continue only for a brief period. As a result, general
relief in rural areas is characterized by a rapid movement of families
on and off the rolls. The number of cases on relief during a year is,
therefore, much greater than the number enrolled during any particular month of that year, and the number of recipients over a period
of yea.rs is in turn greater than the number enrolled during any particular year. The peak month for general relief case loads in rural
areas was January 1935 when it is estimated that almost 2 million
rural families and single resident persons were on relief rolls. That
this number formed only a major fraction of ell rural cases aided
during the depression is evident from a discussion of relief turnover.
After January 1935 the number of rural households receiving assistance under the general relief program of the Federal Emergency
Relief Administration in cooperation with the States declined during
each succeeding month of the year. The decline was not the result
of a gross one-way movement of families off relief but was the net
effect of a rapid movement of cases on and off the rolls. Each month
a large proportion of the households that left relief was replaced by
others seeking reinstatement or initial assistance after exhausting
other means of support.
MARCH-JUNE TURNOVER

The earliest available information concerning relief turnover in
rural areas relates to the spring of 1935. In February of that year a
study in nine agricultural areas indicated that 15 percent of all rural
households were on relief (table 1, p. 3). In June 1935, 4 months
31

D~11·

zeobyGooglc

32 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

later, only a little more than one-half of the cases which received
relief in February were still on the rolls (table 5). The other half
had become self-supporting, had been aided by the rural rehabilitation program, or had found other means of assistance. Had none of
those cases returned to the relief rolls and had no new families sought
aid, a decline of 48 percent in the total case load would have resulted.
Tohle 5.-S.parations and Accessions of Rural Relief Cases, March Throu9h June 1935,1
per 100 Cases Receivin9 Relief in February, by Area
[138 oountie,,)

t10ns

Percent
change,
Fehruary-

Acoe,;slollll

Separa·

Area

Total

New

Reopened

June

48. 1
17.6
7.6
10.0
l====I==== l====I===
M. 4
22. 4
9. 7
12. 7
White.................................
58.4
25. 0
11. 6
13. 4
Negro.................................
49. 6
17. 2
5.9
11. 3
Western Cotton...........................
64. 7
8. 7
3. 7
5.0
White.................................
62. 3
10.0
4.4
5.6
Negro.................................
70.0
5. 8
2.0
3.8
ApJ)81achian•Ozark..... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. . ...
28. 7
28.0
11. 1
16.9
Lake Stat es Cut•Over........ .. . . . .. . . ....
40. 4
21.8
9. 2
12.6
Com Belt....................... . .........
49. 9
14. 5
7. 7
6.8
Bay and Dairy............................
47. 8
13. 7
7.2
6.5
3.9
Winter Wheat.............................
51. 4
14. 7
10.8
12. 6
3. 3
9.3
22. 3
r~~~I:~~~:
~
9.2
13.1
All areM.. ..• . . . . . .. • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • . .

-30. 5

East.,m Cotton............................

-33.0
-33. 4
-32.4
-56.0

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

1

:;:

-52. 3

-64.2
-0. 7
-18.6
-35.4
-34.1
-36. 7
-31.11
-25.5

Exclusive or cases opened or reopened and cl~ within the period March throu&h June.

More than one-third of the cases which left relief, however, were replaced by other households, about three-fifths of which were seeking
reinstatement while the other two-fifths were making initial registration for assistance. The net effect was, therefore, a decline of only
31 percent in the case load from February to June. The total volume
of turnover in rural relief cases was even greater than is indicated
by these data since cases which were opened or reopened and also
closed within the interim are not included.
JULY-OCTOBER TURNOVER

During the 4-month interval following June 1935, the relative
volume of case turnover was slightly greater than during the previous
period. By the end of October almost half of the cases which had
received relief in June, in the nine areas studied, had been closed.
The proportion of accessions, however, was considerably greater than
in the earlier period. For every two cases that left relief, one returned
or sought aid as a new case. The total volume of accessions during
the period was equal to one-fourth of the June load (table 6).
Associated with the rapid turnover during the summer months was
a general effort to conserve funds and the administrative practice in
many localities of dropping cases pending reinvestigation of their
eligibility for relief. The new Works Program began to remove some

D,gllzed by

Google

RELIEF TURNOVER, MARCH THROUGH OCTOBER 1935 •

33

Tattle 6.-Seporations and Accessions of Rural Relief Cases, July Through October 1935,1
per 100 Cases Receiving Relief in June, by Area
[138 counties]
Accessions
Sep!11'8·
llow,

Total
All

areas...........................

!l.ew

Reopened

49. 4
2-4. 5
7. 5
17. 0
l====l,====,==== 1===

Percent
change,
June-October
-24.9

0

Eastern Cotton..........................
White.................................

Winter Wheat.............................

68. 6
63. I
79. 3
46. I
45. 9
46. 6
28. 3
34. 9
73. 11
52. 7
63. 3

26. 4
'IT. 9
23. 6
22. 8
2.5. 4
15. I
28. 8
18. 0
15. 6
'IT. 5
28. 7

=~i!';~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

~: i

:: i

Negro.................................
Western Cotton...........................
White.................................

Negro.................................
Appalschian·Ozark............... .. . . . ... .
Lake States Cut•Over.....................
Com Belt.................................
Hay and Dairy............................

1

6. 9

19. 5
lll.2
20. 2
19.3
21.3
13. 2
14. 7
15.6
11.8
19. 8
2.5. 9
21.6
15. 7

8. 7
3. 4
3. 5
4. I
I.II
14.1
2. 4
3.8
7. 7
2.8
0.9
4. 8

-42. 2
-35.2
-.'i5. 7
-23.3
-20.5
-31. 5
+o.5
-16.9
-.'18.3
-:M.2
-34.6
-37.8
-42. 2

Exclusive of cases opened or reopened and clOBed within the period July through October.

families from general relief in July and became an increasingly important factor in succeeding months (table 7). In spite of continued
administrative efforts to reduce general relief rolls during the summer
of 1935, the net decline of rural cases was less than during the spring
months.
Tattle 7.-Accessions and Separations of Rural Relief Cases per 100 Cases at Beginning
of Month, July Through December 1935
[300 counties and 83 New England townships]

Item

July

August

Se~m•

October

Novem•
ber

December

-------------1--- --- --- --- --- --Accessions ...•••.•...••••...•.••....
New ..................................... .
Reopened ......•...•...•..................

=
Separations..••.....................

Works Program employment• .......•....
Resettlement loens or grants ............. .
Other.................................... .
1

9.8

8.9

8.9

12. 7

13.6

6. 4

6. 7

7.0

9.8

11.0

2. 7
8.6

0.1
I. 3
15.8

1.6
0. 2
16.0

3.3
0.1
15.1

6.8
0. I
12.3

18.1
0. 2
13.8

38. 7
3. 0
34. 5

- -3.-4 - -2.-2 - -1.9- - -2.-9 - -2.6- - -11.-3
--------------17. 2
17.8
18.5
19.2
32.1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -76.-2

Exclusive of Civilian Conservation Corps employment.

TURNOVER IN MAJOR AGRICULTURAL AREAS

From March through June 1935 the separation rate was highest in
the Western Cotton Area, where the number of cases closed amounted
to 65 percent of the February case load, and in the Eastern Cotton
Area, where the number of cases closed was equal to 55 percent of the
February load. The rate was lowest in the Appalachian-Ozark Area
(29 percent). Not only was the separation rate highest in the Western Cotton Area, but also the accession rate was lowest, the number
of new and reopened cases amounting to only 9 percent of all Febru-

Dig 11zed by

Goog Ie

34 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

ary cases. As a consequence that area experienced a decline of 56
percent in its rural case load, a decline due in large measure to transfers of farmers from general relief to the rural rehabilitation program.
While the Eastern Cotton Area had a high separation rate, it also had
a high accession rate. As a result, the rate of change in total case
load (-33 percent) was only slightly above the average (-31 percent) for all areas combined. In the Appalachian-Ozark Area accessions about balanced separations, leaving the total case load practically unchanged (table 5).
From July through October 1935 the separation rate was highest
(74 percent) and the accession rate was lowest (16 percent) in the
Com Belt. Accessions continued to balance separations at 28 per
100 June cases in the Appalachian-Ozark Area. A large excess of
separations carried the case load down 42 percent or more in the
Eastern Cotton Area, the Com Belt, and the Ranching Area (table 6).
During November and December 1935 general relief loads in rural
areas were greatly reduced as the Works Program continued to absorb
relief cases containing eligible workers. Applications for general
relief continued, however, owing to the end of seasonal employment
in agriculture and other factors. In the Cotton Areas and in the
Hay and Dairy Area the volume of November and December accessions was equal to one-third of the October case loads. In the Hay
and Dairy Area nearly one-third of the accessions were new cases.
In five other areas the number of cases coming on relief in the 2
months was equal to 19 percent or more of the October load. Relatively fewer additions were found in the Appalachian-Ozark Area
where the accession rate was only 8 percent (table 8).
Table 8.-Separations and Accessions of Rural Relief Cases, November and December
1935, per 100 Cases Receiving Relief in October, by Area
(138 counties)
Separations
Acoosmom
Percent
,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , change,
Area

Total

l

Worl<,8
Program
employ•
ment

Other

Total

OctoberDeoom•
her

New

----------1--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8S. l
46. 1
39. 0
20. 7
4. 1
16.6
-64. 4
All areas ..•..............
- -06.-4 - -62.8- = 33. 6 = 32. 5 = 3. 6 = 28. 9 = -63. 9
Eastern Cotton •.............. .
Western Cotton• ...•...•.•.•..
Appalachlan·<hark . ..•........
Lake States Cut·Over .•..•..•..
Corn Belt .................... .
Hay and Dairy ...•...•.......•
Winter Wheat ........•••.•....

133.0
ffi. 3

t~~~i:~~~::::::::::::::::·:

81. 6

S:l. 8

43. 3
41. i
68. 6

93. I

50.0

M.8

46. 8

102. 4

73. 5
13. 2
52. 0

72. 6

89. 7
2.5. 6
25. 2
43.l
34. 0
28 9
68. 4
20. 6

34. 8
i. 6
18. 7
29. 7
31.8
18. 8
Ill. 4

25. 6

3. 7
2.1
4. 1
5.0
10.0
2.9
2.8
6.0

31.1
6. 5
14. 6
24. 7
21.8
rn. ll
16.6
19.6

-98. 2
-50. 7
-65.1
-63. 4
-49.0
-83.6
-62. 2
-47.0

' The high percentages of separations, exceeding 100 percent In the Western Cotton and Winter Wheat
Areas, are due to the fad that It was not possible Lo e~clude cases opened or reopened and clOlled ID November and Deoomher.
• Data not available by color.

DgltzectbyGoogle

Chapter IV
REASONS FOR OPENING AND CLOSING
RELIEF CASES

A

COMPLETE answer to the question of why families find it
necessary to accept relief would call for a detailed analysis of the
causes of poverty, of unemployment, of drought, and of depression.
The present chapter is not concerned with a study of such causes.
It is based only on the immediate or proximate reasons given by case
workers as to why rural households came on and went off the relief
rolls. Such reasons represent only the culminating events that, in
the opinion of the case worker, led the family to apply for assistance
or to leave the relief rolls.
For each active relief ease included in the samples which form the
·basis of this study, the most important immediate reason for opening
was reported from case records. Likewise, for each closed case in
the samples collected, the most important immediate reason for closing
was reported. Reasons for opening rural relief cases were reported
and tabulated for households in the February and June 1935 case
loads and for cases admitted to relief during each month July through
December of that year. Reasons for closing were reported and
tabulated for cases that left relief during the months March through
October 1935.
REASONS FOR OPENING

Cases came on rural relief because of a variety of economic factors,
according to agency records. These factors varied in importance
from month to month as a result of changes in agricultural conditions,
in employment opportunities, and in administrative rulings.
February 1935 Cases

Three reasons of about equal importance in accounting for cases in
the February 1935 relief load were loss of employment, crop failure or
loss of livestock, and loss or depletion of assets.
For 24 percent of all cases the change in circumstances which made
it necessary for that household to apply for relief was the loss by a
35

Dig 11zed by

Goog Ie

36 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

member of the household of a job in private industry 1 (including
agricultural, nonagricultural, and regular governmental employment).
More than 26 percent of all February cases were full- or part-time
farmers who had sought assistance because of crop failure or loss of
livestock. Most of these were drought victims although a few had
suffered the effects of hail, flood, pests, or other disasters that destroyed
their crops. Nearly 27 percent of all February cases were reported
as having sought relief as a direct result of loss or serious depletion
of such assets as cash reserves, bank deposits, income-providing
investments, or other resources.
■ Loss of
employment

~ LOIi o, deplttion

•

~ Insufficient

[ ] Loss of
worker

~Other

of-II

income

Crop failure 0,
loll of Ii-lock
rtCIIOIII

Percent

0
February

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

~·~

June

FtG. 10- REASON FOR ACCESSION OF RURAL CASES RECEIVING
RELIEF IN FEBRUARY ANO JUNE 1935

........,.

.,

For IO percent of all February cases no more specific immediate
reason for seeking relief could be given than that they had insufficient
income from nonrelief sources to maintain a minimum family budget.
Five percent sought aid after the loss through death, disability, or
separation of a breadwinner for the family. Three percent required
assistance because of illness in the household, and five percent for
such miscellaneous reasons as increased needs because of colder
weather, loss of support by relatives or friends, failure of landlord to
"furnish" tenant, strikes, and loss because of fire or flood (table 9 and
fig. IO).
As a reason for opening February cases, crop failure or loss of livestock was relatively most important in the two Wheat Areas and in
the Western Cotton Area, all of which were especially hard-hit by
the 1934 drought. Loss or depletion of assets as a reason for accession
to relief rolls was cittld most frequently in the Appalachian-Ozark
Area where drought was least important as a factor. Loss of job was
reported relatively most frequently in the Eastern Cotton, Hay and
Dairy, and Ranching Areas. Loss of a worker from the household
1 Loss of employment was not reporwd as a reason for opening a relief case
except in instances where the loss occurred within 4 months prior to the accession.
For cases in which the worker lost his job more than 4 months prior to accession to
relief, a more immediate reason for opening the case was given.

DgltzectbyGoogle

Tol,/e 9.-Reason for Accession of Rural Cases Receiving Relief in February and June 1935, by Area
I138 counties]
Reuonfor-ion

Baelern Cohon

All

areu

Weatern Cotton

Afil:!•
C

Total

White

Necro

Total

White

Negro

•

Ozark

Lue

Btatea

Cut-Over

Corn
Belt

Ba7and

Dalr7

Winter
Wheat

~DI
heat

BanohIng

"'
>
0
z
ITI

l'J:BllU.1.&Y

Number ...•.............
Percent.....•••...•......

114, 13G
100.0

II.MS

7,838
100.0

3,U20
100.0

111,623
100.0

11.307
100.0

6, 1:111
100.0

17, 133

100.0

Less or depletion ol 81188ts .....•

:Ill. 7
211. 3
24-3
10.3
4. 7
2. 7
6.0

18.0
111.0
31.2
15.11
3.8
II. 7

22. 1
17. 2
30.6
113-11
4-5
8-0
8- l

11.8
13. 7
32. 6
19. 6
11.8
8.0
4.6

18.11
41.3
24.11
6.11
2. 1
1. 2
8-3

19.11
40-11

17.6
42. 3

43. 7
13. 0
14- 6

6.11
2. 2
1.6
6.6

1.8
0. 7
8. 0

68,5111
100.0

7,732
100.0

6,084
100.0

2.MII

100.0

7, 2118
100.0

6,432
100.0

1cno

14.4
8.0
27.4
:II. II
14. 0
5.6
11.8

21.2
10.3
28. 6
11.11
2. 7
1.2
16. 2

23.2
Ill.II
28.11

16. 6
17. 4

27.11

2. 6
1. 1
13.1

13. I
3. 3
1.6
21.2

Crop failure or )OBS ofllvestoclt.
Less of employment•·•········
Insufficient Income ............
Less or worker.................
Illness.......•••...•..•........
Other•- ...••.•.•.•.•......•...

11.2

24.4

X.8
4-11

uno
Ul-11
8. 6

1.11

4,11811

uno
38. 0

18.11
17.11
12.0

4.4
3.11

11.838
100.0

13,082
100.0

2,034

26-4
27. 7
27. 7
11.1
0.6
1. 2

211-11

22.0
M.8
17. 7
8-0
0.8
0.11

17.11
32. 2
13.8
1. 4
2. 2
8- 2

100.0

4, 1161
1cno

2, 1132
100.0

12. 1
M.11

22. 4
21.3
38. 7

14-11
2. 4
0.6
o. 7
4.8

11.4

0.8
1.0

11.4

6. I

7.6

8-4

17,0111
tcno

3,814
tcnO

7,612
100.0

8, 11:111

1,288

100.0

100.0

3,374
100.0

1. 8811

48. II

84.2
8.11
27.2
10.11
6.1
4.6
11.2

30.1
13. 2

211. 1
8. 4
36.6
14.2
II.II
2. 6
3. 7

33.3

14.8

211. 7
111. 6
34.8
8.11
2.11
1.11
8.11

2.11

lUNJ:

Number ........•••......
Percent ..................

1,8311

100.0

~-~

0

Loss or depletion or 8S!!ets ...•.•
Crop failure or loss or livestock.
Loss of employment'··········
Insufllclent income ............
Loss or worker .................
Illness .•.......................
Other• ........................

32.11
14.11
24.4
12. 2
6.1
2.9
8.2

22. 1
8.4
27.3
14. 7
10. 1
4.8
12.11

::8. 1

8.6
27.3
11.4
8. 1
4. 6
14.0

11.3

10. 7
14- 1
IL 6
6.5
3.11
8-0

30.2
14-3
1.8
2. 8
8.1

22. 4
18.0
12. 0
2. 6
0.11
11.2

i;e,4

13. II
6.0
4.8
1.11
0.8

<g
;.,

~
O'

'<'.

L)
0

~

-n

V,

...,

~
~
ITI

z

zG)
>
z0
t"'I

§
z

G)

• Within 4 months prior to the accession. For cases In which the worker lost his Job more than 4 months prior to acoemlon to relief, a more Immediate reuon for opening the case

wugiven.

I lncreued needs, loss or support b7 relatives or friends, failure of landlord to "furnlah" tenant, strlltes, and loes because of fire or flood.

"'r
ITI

iii
....,

t"'I

~

u::

•

w
.....

38 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RWEF

was of greatest importance as a reason for accession in the AppalachianOzark Area and among Negroes of the Eastern Cotton Area. Illness
was most frequently reported from the Eastern Cotton, the Appalachian-Ozark, and the Lake States Cut-Over Areas (table 9).
June 1935 C-

In the June 1935 case load, as compared with the February load, a
smaller percentage of the cases had come on relief because of crop
failure or loss of livestock and a larger percentage because of loss or
depletion of assets and miscellaneous reasons. One-third of the
June cases consisted of households that sought relief as a result of
loss or depletion of assets following cessation of income. Nearlyonehalf of all cases in the Appalachian-Ozark Area were on relief for that
reason. Only 15 percent of all June cases had sought aid as a result
of crop failure or loss of livestock, a marked decline from the 26 percent
reported for February. The major reason for that decline was the
transfer during the spring of 1935 of drought relief cases from general
relief rolls to the care of the rural rehabilitation program then being
conducted by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration as a
special relief program for farmers. Crop failure or loss of livestock
remained the major factor in the Spring Wheat Area where 59 percent
of all June cases were on relief for that reason (table 9).
()penlnp July Throu9h December 1935

During the last 6 months of 1935 more than two-fifths (41 percent)
of all accessions to relief rolls represented families that sought aid
because a member of the household lost employment (table 10 and
fig. 11 ). Many were seasonal workers in agriculture or other industries whose period of employment ended during the summer or fall
months. Others were dismissed or laid off for various reasons.
Included were some persons working on "own account," mostly
farmers who had lost their land, but also storekeepers, blacksmiths, and
other persons with small enterprises who were forced to discontinue
their businesses and to apply for relief.
Nearly one-eighth (12 percent) of all accessions to general relief
rolls from July through December consisted of households with a
member currently employed, but whose earnings had been reduced
below the amount required to meet minimum needs. Included among
these were farmers whose returns were insufficient to maintain their
families as well as wage workers in agriculture and other pursuits
whose wage rates were reduced or who were placed on part-time
employment.
Loss or depletion of assets was reported as the reason which caused
13 percent of the families to apply for relief. Households that lost or

D,gllzed by

Google

REASONS FOR OPENING AND CLOSING RELIEF CASES • 39
Tot»le 10.--Reason for Accession of Rural Relief Cases, July Through December 1935
(300 counties)

RM-'IOn for aoces.ion

JulyDecember

July

•.\u~••t Septem"~
ber

October

Novem- December
ber

------------1---1---1--------- - - - - - TOTAL ACCll88JON3

Number ........................
Percent ..•.•.•..........•....•..
Loss of employment'··········· ......

Decreased earnings .........•..........
Loss or depletion of assets .............

Crop failure or Joss of Jlnstock ........
Increased needs .......................
Administrative ruling ..••.............
Loss of worker......•.................
Other••.•.•..••.••••.... ___ ...........

64,040
100.0

12, 0118

10, 198
100.0

11. 274
100.0

11,932
100.0

12. 238
100.0

8,302
100.0

40.8
12. 1
12.9
10. 8
11. 3
6. 7
2. 6
6.9

34. 7
12. 2
12. 1
11. 8
11.6
4.4
2.1
11. 2

'3.0
11.9
12. 5
9.4
11. 6
6. 7
2. 1
2. 9

38. 4
13. 9
13. 6
10. 4
8.11
11. 7
2. 3
2.8

34. 9
12. 0
13. 9
12. 3
7. 9
6.0
2. 7
10.3

46. 2
12.0
11.9
12. 8
7.6
4. 4
2.4
3. 7

51.0
10.0
13.5
6.9
8.ft
3.6
3. 9
2.5

16,ft90
1()().0

4, 16ft
100.0

2,488
100.0

1,962
100.0

2,704
100.0

2,428
100.0

1,944
100.0

11.4
JS.ft
8.0
7.8
I. 5
4. 2
10. 3

8.0
13. 7
10.0
6.9
1.0
3.0
24.1

10. 4
21. 1
6.9
11.4
1.4
3.1
2.6

13. 3
20.4
7. 6
10. 4
2.5
4.ft
1.2

7.4
20.9
7. 1
7.6
1.6
6. 3
16.1

8.9
21.3
9.6
6. 4
2.0
6.1
3.8

9. 8
16. 7
6. 7
6.8
0.9
6. 7
1. 4

48, 3.',0

100.0

7,932
100.0

7,708
100.0

7,312
100.0

11,228
100.0

11,812
100.0

6,3/i8
100.0

13. 0
11. 1
11. 7
9. 8
7.1
2. 0
4. 4

14. 4
11. 2
12. 8
14. 0
6.3
1. 7
4. 4

12. 4
11. 8
10. 6
12. 2
8.4
I. 8
3. 0

14. 1
11. 8
11. 2
8. 6
JI. 7
I. 7
3. 2

13. 3
11. 8
13. 9
7. 8
7.3
2. 0
8. 7

12. 7
9. 5
13. 6
8. 0
6.0
I. 8
3. 7

10. I
12. 6
7. 0
9. 2
4.4
3. 3
2. 9

100.0
--- . _ _

NEWCAHII

Number•...•..•.................
Percent .••••...•................
Loss of employment'·········•·······
Decreased earning• .........•......... _
Loss or depletion of assets .............
Crop failure or Joss of Ii v~stock ........
Increased needs .......................
Administrative ruling ... _............ _
Loss of worker .. _..•................. _
Other'···························· ...

- -40.2- ------------33.3
46.1
40.1
42. 9
34.0
52.0

KKOPKNIED CASIES

Number .......................
Percent..••.....................
Ulf!l!Ofemployment'.................
Decreased earnings...................
Loss or depletion of assets.............
Crop failure or Joss of livestock........
lncrea..sed needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Administrativerullng................
l.<"'8 of worker....... _.. _.............
Other•................................

------------------40. 9
3.5. 2
41. 9
37. 8
3.5. 2
45. 7
60. 5

• Within 4 months prior to the IICCt'sslon. For casrs In which the worker Jost his Job more than 4 months
prior to accession to relit.•!, a more immediate rPA<mD for opt.ming the case was Ri\'en.
' Loss of support by relHtives or friends, failure of landlord to "furnish" tenant, Joss or Resettlement status,
strik.,., loss becaime of flood, etc.

exhausted their cash reserves, bank deposits, income-providing
investments, or other assets were included in this category in all
instances where such loss could not be directly attributed to crop
failure or loss of livestock, to loss of.employment, or to withdrawal of
support by relatives or friends. Crop failure or loss of livestock
accounted for 11 percent of all openings or reopenings.
Of all cases which came on relief during the latter part of 1935,
9 percent requested aid because of increased needs resulting from
increase in size of family, illness, death, or other events requiring
outlays beyond the family's financial ability. Administrative rulings
by relief officials admitting or reinstating clients previously declared
ineligible for general assistance accounted for about 6 percent of all
openings. Loss of a breadwinner through death, disability, or
separation accounted for almost 3 percent. Six percent of all openings
were explained by miscellaneous reasons, such us strikes, flood, with.

Dig t1zed by

G oog IC

40 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

drawa.l of support by relatives, landlords, and friends, a.nd loss of
Resettlement status.
About one-fourth of all cases opened during the second half of 1935
had not previously received relief from the agencies which accepted
them for care. The relative importance of the various reasons for
opening new cases differed considerably from that for reopened cases.
A larger percentage of the new tha.n of the reopened cases was added
because of loss or depletion of assets and miscellaneous reasons,
whereas decreased earnings a.nd administrative rulings affected a
larger number of the reopened cases.
■ t.ossof
employment

r.l L05S of

mincreosed

L:J worker

~needs
10

~ Lou or dtple·
~ tion of 05Wls

20

30

■

Crop failure or
loss of livestock
~ Other

ml Oecreosed

~ eorni119s

~ r80$0ftl

40

Percent
50

60

70

80

90

100

July

September
October

November

December

FIG. 11- REASON FOR ACCESSION OF RURAL RELIEF CASES
July through December 1935

The usual occupation of the head of the case was reported for all
cases in the rural relief intake during the months July through October
1935. It was found that 48 percent of all heads of cases coming on
relief were agricultural workers, 30 percent being farm operators and
18 percent farm laborers. Unskilled laborers comprised 24 percent
of the total intake. One-eighth of all accessions (13 percent) were
skilled and semiskilled workers, and 3 percent were white-collar workers.
Approximately IO percent of the cases were headed by persons who
were not working or seeking work and almost 2 percent by persons
who had no usual occupation (table 11 ). There was a larger proportion of agricultural workers among the reopened than among the new
cases that came on relief July through October 1935, while the reverse
was true for nonagricultural cases.

Digitized by

Google

REASONS FOR OPENING AND CLOSING RELIEF CASES • 41
Tot»le 11.-Reason for Accession of Rural Relief Ca~\July Through October 1935, by
Usual Occupation of the Mead
(300 counties)
Usual occupation or bead
Reuon ror IMlCl!Sl!lon

Total

No
usual Head
not a
Farm Farm White Skllled
OCCU•
and
Unopera• laborer
pallon worker
semicollar
sklJJed
tor
skllled

--- --- --- --- --- --- --TO'til AOCK88101'1

Number ••......•..•...•.....•. 43, !500
Percent •••••••••....••••••••.. 100.0

13, 2IMI
100.0

7,ml

37.5
12. 4
13.0
11.l
JO. 0
6.5
2.3
7.2

11.8
16. 2
JO. 3
32.6
11.8
11.4
0.4
11.6

Number .•...•........•....•••. 11.3~
Percent ••.••••..•....•..•..... 100.0

2,728
100. 0

Loss ohmployment 1••••••••••••••••
Decreaaed earnings ••.........•......
Loss or depletion or asset, ...........
Crop failure or loss orllvestock ......
Increased net>ds ...••.......•.....•..
Administrative ruling •.•..•.•••.....
Loss or worker •........•••.•.••••..•.
Otber '······························

1,-lM
100.0

6,422
100.0

10,350
100.0

602
100.0

4,548
100.0

M.2
12.6
6.2
1.8
7. g
6.0
0.6
1.8

ll().l

1.6

li8. 7
11.4
13. 7
1. 2
6.3
4.6
0.4
3. 7

50.2
12. 1
11.8
1.1
7.0
4.2
0.6
13.1

10. I
0.6
83. 7
0.6
2t. 3
7.6
19. 7
3. 5

12.8
4.8
28.11
3. 7
23.4
8.8
15.0
2.8

I, 712
100.0

634
100.0

I, 5IIO
100.0

3,024
100.0

280
100.0

1,452
100.0

100.0

13.2
31.1
1.6
8.3
4. 3

o. o

!11:WCilU

Loss ofemployment 1••••••••••..••••
Decreased ...miDl!ll .......•..........
Loss or d~pletion or asset. .........•.
Crop failure or Jou or Ii vestock .•..•.
lncre&sed need• .............•.......
Administrative ruling ..•......••....
Loss or worker ••..•..•.•.............
Other• .••.•.•••••••••..••.......•...

--o. 7
37. 5

---

---

11.3
18. 2
8.0
8. 2
1.5
3.8
13. 5

11. 6
12. 2
'ZT. 7
6. 7
0.5
0.5
31.1

M.4
8.6
11.3
2.3
8.0
1. 5
0.5
2.5

50.6
o. 7
23. 6
I.II
II. 7
I.II
1.0
0. 7

511.0
II. 7
17. 7
1.0
4.8
2.6
0.8
3.5

40.6
10.8
14.2
1.3
5.0
1. 2
0.8
17.1

Number ..•..•••.•............. 32,180
Percent ••••.•...••.•......•... 100.0

10,568
100.0

5,094
100.0

1152
100.0

3,832
100.0

7,326
100.0

12.3
17. 3
0.8
33. 7
10. 7
11.8
0.4
4.0

M.I
13. 6
4. 7
1.6
7. 7
6.0
o. 7
1.6

40. 7
15. I
18. I
1.3
7. 6
5. 7
0. 4
2.1

li8. l
12.2
12. I
1.3
6.11
6.4
0. 3
3. 7

50.3
12.6
JO. 0
1.0
7.8
5. 5
0. 4
11. 6

0.3

2.1
211. 4
3.6

0.0
3. 7
41. 3
2.11
17. 1
2.5
~-1
3.4

412
100.0

3. Oll6
100.0

l.O

5.3
23.1
4.1
211.3
11.5
12. 7
2. 5

24. 3

34.3

a&OPIIJIJ:D CA81111

Loss or employment 1••••••••••••••••
Decrea.sed earnin&s ...•...•..•••.....

Loss or depletion or asset. ...........
Crop failure or Jou or livestock .•....
Increased needs .....•.•••••••••.••••
Administrative ruling •..•......•..•.
Loss or worker .•...•.••••••..••......
Other• •••.•..••••••••.••.•..•••.....

37. 4
13.5
11. 2
12. 2
JO. 6
8.3
1.8
6.0

----10. 7
14.6
33.4
1.0
24. 3
11. 2
15.0
3. 4

1 Within 4 months prior to the accession. For ca..""s In which the worker lost his Job more than 4 months
prior to accession to relier, a more immediate reason for opening the case wa.s given.
• Loss ormpport by relatives or friends, failure or landlord to "furnish" tenant, loss or Resettlement statwi,
atrikee, loss becalll8 or flood, etc.

Reasons for opening relief cases varied with the usual occupation 2
of the bead. Loss of employment was the major reason for opening
all cases with experienced workers as heads except farm operator
families which were affected primarily by crop failure 8 and decreased
earnings. Sixty-four percent of all farm laborers in the July-October
• Usual occupation: the occupation in nonrelief employment of at least 4 consecutive weeks' duration at which a worker had been employed the greatest
length of time during the last 10 years. If the worker had spent approximately
the same length of time at two or more occupations, the one at which he had worked
last wu considered his usual occupation.
• Small proportions of heads of cases that were farm laborers or nonagricultural
workers by usual occupation were currently operating farms full- or part-time
and suffered crop failure or livestock loss.

Dlgtized by

Google

42 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

intake sought aid as a result of loss of job and an additional thirteen
percent because of decreased earnings from current jobs. More than
three-fourths of all nonagricultural heads of households went on
relief because of loss of employment, decreased earnings, or loss or
depletion of assets. Loss or depletion of assets, increased needs, and
loss of a worker were the major reasons for opening cases whose heads
were not workers or had never worked (table 11 and fig. 12).
■ Loss of
·
employment

1:'..23 lion of assets

~ Loss or deple-

■ Crop ·failure or
loss of livestock

mlSl lncreosed

r.::-'.1 Loss of

~ Other
~ reasons

W worker

~ ,-cis

0

10

20

30

40

Percent
50

60

70

~ Dllcreaud
~ eornillQI_

80

90

100

TOTAL
Form

operator
Form

loborer
While
collar
Skilled ond
semiskilled
Unskilled

usual
oc:cupotion

No

Head not
o worker

FIG.12-REASON FOR ACCESSION OF RURAL RELIEF CASES.
BY USUAL OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD·
July through October 1935

REASONS FOR CLOSING

Economic factors, such as employment in connection with the
planting season, marketing of crops, increased industrial employment,
and transfers to other assistance programs, were the most important
influences effecting closing of rural relief cases during 1935.
Closings March Through June 1935

From :March through June 1935 about 57 percent of the rural
households removed from relief had become self-supporting through
private employment, advances from landlords, crops marketed, and
other factors. Employment in the Civilian Conservf.l.tion Corps was
responsible for about 2 percent of the closings, and aid from other
agencies or from relatives and friends accounted for 13 percent of the

Dig lized by

Google

REASONS FOR OPENING AND CLOSING RELIEF CASES • 43

closings. Another 13 percent of the cases were closed because of administrative policy and 15 percent moved away, failed to report, or
were closed for miscellaneous reasons.'
Cl0tln91 July Throu9h October 1935

Of all rural cases dosed during the months July through October
1935, two-thirds were dosed as a result of income from private industry or from the Works Program. Nearly 27 percent obtained private
employment; 6 percent received increased earnings from current jobs
in private industry; 11 percent obtained income from marketing
crops; 15 percent received initial Works Program pay checks; and
almost 7 percent received allotments from sons in Civilian Conservation Corps camps. Of the remaining one-third 8 percent were closed
because of migration or failure to report for relief orders or for work
on Emergency Relief Administration projects; 8 percent were closed
by administrative order; about 5 percent were transferred to the
Resettlement Administration or to local relief agencies; 6 percent
received aid from relatives and friends or from other sources; and 8
percent were closed as a result of decreased needs and miscellaneous
reasons (table 12 and fig. 13).
Toflle 12.-Reason for Separation of Rural Relief Cases, July Throu9h October 1935,
by Month
(JOO countlc.i]

H.easou for separu.tlon

JulyOctober

---------------- --'Sumber __________________ . ____ . ___________ . __ _
P&cent_ - . -·----······ ...... ·····-··--· ...... .

July
---

Au,ru.,t

21,416
100.0

20,522
100. 0

43. 4
211. 6
6. 0
10. ~

49. 4

4i. 9
28. 2

15. 6

7. 2
12. -~

Works Protn'&m .....•....••••.......................
Works PrOl(ram w~e .................. ....... .
Civilian Couservstion Coq,s allotment ......... .

21. 4

4. 4
0. 5
3. 9

17. 1

6.6

Other public BSSistance ••••••••.....•................
Resettlement Administration .................. _.
Local agency •• _-··-·-····· ..................... .

4.;

9. 7

2. 6
2.1

2.3

Other BSSistsnce •• _••••..............................
From relativ<"l and friends ...................... _
From other sources .•.•. _....................... .

6. 2
3. 0
:. 2

Client moved or failed to report .. _·- ............... .

8. 4

8.5

Admlnlstratlve policy·······-·-······· ............. .

7. Q

11.9

Other 1•••••••••••••••• _ ••• ·-···--··· ••••••••••.•....

8.0

8. 8

8.1

Private industry._ .................. ·-· ............ .
Employment obtained ..•......•...•............
Increased earninl(S ..•............... . ............
Cropo marketed ............................... .

1 DecreMed

14. 8

z;, 4
6. t

Octoher

--- --- ---

79,126
100.0

--- --·

8 •t::,~m•

19.~I
100.U
---40. 0
2b. -I
6. 2
8. 4

100. 0

34. 7
2.~. 0
4. 0
5. 7

8. 7

41. 2
35. 7
5. 5

3.0
I. 4
1.6

3.6
0. 4
3. 2

1.6
0.3
1.3

4. 0

5. j
3. 1

5. 3

2. 6

5.0
2. 2
2. 8

4. 1
2. 4
I. 7

9. 2

7. 4

8. 2

9.0

8.0

4. 2

9. 3

6.0

i. 4

9. 3

8.K
8. 3

26. 7
18.0

li, 804

---

needs and miscellaneous reasons.

' For a further discussion of reasons for closing relief cases in the period March
through June 1935, see Droba, Daniel D., Reasons for Closing Rural Relief Cases,
March-Jum and July-October, 1935, Research Bulletin H-7, Division of Social
Reaearch, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., March 30, 1036.

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

44 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
The proportion of closings because of obtaining private employment
remained fairly constant during each of the 4 months July through
October 1935. The percentage because of marketing crops declined
from 16 percent in July to less than 6 percent in October.
The Civilian Conservation Corps was a factor of considerable
importance in removing families from general relief. In August 8
percent and in September 9 percent of all rural cases closed left the
relief rolls because of allotments from sons in CCC camps. The
Works Program claimed an increasingly large share of the closings as
it gained momentum; the proportion closed for this reason rose from
less than 1 percent in July to 36 percent in October. Assistance from
the Resettlement Administration was a factor of importance only in
July when 7 percent of all general relief closings consisted of families
which were transferred to the care of the Resettlement Administration under its rural rehabilitation program.
■ Employment
obtoined

~ Works Progrom
~ (including C.C.C.)

m
W

II
f71

Crops
marketed

~ Othe,

D

~ ossistonce

Increased
eorn,ngs
Other

reasons

et!rtenl

50

60

70

80

90

l00

July
August
September
October

F1G. 13-REASON FOR SEPARATION OF RURAL RELIEF CASES

JUiy through October 1935

Private industry took a larger proportion of skilled and semiskilled
workers than of any other occupational group off relief. Of all skilled
or semiskilled heads of cases who left the relief rolls July through
October 1935, 45 percent obtained jobs in private industry. Only 36
percent of the farm laborers and only 41 percent of the other unskilled
th0
workers obtained private employment. Less than 37 percent
heads of closed cases usually engaged in white-collar occupations found
private employment. Although inexperienced or retired workers
(workers without a usual occupation) were at a particular disadvantage
in getting work, 11 percent of all closed cases with such heads left
relief to accept private jobs. A few cases (8 percent) whose heads
were not workers were closed because some member of the household
secured work (table 13).

of

Dlglized by

Google

REASONS FOR OPENING AND CLOSING RELIEF CASES • 45

Cases with unemployable heads were usually able to leave the
general relief rolls only upon receipt of assistance from some other
source. Of all closed cases with unemployable heads, 16 percent were
transferred to local public welfare agencies; 16 percent were aided by
relatives and friends; and 11 percent found other sources of assistance.
However, 13 percent of all closed cases with unemployable heads were
closed as a result of the employment of a member in private industry
and 11 percent were closed because a member secured employment on
the Works Program.
Tol,le 13.-Reason for Separation of Rural Relief Cas~s, July Through October 1935,
by Usual Occupation of the Head
(300 counties)
Usual occu patlon or head
Reason for separation

Total

1

Farm

operator

Skilled
FBrnl Whit~
and
Un•
semi- skilled
laborer collar
skilled

No
usual

Head
not a
worker
patlon
OCCU·

-- -- -------- -Number ..•.................... 79,096
Percent. ....................... 100.0

26,948
100.0

13,644
100.0

2,700
100.0

9,862
100.0

17,844
100.0

1,140
100.0

8,058
100.0

43. 4
26. 6
6. 0
10.8

41.i
10. 4
I. 5
29.8

48.6
35.8
II. 5
I. 3

46. 5
36. 6
8. 3
1.6

53. 4

&1.4
40.8
9.8
0.8

12. I

45. I
6.8
I. 5

10. 8

0.9
0.4

13. 3
8.0
I. 7
3.6

Works Program ••.•••...............
Works P r ~ wage.....
. ..
Civilian
onservatlon Corps
allotment •••••••••••.••••.•.•••

21. 4
14. 8

22.0
13.3

21.6
15.11

17. g
13.8

23. 5
18.9

24. 7
18.11

22.8
11. 7

10.V
5.2

6.6

8. 7

5. 7

4. I

4.6

6. 8

11. I

5. 7

Other public 8'1S!stanoe..•......•....
Resettlement .Administration ....
Local ageoo:,. - -•••••••••..•.•...

4. 7

1.2
o. 7
0.5

1. 3
0.9
0.4

I. 4

). 4

2.6
2. I

6.6
6. 2
0.4

I.I
0.3

0.8
0.6

5.8
0.4
&. 4

16.6
0. 7
15.11

Other 8'1Sistanoe .••••••••.••..•••.•..
From relatives and friends .......
From other sources .•••...•......

6. 2
3.0
3.2

4.6
0.8
3.8

o.v

2.9
2. 0

5. 4
2.8
2. 6

2. 5
1.2
1. 3

2. 8
1.6
1.2

20.2
10. 7
11.5

26. 4
15. 5
10.11
10.0

Pri'rate lndwtry ................. _..
Employment obtained ........
Increased earnings ...•.........
Crops marketed •••••........... :

---- ---- --

Client moved or failed to report .• _..

8.4

7.2

8.&

10.0

II.I

8.2

12. 3

.Administrative policy •.•••••.•......

7. V

8. 7

8.2

11. 2

5. 9

6.1

11. g

9.6

Other• .••••••••••...•.••............

8.0

11. 2

11.0

7. 7

4. 2

5. 4

14. 11

13.2

1 The total does TJot check with that for table 12 a., usual occupation ol the head was unknown for 30 08888.
• Decreased n-15 and mlsoellBDeOus reasons.

Of all cases with inexperienced heads that were closed, 11 percent
secured private employment. Such cases were particularly successful
in getting CCC employment because of the large proportion of
youth among them. Eleven percent of these cases were closed for
that reason. Nearly 12 percent of the inexperienced heads obtained
Works Program employment.
As a reason for closing relief cases, private industry was most
important in the New England and Northern States and least important in the Southern States. The situation was reversed with respect
to the Works Program, however, for the Works Program got under
way more rapidly in the South than in other regions and CCC

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

46 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
allotments were most likely to take southern cases off relief (appendix
table 15).
NET EFFECT OF PRIVATE INDUSTRY

During the summer of 1935 there was a large movement of rural
families from relief rolls because of private industry. This movement
resulted from the securing of remunerative jobs and from increased
earnings from current employment. While some workers secured
jobs or had their pay increased, however, others lost their jobs or had
their pay decreased through reductions in wage rates or in hours
worked so that they were forced to seek relief to meet their needs. As
a result a large part of the movement from relief to private industry
was offset by an opposite movement and the net effect of private
industry in reducing the relief rolls was relatively small.
From July through October 1935 the excess of separations over
accessions resulted in a decline of 31 percent in the total rural relief
caseload (table 14 and appendix table 16). Thenetdecreasebecauseof
private industry amounted to 14 percent of the June load, while the
net decrease because of other reasons, including employment under the
Works Program, amounted to 44 percent of all June cases. During
this period only 55 c~ses were opened or reopened for every 100 cases
closed, but for every 100 cases closed because a member obtained a
job or increased earnings in private industry, 76 cases were opened or
reopened because of loss of job or reduction in earnings.
Taftle J.f.-Net Change in the Rural Relief Case Load1 July Through October 1935,
Because of Private Industry 1 and Otner Reasons
[300 counties]
Reason tor secession or separation

Item
Prlvste
Industry

Total

Aroe.ss!on~ .•........................... .. .... . .. . . . . . . .....
Separations ••••••...••••....••.•.•............................

43,510
71), 130

Other

26,162
34,344

17,:wl

«. 7!MI

Aooe&'!ions per 100 separations .....•.......•................•.

55

76

39

Net chsnge ..........•••..•.•...••.....•.......•..............
Percent change•.•...•..•.••.••...............................

-35,6~
-30.5

-8, 182
-7.0

-71, 438
-23.,5

' Including cases opened or reopened because of Joss ol Job or decreased earnings and CMM closed because of
Job secured or increased earnings.
• Net change per 100 cases on relief in June.

The net effect of private employment upon the relief rolls differed
by months and by the usual occupation of the household head. During July, August, and September private industry contributed 76 or
77 cases to relief rolls for every 100 it removed. In October more
households went from private industry to relief than left the relief
r,)lls to take private jobs (table 15).

Dg1

zerJbyGooglc

REASONS FOR OPENING AND CLOSING RELIEF CASES • 47

Tol,/e 15.-Accessions to Rural Relief per 100 Separations, July Through October 1935 1
I

Because of Private Industry
of the Case

and Other Reasons, by Usual Occupation of the Head
counties]

(300

1uly

C

5
0

i;..

TotaL ••.•••.•.•••. -

66

= 51
A~riculture ...............

f"arm operntc,r ........
Farm In borer ..••.....
:-. onnirriculture ...........
White collar .•....•...

60
65

8kille<I ............•...

67
67
80
44

Semiskilled .•.........
l'nskilled ..•.........
All other'·········· ......

a

~

'O

Usual occupetion or head

71

65

August

-;;~
;;.:
p.,

.

I.

~

September

a

~

--!i. ... .~

'O

5

.

!::

.

.c

a

~

·-p... .I
. .c"'

'O

C

October

5

.,

~

C

'O

·-., ....

C

C

30

;;-

.c:

1il
f

1

0
0 ... ~
0 ... il:;
0
-- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -77

0

i;..

·i::
p.,

0

46

60

76

35

48

77

34

42
44
34
63
60
62
62
60
40

48

97
IOI
95
63

32
33

4Y

34
40

2\)

100
121
90

64

2'!
35
'J:1

67

107

61

66
63

134
164
120

64
64

116

45
M
25
48
31
33
32

- 79
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6-,
----JOO
69
76
59
60
69

~6
77

42

62
49
53
45
M
49

56

60

i2

34

48
45
50
45
50

62
81

34
52

44

fl()

28
28

50

96

45

n

56

33
34
32

71
65
71

20

66
61
~5
91

IUI
119

104
75
116

58
88

, Including cases opened or reopened becau.., or losa or job or decreased earnings and cases closed because or
Joh secured or increa~d earnin1!s.
• No usual occupation and head not a worker.

The rapid decline in the number of agricultural families on relief
was accounted for partly by private employment obtained or increased
earnings from private employment, exclusive of the sale of farm produce. During the 4 months, July through October 1935, for every 100
farm operator families by usual occupation which left relief rolls for
private industry, 74 farm operator familiea came on relief rolls because
of loss of support from private employment. These included farmers
who had lost their farms, part-time farmers who had lost their off-thefarm source of income, and ex-farmers who bud entered the labor
market but had lost their jobs. Farmers who left relief because of
private industry were those who had obtained farms or jobs. 6 The
situation regarding farm laborers was similar. For every 100 farm
laborers who left relief because of private industry, 91 came on relief
because of private industry in the 4-month period (table 16).
Private industry provided jobs or increased pay with sufficient
frequency to contribute to the net decrease in each class of nonagricultural families. For white-collar, skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled
household heads the num her of accessions per 100 separations because of
industry ranged from 68 to 76 for the period July through October
1935 ° (table 16).
The ratio of cases that lost jobs and sought relief to cases that
found jobs and left relief from July through October varied considerably among the States sampled. At one extreme was Louisiana
6 Farm families which came on relief hecause of crop failure or livestock loss
and which left relief hecause of marketing farm produce are not inrluded here
since the net effect of these factors rould not be determined.
e For industries responsible for closing rural relief cases see appendix table 18.

[)91.zedbyGooglc

48 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

where the number of accessions to relief because of loss of job or
decreased earnings in private industry was 397 per 100 separations
from relief because of jobs or increased earnings obtained in private
industry. At the other extreme was Iowa. where the ratio of openings
to closings because of private industry wa.s only 34 (appendix table 17).
Tol,le 16.-Accessions to Rural Relief per 100 Separations, July Through October 1935,
.Because of Private Industry 1 and Other Reasons, by Region and Usual Occupation ot
the Head of the .Case
(300 counties)

All States sampled JI Northern Stale!! 13 Southern States

§

.,.. -5I.

-

0

E-

Agriculture ..•........•...
Farm operator ........
Farm laborer ..••.....
Nonagriculture ..•........
White collar ...•......
Skilled .......••....•..
Semiskilled •.••••.••..
UnskJlled ....•.......
All other• •••........•....

>,

!l !::

if

0

-- --

!

!!!

I
it
g!

.;

if

E-

'tl

C

3
Total. ••..••..••••..

§

!!!

'tl

Usual occupation of bead

3
0

E-

1
0

-- - - -M

55

76

39

51
57
57
55
52
58
511
57

i4
91
ii
76
68
76
70
83

35

45

26

56
56
64

ea

43

!

!!!

'tl

~

8 Western Stalea

it
g!
if

I

I
0

58

1()4

37

58
58

)111
Ill
91

37

!!!

'tl

30
e..

it
g!
if

I
Ii!

-5
0

48

57

34

41

53
72

48
87
51

52
84
57
47
47
112

27
27
36

= 53 - 80- - 3~- - 48- - 60- - 32-- 58- -115- -= 47 = 112 - 27
33
41
37
34
37
45
53

M
75

33

65

41
37
37
46
41
72

60
56

68
r.9
68
M

73

79

51

28

Ill
51
55
63

84
48

82
113
107
88
98

23
43
34

31
32
49
43

M

43
41

45

48

40
M
32

42

• Includinl( cases opened or reopened because of loss of Job or decreased earnings and ~ cl09ed because
ofJob secured or increased earninl(S.
No usual occupation and head not a worker.

Dg1

zeelb,-Google

Part Ill
Characteristics oF the Rural
Relief Population

49

Dig l1zed by

Goog lC

Chapter V
SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF HOUSEHOLDS

THE SIZE and structure of the rural relief houschol<l are important
in relation both to the problem of restoring it to self-support and to
the problem of financing public assistance. Small households are
less likely than large households to include persons able to work who,
when job opportunities arise, will be able to take their families off the
relief rolls. Furthermore, the amount of funds necessary for relief
depends upon the size and structure as well as upon the number of
cases in need.
SIZE OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS

Rural relief cases in 1935 were generally larger than were "private
families," in the 1930 general rural population as defined by the
To&le 17.-Size of Rural Relief Cases,' June and October 1935, and of All Rural
Families,3 1930, by Residence
Relief cases

Total
rural

Open
country

.\ 11 rural
families,
IU30 I

October 1U35

June IY35

Size of case or family

Village

Total

rural

Open
country

V!U~e

----------1---- --- --- --- --- --- --Numher _________________

Percent__________________
1 pe?!!On _________________ . _____ .
2 persons ______________________

.

3J>ersoDB----·-·················
4 persons. ________________ ..... .
5 J>ersons ______ . _____ .......... .
6 persons _______ ............. .
7 persons _________________ ..... .
R J>ersons. _____ ... __ ........... .

gpersons. _____________________ _
10 persons ____________ ... ---·.

11 persons ____________________ _

12 persons or more._. ___ ..... .

Median ______________ ..

116,950
100.0

71,278
100.0

45,672
100.0

s;,898
100.0

M,034
100.0

32.864
100.0

9,491.106
100.0

9.8
16. 6
17. 4
15. 9
12. 9
9. 8
7. 0
4. 7
2. 9
1.6
0. 8
0. 6

8.0
15. 0
16. 9
16. 0
13. 6
10. 4
7. 8
5. 3
3. 4
1.9
I. 0
0. 7

12.6
19. 1
18. 0
15. 8
I I. 8
8. 9
6. 8
3. 8
2. I
1.2
0. 5
0. 4

10.2
18. 0
17. 7
14. 9
12. 8
9. 6
6. 0
4. 4
2. 5
1.6
0. 8
0. 6

7.9
16. 4
17. 2
15, 2
13. 7
10. 5
7. 7
6. 0
2. 8
1.8
I. 0
0. 8

14.2
20. 3
18. 7
14. 6
11. 3
8. I
5. 6
3. 4
2. 0
1.2
0. 5
0. 2

~l 5
18, 8
16. 6
12. 6
8. 9
6. 0
4. 0
2. 5
1.4
0. 7
0. 6

- - - 3 - . 9 - 1 ~ --3.-5 --3.-8

i--4.-I

7.4

--3.-3 - - 3 - .7

• RIL-ed on sample of 300 countios repr!'St'ntin~ 30 8tatp_s.
• Hase<! on complet,i census of ao States.
• Fi/tum/a Cemiu e/1/it United State,: /9,0, Population Vol. VI,

51

01g 11,ed by

G oog Ie

52 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

United States Bureau of the Gensus. 1 Rural relief cases having six
or more persons comprised 27 percent of all cases in the June rural
relief load as compared with 24 percent, the proportion which families
of this size constituted of the total rural population in 1930. Cases
of from two to five persons constituted 63 percent of the rural relief
population, whereas families of this size made up 69 percent of the
total rural population in 1930. About 10 percent of all rural relief
cases were one-person cases while only 7 percent of the total rural
families were of this type (table 17 and fig. 14).
25

25

I

Al l rural families,
1930
Rural relief coses,
June 19 35
~ Rural relief coses ,
October 1935

II

20

15

20

15

i

i

I.

l

10

10

5

5

0

2

3

4

6
5
Number of persons

7

8

9

10 or more

0

FIG. 14-SIZE OF RURAL RELIEF CASES, JUNE ANO OCTOBER 1935,
ANO OF ALL RURAL FAMILIES, 1930

.......

•~---,
Chansa In Size of HouMholdl, February Through October 1935

The average size of rural relief cases declined slightly during 1935.
In February of that year the average rural relief case contained 4.1
persons. This average decreased to 4.0 in June and to 3.9 in October.
In the open country the average size of the relief household decreased
from 4.3 in February to 4.1 in October. Village cases averaged 3.5
persons in February but decreased to 3.4 in October (table 18).
Being employable to a greater extent, large households left the relief
rolls much more rapidly during 1935 than did small households. The
number of one-person households on rural relief rolls decreased only
18 percent from February to June and only 21 percent from June to
October, while the number of two-person households decreased 27
and 24 percent, respectively, in the two periods (table 19). Cases
with three or more persons declined still more rapidly from February
to June, the number dropping by about one-third, but from June to
1

See appendix C for definition of a private family.

D91

zeabyGooglc

SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF HOUSEHOLDS • 53
To&le 78.-Size of Rural Relief Cases, February, June, and Odober 1935, by Residence
(138 counties]
February

June

October

Open
T"tal
rural country Vill"l(e

Total
Open
rural country Vill"l(e

Total
Open
rural country Village

511,41K
100.0

35,782
IUO.O

22, 712
100.0

43,932
100.0

26, «o
100.0

17,492
100.0

16. 2
16. 8
16.1
12.9
10.0
7. 1
4. 8
3.2
1.8
0.9
o. 7

14. 2
16. 2
16. 4
13. 5
10. i
8.1
5. 6
3. 8
2.1
I. 2
0.8

19.6
17. 9
15. 9
11.9
8.8
5.4
3. 6
2. 2
I. 3
o. 5
0. 4

16. 5
17. 6
15. 3
13. 5
10.1
6.9
4.6
2. 9
1.4
0.8
0.6

14. 5
16.6
16. 5
14.2
11.5
8.2
6.1
3.4
1. 7
1.0
0.8

19. 6
19. 3
15.0
12.4
7. 9
5.0
3. 6
2. I
1.0
0.4
0.2

Rite or case

---- ---------- --

?somber ______ -----_ .. 84,132 56, 7511 27,374
Percent_ ______________ 100.0
100.0
100.0
1 penon _____________________ - - - 8.0
6.9
12. 4
2 persons ____________________
15. 4
13. 6
19. 2
3 persons ____________________
16.6
16. 9
18.0
4 persons ________________ ... _
16. 4
16.9
15. 9
6 persons ____________________
13. 4
14. 2
II. 7
II persons________________ . ___
10. 2
10.9
8. 7
7 persons ___________ . _____ .. _
7.
4
8.1
6. 8
8 persons ____________________
5. 2
5.8
4.0
9 persons ____________________
3.
3
3.9
2.0
10 persons ___________________
1.9
2.1
I. 4
11 persons ___________________
1.2
1.0
0.6
12 persons or more __________
0.9
0.9
0.3

- - - 9.-6 - 7.-5 -12.- 9.9
- - 7.-5 - 13.6
5

Median

1 .. _ ------------

----- -- -=
- 4.-1 - 4.-3 - 3.-5 - 4.0
4. 2
3.6
3.9

4.1

-3.4

1 The slight dlfferenoos in median number of persons per case between this table end table 17 are due to
the ract that this table is based on the 138 counties constituting the ares "8Ulple, whereas table 17 is b8.'led on
the larger State sample of 300 counties.

To&le 79.-Percent Decrease in Rural Relief Cases, February-June and Jun....Odober
1935, by Size of Case and Residence
[138 counties]
Percent decrea.se
February-June (February-100.0)

Site or case

Total rural

AIJca.,es________________

30.5

Open
country

Total rural

Village

37.0

June-October (June-100.0)

17.0

Open

Vllla~e

country

24. 9

26.1

23.0

l====l====l====l====l,====I,====

1 person______________________
2 persons______________________
3persons______________________
4persons______________________
5 persons .. ____________________
6persons______________________
7persons______________________
8 persons______________________
II persons______________________
10 persons_____________________
11 persons_____________________
12 persons or more .. ____ . __ .. _

17. 8
26. 6
31.2
31.8
33. 2
31. 9
33.3
35. 8
33. 6
35. 1
32. 7
38. 8

19. 8
3:l. 8
38.5
38.5
40. 1
38.0
37.3
39. 7
39. 5
38. 5
35. 2
44. 4

15. 8
16.1
17.3
17.1
15. 8
15.9
21.9
23. 9
10. 5
24. 5
21. 6

t

21. 4
24. 0
21. 4
28. 9
21. 3
24. 2
26. 2
29. 7
31. 5
38. 1
38, 3
34. 9

26.
24.
24.
30.

i
5
2
0

22. 3

20. 8
25. 2
32. l
33.9
38.0
37. 9
27. 5

16. 5
23. 4
17.4
27.2
19. 5
30.6
28.11
24. o
25.1
38. 5
40.0

t

t Percent not computed on a base or rewer than 100 cases.

October only the largest cases decreased to this extent. These
differential rates were in part a result of transfers of large families to
the rural rehabilitation program.
STRUCTURE OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS

The rural relief household is synonymous with the rural relief case,
that is, with the person or group of persons that receives relief as a
unit. In analyzing the case loads surveyed in this study it was
found that about five-sixths of these relief units were family groups

Dig l1zed by

Goog lC

54 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

of husband and wife with or without children (normal families) or of
one parent with chil<lren (broken families), with or without other
persons, such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc., attached to the
household. The other one-sixth of the relief cases included persons
living alone, or receiving relief alone, and nonfal\lliy groups of persons
living together without immediate marital or parental-filial ties
(fig. 15 and appendix table 19).
mJlll

U

om,lies without
other persons
,n household
f:.

~ Families with
~ other persons

in household

n

~ Nonfomily

W

~ groups

One-person
households

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FIG. 15-TYPE OF HOUSEHOLDS ON RELIEF IN
RURAL AREAS, BY RESIDENCE
June 1935

A greater proportion of family groups was found in the open country
than in villages, owing to the much grenter proportion of one-person
relief households in villages (13-14 percent) than in the open country
(8 percent) (appendix table 19). The proportion of nonfamily
groups was about the same in the open country as in villages (6-8
percent).
The relative importance of each of the major household types
changed very little from June to October 1935. Between the two
months a general decrease of about 25 percent took place in the total
number of rural cases receiving relief. The rate of decline for nonfamily groups, family groups, and one-person households was 27, 25,
and 21 percent, respectively (appendix table 19).
Nearly all types of households declined more rapidly in villages
than in the open country between June and October. This residence
difference resulted from the greater employment opportunities in the
small ind us tries of villages, opportunities in which farmers could not
share dming the growing and harvest seasons. The only striking
exceptions to the proportionately greater decrease in villages were
found in the case of unattached women and nonfamily groups with
aged women at the head, types that declined much more rapidly in
the open country than in villages.
The Rural Relief Family

For purposes of social analysis the family, as characterized by
marital and/or parental relationships, is analyzed separately in this

Dig llzed by

Google

SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF HOUSEHOLDS • 55

study from the other types of households which make up the relief
case load.
The great majority (88-90 percent) of the families on relief in rural
areas in June and October 1935 were families alone, that is, without
other related or unrelated persons attached to the household (appendix
table 20). Families to which other persons were attached left the
rural relief rolls more rapidly between June and October than did
cases consisting of families alone (appendix table 19). This would
be expected since the households consisting of families with other
persons were larger, had more workers, and hence had greater chances
of obtaining employment.
The presence in the household of persons other than members of
the immediate family occurred somewhat more frequently in the
open country than in villages. The explanation may lie in a greater
tendency on the part of farm families to attempt to support needy
relatives.
■ 1-klsband

~ Father and
~ children

~ Husband, wile,
~ and children

and wife

r.::-1

W

Mother and
children

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

RURAL
Open COUl'llry
Village

FIG. 16-TYPE OF FAMILIES ON RELIEF IN RURAL AREAS,

BY RESIDENCE
June 1935

Normal. Families

The great majority of all rural relief families were classified as normal in that they contained persons related as husband and wife with
or without children. By far the largest class of families consisted
of parents and children. About seven-tenths of all families on relief
were of this type and usually there were no other persons in the relief
household. Approximately one-sixth of all families were couples
without children or not living with their children (fig. 16 and
appendix table 20).
Proportionately more normal families were found in the open country than in villages, and among normal families more couples without
children were found in villages than in the open country. These
results are in accordance with generally accepted theories concerning
the social solidarity of the farm family.

Dig t1zed by

G oog IC

56 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
The proportion of normal families in the rural relief population
differed widely by agricultural areas. In the Eastern Cotton Area
only one-third and in the Western Cotton Area less than two-fifths
of all Negro families on relief in June 1935 were normal family groups
of parents with children. The largest proportion of normal families
with children was found in the Spring Wheat Area where four-fifths
of the families on relief were of this type (table 20).
A normal family with children had a somewhat better chance of
getting off the relief rolls than did a couple without children. From
June to October 1935 the number of families with children declined
27 percent while families without children declined only 21 percent
(appendix table 19).
Ta&le JO.-Type of Households on Relief in Rural Areas, June 1935, by Area
[138 counties)

All households

Nonnalfamllles

c

::I

'O

~c
"

f

Area

!8
:,

:,

.c

;;

~

30

"
:l

Broken

Nonfamlly

larnili8"

K?OIJps

1.c

.c

., .
C '-

:l'O

.

""I!

30

.c
.,
'ii
)1

'ii

.
8

30

1.c., 1.c'ii.
'ii

~

I-person
households

"" -E- -ti -~ -E- - - -E- - - -E-- -,:

All areas .•••..•••.•. 58,494 100.0 72. 9 69.2 13. 7 10.9
Eastern Cotton ... _..• _...
White ...••...........
Negro ......•..•.•....
Western Cotton..........
White .....•..•.••....
Nel!To ............•...
Appa]!l('hian•Or.ark ......
Lake States Cut•Over ....
Corn Belt. ...............
II ay and Dairy ...........
Winter Wheat.. ..........
Spring Wheat .....•.•....
Ranching .................

-- --7,732
6,084
2. 648
7,268
6,432
1.836
Ii. 016
3,792
7,512
8,6211
I. 288
3. J74
1,886

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
IOU. 0
)IX!. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0

62.11
68.8
60. 6
70.5
76. 2
63. 6
76. 5
63. 8
76. 6
76. l
79. 2
79.8
67. 3

r,..

2.6

8.3

)1

r,..

6. 7

4.8

1.9

2. 9 14.8 6. 9
2. 2 19. 3 10. 5
2.9 IO. 6 7. 3
2. 7 9. 2 6. 4
3.5 14.8 10.0
2. 8 7. 9 6. 7
2.6 6.9 6.9
2. 5 6. 5 6. 6
2. I 6. 6 6.9
2. 7 6. i 5. 6
2. 4 4. 2 5. 3
1.6 7. 7 5. 8

3.9
8. 8
6.1
4.8
6.9
6. I
6. I
6. 2
4. 7
5. 3
4. 5
4.0

3.0
6. 7
2.2
1.6
4.1
1.6
0.8
I. 4
1.2
0. 3
0.8
1.8

-s
)1

30
-

9.6

.,
.,8

-;;
r,..

-

11.4 3. 1

-48.4 - 14.2 -19.0 - 2. i -16.3 - 8.1 - 3.8 - 4.3 -10.3 - 4.6 -6. 7
66. I
33. 8
65.2
61.3
37. 0
64.0
51. 5
61. 3
61. 9
59. 3
70.1
63.8

12. i
16.8
15. 3
14. 9
16. 6
12. 5
12. 3
15. 3
14. 2

19. g
9. 7,
13. 51

17. 7
21. 5
13.5
11. 9
18.3
10. 7
8.5
8.0
7. 7
8. 4
6. 6
9.3

6.6 3.3
17. 4 6.9
8. 7 4.6
6.5 3.4
18. 1 8.0
6.1 4. 4
21.8 19. 3
8.8 6.8
10. 3 7.2
6.8 6.1
8.3 6.6
17. 6 12. 2

3.3
IO. 5
4.1
2. 1
10.1
I. 7
2. 5
3.0
3.1
1. 7
1.8
5. 4

Broken Families

About 13 percent of all rural relief families in June and October
1935 were broken, one parent being absent. Most of these broken
families consisted of mothers and children and about half of these
mother-and-children families included only children under 16 years
of age (appendix table 20). A larger proportion of broken families
in the villages than in the open country were of the mother-andchildren type. Excessively large proportions of broken families,
mostly mothers and children, were found among both whites and
Negroes on relief in the South (table 20).
As was to be expected, broken families left relief rolls more slowly
than did normal families. While normal families decreased 26 percent from June to October 1935, broken families decreased only 20
percent. Broken families with male heads declined much more

Dig llzed by

Google

SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF HOUSEHOLDS • 57

rapidly than did those with female heads (appendix table 19). Many
of the broken families with female heads represented mothers with
dependent children who were kept on general relief rolls pending
completion of plans for their assistance under the Social Security Act.
Nonfa1111lly Groups

Nonfamily groups formed about 7 percent of all rural relief cases
(appendix table 19). Although the actual composition of these
groups was·not determined, it may be assumed that some of these
cases were aged parents living with a son or daughter who had become head of the household; others were aged men or women living
with relatives other than their children; others were persons living
with brother, sister, or more distant relatives; while a few were heads
of unrelated groups of two or more persons living together.
The age and sex distribution of the heads of nonfamily groups
differed greatly from the distribution of all heads. A disproportionately large number of women, especially aged women, were found
among them.
One-Penon Households

One-person households constituted approximately 10 percent of all
rural relief cases (appendix table 19). In June 1935 two-thirds of
these one-person households were men while one-third were women.
About two-fifths of the men and one-half of the women were 65 years
of age and over (table 21). In comparison with the open country an
excessively large proportion of aged females was found in villages.
Taf,/e JT.-Sex and A9e ol 1-Person Households on Relief in Rural Areas, June and
October 1935, by Residence
[300 counties}
Totalrural

Open country

Village

Sex and 1111e
June

Number ________________

October

June

October

June

October

D, 116
100.0

6,732
100.0

4,430
100.0

6,828
100.0

4,Mtl

100.0

63.2
35. 3
27.11

74. 7
45.8
28.9

73.4
41.4
32.0

62. 1

IIHl4
years
...over_.
-·----------66
yeers
and
_______

68. 4
42. 4
26.0

63.11
211.6

Female __________ .. ____ . -- -- -l&-64 years ...... __________
66 years and over. ________

31.6
15.8
16. 8

36.8
18.3
18. 6

25.3
13. 21
12. 1

211.6
13.4
13. 2

37.D
18.6
19.3

Perceni ________ .. __ .. ___

Male _________________________

IJ, 560

39.0
23. 1

100.0

24.1

46.4

22.8
23.G

The age and sex distribution of one-person households changed
greatly from June to October, owing to a rapid decline in the number
of males on relief in villages (31 percent) but at the same time to an
almost negligible decline in the number of females on relief (1.4 percent) (appendix table 19). In the open country the number of

01g 11,ed by

G oog Ie

58 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

males on relief also declined more rapidly than the number of females
during this period.
The largest percentage of one-person cases was found in the Lake
States Cut-Over Area. where 22 percent of all cases consisted of
unattached individuals (table 20). Many of these cases were unemployed lumbermen.

DgitzeclbyGoogle

Chapter VI
AGE AND SEX

RecENT TRENDS in relief administration have shown a tendency to
recognize the special needs of certain groups and to differentiate these
groups for treatment. As a basis for such differentiation age and sex
have been considered relevant factors. Special assistance programs
directed toward meeting the needs of children, of the aged, of youth,
and of able-bodied adults cover the entire life span of individuals.
Special provisions for male and female youth and work projects for
women indicate recognition of the different problems of men and
women workers. It is the purpose of this chapter to present an
analysis of the age and sex composition of the population that comprised the rural relief load in 1935 and to show the relative importance
of those groups for which special relief programs have been designed.
The age and sex composition of the rural relief population differed
considerably from that of the general rural population (fig. 17 and
appendix table 21). The relief group was younger than the general
rural population in 1930. The total population had about 8 percent
more males than females, but the sexes were about equal in the relief
group with only a slight excess of males.
AGE DISTRIBUTION

Children were overrepresented in the rural relief population of June
1935 as in all other rural relief groups previously studied. 1 More
than 26 percent of the total rural relief population was under 10 years
of age, whereas only 23 percent of the total rural population in 1930
was less than 10 years old (appendix tables 22 and 23).
An excess of children was characteristic of each State sampled except
South Carolina and West Virginia. It was greatest in the W estem
States and least in the Southern States.
1 See, for example, Beck, P. G. and Forster, M. C., Six Rural Problem Area..,
Relief-Ruourcu-Reha&ilitati(J'TI,, Research Monograph I, Division of Research,

Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington,
D. C., 1935, pp. 46-48; and McCormick, T. C., Comparative Study of Rural Relief
and N(J'Tl,-Relief HoUlleholds, Research Monograph JI, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935, pp. 27 and 29.
59

01g 11,ed by

G oog Ie

60 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
~ Glnlral .rural population, 1930

•

Plrclnt

Rural relief population, June 1935
Percent

10
5
0
5
10
15
,,,.__________
_,0 Age In years------.---------

15

60·64
56•59
50-54

45•49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19

10•15
Under 10
Male

Female

FIG.17· AGE*ANO SEX OF THE RURAL RELIEF POPULATION, JUNE 1935,
ANO OF THE GENERAL RURAL POPULATION, 1930**
*Exclusive of persons 65 years of age ond over

**FiftHnth Census of the Unitt1d States: 19:30,
Population Vol. II.

Similarly, 43 percent of the June rural relief population was under
16 years of age as compared with 37 percent of the general rural population of 1930 (table 22). By October 1935 the proportion of children
under 16 years of age in the relief population had increased to 45
percent of the total as the proportion of youth declined. The percentage of children in the relief population was greater in the open
country than in villages, but in both residence groups the percentage
of children increased during the latter part of 1935.
Youth 16-24 years of age were slightly underrepresented in the
rural relief population of June 1935 as compared with the total rural
population of 1930 and were underrepresented still more in October
1935. Adults 25--64 years of age were strikingly underrepresented in
both months. Aged persons 65 years of age and over were present in

DgitzeclbyGoogle

AGE AND SEX •

61

the rural relief population in about the same proportion as in the tot.al
1930 population (table 22).
To&le .2!.-Age of Rural Relief Persons,1 June and October 1935, and of the Genaal
Rural Population,2 1930, by Residence
Total rural

Vlllale

Open country

0--1

Ap

lune

October

lune

October

lune

October

r:1~
lllBO

--Number ...............
Percent ••...•..........

uo,ns

3'3,974

6IIO, 180

3118,860

100.0

100.0

100.0

UI.O

14. 6
36.1

Ul.O

14. 6

:M. 9

6. 6

4. fl

:M. 3
4. 7

100.0

17'9,tM
100.0

Uf.879

100.0

61,UO,Zla
100.0

lfl. l
37.2
6.0

42.1
14. fl

87. 0

311.4

--------- -43.1- --Under Ul:,ean ...............
«. 6
411.6
40. 7
44. II

l&-24 YNl'II •••••..............

~ , - ...................
116 years and over •............
• 300

36. 7
6.2

6.11

111.11

40. 7
6.4

counties.

• Fl/'"""6 en,., ofllu Unu.d Stalu. 1980, Population Vol. III.

AGE COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS

About two-thirds (66 percent) of all June 1935 rural relief households contained children under 16 years of age (appendix table 24),
while 18 percent of all rural cases contained aged persons 65 years of
age and over (appendix table 25). One-fifth (21 percent) of all cases
contained no person within the dependent ages, under 16 or over 64
years (appendix table 26).
Children In Relief HoUNholdl

Generally speaking, a. larger proportion of cases in the Southern
States than in other regions contained children. The New England region showed the smallest proportion with children (appendix table 24).
Mora open country than village relief cases contained children.
Whereas 69 percent of all open country households included persons
Tol,le !3.-Rural Relief Cases With Children I Under 16 Years of Age, by Residence,
Number of Children, and Region
(300 counties]

All States
ll&Dlpled

Residence and number of children

11 North- 18 Southem States ern States

fl W•tern

State.

TOT AL RUILAL

Number ••••.•••••••..................... - - . -

70,008

Peroent •••••••................................

100.0

1 cbild •.•••••••..•••••.••...•...................... _2 cbildren •.••..•........ -····•··· ·········•·· ---... -- 3 ohildren or more..................................... .

26. 7
24. 2
48.1

48.8

811,088
100.0
26.11
24.0
60.1

7,IIIIO
100.0
28.8
26.8
46.11

111, lflO

26, 140

I, ll80

~832

100.0

27.4
23.8

OPSlf OOU!lftY

Number .•.••.......... _. ___ .. _...... __ .. __ ......

46,280

l'llroent •....•••....•....•............••.....•.... ,___100_._o
1 cblld •••.••••..... _..........•.........•.•...... _. _. _.

VJLLAOS

Number ••••.•••.•. __ ..••••... _.. _..... _. _... _.. _

l'erolnt . .........................................

26. 6
22. 6
62. o

23. 4
62. 0

24. fl

28. 4
26. 8
44. 8

26, 1128

10, 1172

10, tMe

4,010
100.0
28.2
24. 7
47.1

_ _1_00_.0_ _ _ _
100_.0_ _ _ _
100._0
1
1
1
1

1 ohild ••••.... __ •......••.......... _....... ___ .... __ _
2 cbildnlll •..............•................ _____ .. __ . __
8 cbildren or more•... _......... _....... _._. __ .. ____ ... _
1 Doll not Include ofllll-.

23. 4
61. 4

26. 2

2 ohildnlll ••••......•..•..••................. , ....... __ .
3 chlldren or more..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

_ _1_00_.0_1-_ _
100_.0_1-_ _1_00._o
1

211. 4
25. 6
46. 1

30. 2
26. fl
44. 2

211. o
26. 6
46. 4

with both children and aced pel'l!Ons, a cl- which constituted about 6 percent

og,t,edbyGooglc

62 • CHA_NGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
under 16 years of age, only 60 percent of the village cases had children
(appendix table 24).
Also, open country cases with children reported more children per
household than did village cases. Open country relief cases that
contained children had on the average 2.9 children per household,
while village cases had 2.6 children per household. Only 25 percent
of the open country families with children had but one child as compared with 29 percent of the village families. More than one-half
(51 percent) of the open country cases with children had three or
more in comparison with 45 percent of the village cases (table 23).
Aged Penons in Relief HOUMholch

The several States sampled showed wide differences with respect to
the proportion of cases containing aged persons. The ratio varied
from 8 percent in Louisiana to 30 percent in South Carolina (appendix
table 25). The general tendency was for relatively more village than
open country cases to contain aged persons although there were
numerous exceptions from State to State.
The average number of aged persons per case having such persons
was 1.2, a ratio which showed relatively little variation by residence
or from State to State.
Casa .Without Children or Ated Penons

Relatively fewer cases without old or young dependents appeared
on relief rolls in the Southern States than in the rest of the country.
In Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee only 14 percent of all
cases were without old or young dependents. At the opposite extreme
were the Western States. In California 32 percent and in Oregon 31
percent of all cases had neither children nor aged persons (appendix
table 26).
FERTILITY OF RELIEF FAMILIES

The excessive proportion of young children in relief households is
due in part to a more complete enumeration of young children by the
relief survey than by the general census of 1930. An excess of
children in the relief population would of course be expected since
relief officials when working with limited funds tend to select the
families with the most dependents to receive assistance. However,
even if all households in need were accepted on the relief rolls regardless of size of family and number of dependents, the excess of children
would probably still appear, owing to the generally high birth rates
among low income groups. 2 As has been picturesquely stated, the
1 Thompson, Warren S., Ratio of Children to Women 191!0, Monograph XI,
United States Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C., 1931, pp. 13-14; and
Notestein, Frank W., "Class Differences in Fertility," Annala of the A7Mrican
Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 188, November 1936, pp. 26-37.

Dgi

zeclbyGoogle

AGE AND SEX •

63

big families live in the little houses while the little families live in the
big houses. Although many persons receiving relief in rural areas in
1935 had been in comfortable and even prosperous circumstances
before they became victims of drought, bank failures, and depression
unemployment, much of the rural relief population had probably been
near or at the poverty level of living even in times of general prosperity.
Thus, the excessive numbers of young children in relief households
reflect in part a high birth rate in the population that requires and
receives public assistance. 8 So far no study has appeared which shows
Ta&/e N.-Children Under 5 Years of A9e per 1,000 Women 20 Through 44 Yean of
A9e in the Rural Relief Population, October 1935, and in the General Rural Popula•
tion, 1930, by Residence
['.!00 counties]

Slate

Rural relier population, October
Difference
lll35
Rural General
relief
rural
popula•
poeulatlon,
Difference
ton, Number Percent Open
October
1930
1935
country Village
Number Percent

--- --- --- - - - --- --- ---

,\II Slates sampled ....

891

1197

+194

+27.8

948

782

+166

+21.2

8.57
940

596

+43.8
+39.3
+46. 7
+35.9
+4-4.0
+48. 5
+32. 8
+ao.4
+22.2
+70.3

918
9114
970

813
791
877
782
S:!9
726
005
718
795

+10,5
+200
+oo
+127
+125
+145
+151
+169
+116

+12.9
+25. 7
+10.6
+16.2
+14.9
+20.0
+16. 7
+23.5
+14.6
+5.8

------ ----------------919
637
825
+155
+18.8
+282
+4-4.3
980
---=
--= +I0.6 = 1,066 - -797- = +269 = +33.8
Iowa ....•...........••......
88:!
628
+255
11 N orthem States.....

Kansas ...•.•...•..........•.
Michi~an ...•••...•...•......
Minnesota .•...••............
Mis-souri. •.•..•....•..•.....
Nebraska ..•...••.....••.••..
New York ...............•...
North Dakota..•.....•.•....
Ohio ...........•......••....
South Dakota ...•.••........
Wisconsin .••.•..••..........
13 Southern States. •...

Alahnma ..••.•..••...•......
Arkansas ..••.•..••••.•......
Florida •.••••.••.••.••.•••.•.
Geo!'l!iR .......•...•.....•....

& Western States .. _....

California •••••.•..•••.••....
Colorado ••.•.•••.•••........
Montana .•••••.••••••••.•...
Orei,:on ••••.•.•......••......
Utah .....••••••.••••.••.•...
Washington .••••••.•.•••....

I, 134

666

878

755

+123

+16.3

738
6.57
73.5
750
760
827
743
n1
783
68.1
700

-130
+10s
-120
+2n
+64
+139
+235
-9
+122
+137
+99
+69

-17.6
+16.4
-16. 3
+36.4
·Hl.4
+rn. 8
+31.6
-1.2
+15.6
+20.1
+12.5
+8.o

879
880

802

1,020
811

- - - --- - - - =

=

700

----= -4.8
-39
805

608

76.5
ffl5
1,023
824

}'-;~~-~~.·::::::::::::::::::
North Carolina .••........•..

Oklahoma ..•.••..•.•........
South Carolina ••••.....•.•..
Tennessee ..•.•••...•••..... Texas .•.••••.•.....••.•.....
Vlrginln ....•...•.•.•..•.....
WestV1riinla ..•............

820

647
611
540
768
622
671

+w1
+265
+211~
+232
+2tm
+2t,2
+252
+189
+149
+168

675
638

936

966

=

=

978
762
90.~
820
889
927
859
781
863
1,014

=
=

858

595

600

549
641
6.17
.'\40

039
892

570

903

909

=
=

---- - - - =
+H.4
+2ff4
--- --- =
+2a2
+222

+:m
+1r,o
+36
+322

+42. 3
+34.ff
+59. 2
+28.0
+4. 0
+56. 5

91!4
871
1,056
887
911
1,155
942
881
616

=

718
5115
667
437
867

751
1,061
828
1,002
1,033
850
950

8(J,

857
784
579
699
700
747

909

931
1,026

731
989
9.~7
735
1,333
845

720

-t/13

= +222 = +30.8

--- =

8liO

838

I, 092

688

=

878
838
il4
I, 126
657
924
1,012

+163
+51
+183
+a14
+194
+20
+145
+249
+211
+251
+200
+184
+338

==
+22. 7
+9.0
+27.4
+71.9
+22.4
+2.5
+16.9
+31.8
+46.8
+35.11
+29.9
+24.&
+49.

-40

-4.&

+275
-169
+78

+38.5
-15.0
+11.9
+44.3
-16. 5

= -107 = -12.8
+400
-167

1 Stouffer, Samuel A., "Fertility of Families on Relief," Journal of the American
Statutical Association, Vol. XXIX, September 1934, pp. 295-300; and Sydenstricker, Edgar and Perrott, G. St. J., "Sickness, Unemployment, and Differential Fertility," The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. XII, April 1934, pp.
126-133.

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

64 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

that families either increase or decrease their birth rates after a.cceesion
to relief rolls. All evidence points to the conclusion that high birth
rates brought about the need for relief rather than that relief statm•
resulted in high reproduction rates.
Birth statistics were not available for the rural relief population,
but reproduction rates were measured by the number of children
under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20--44 years of age (fig. 18).
Although this ratio of children to women is affected by the death rate
of children under 5 years, it is useful in comparing the effective reproduction of different groups. ~
FIG.18-CHILOREN UNDER 5 YEARS OF AGE PER 1.000 WOMEN
20 THROUGH 44 YEARS OF AGE IN THE

§ Not sompi.d
IE!) 550 - 6 59
ll'J 660 - 769
■ 770 - 8 79
■ 880 - 9 89
■ 990 or more

In the rural relief population included in the October 1935 survey
in 300 sample counties, this child-woman ratio was 28 percent greater
than that found in the general rural population of the same counties
(table 24). This high ratio was related in part to the younger average
age of the women 20--44 years old in the relief group and to the
greater proportion married, as compared with the same age group in
the general population.
The difference in the number of children per 1,000 childbearing
women on relief in October 1935 and in the general rural population
in 1930 probably understates considerably the actual situation regarding differential fertility. The child-woman ratio for the general rural
population was undoubtedly smaller in 1935 than it was in 1930 since
relatively fewer children were born during the years following 1930
than during the preceding years.4 It also may be assumed that
'Lotka, Alfred J., "Modern Trends in the Birth Rate," Annals of tM American
Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 188, November 1936, table 1,
pp. 1-13.

Dlgtized by

Google

AGE AND SEX • 65

differential fertility between women on relief and in the general
population would be much greater if measured in terms of actual
births rather than in terms of number of living children under 5
years of age. Infant mortality rates are higher for the lower than
for the upper economic groups 6 and consequently higher for those
on relief than for those not on relief rolls.
Women on relief in the open country had more children than
those in villages. Differential fertility between residence groups
was particularly striking in the South where the number of children
per 1,000 women was 31 percent greater in the open country than in
villages. Only in three Western States-California, Montana, and
Washington-was the fertility of the relief population greater in
villages than in the open country (table 24).
SEX DISTRIBUTION

The rural relief population contained an abnormal distribution
of the sexes when age was taken into account. Most striking was
the considerable excess of young women 16-24 years of age and the
great excess of men 65 years of age or older in the relief population.
The ratio of males to females under 16 years of age was 104 in June
1935, the same as in the general rural population of 1930. In the
youth group 16-24 years of age, however, there were only 94 males
per 100 females in June 1935 as compared with 108 males for every
100 females of the same ages in the general rural population in 1930.
(table 25).

To•t. 15.-Males per 100 Females

in the Rural Relief Population, 1 June and October
1935, and in the General Rural Population,2 1930, by Age and Residence
June 1113.5

Ap

Tota.l
rur&l

Open
country

October 1935

Village

Toi.RI

0Jll'n
oountry

rura.l

- - - - - - --106
00
101
------=
---=
104
102
105
Under lfl yeen .................
All ages •.••••.•........•.

103

1()5

16--:U years •.•...•.•............
25-44 yeen ....••.••••.•..••....
• ~ years .•.......•..•........
116 yeen and over.............. _

94

Q7
115
134

97
911
121
145

88
93
107
121

85
91
114
137

104
105
87

Village

Oenera.l
rural l,JOJ>ulat on,
1930

97

108

105
80
86

---

122

102

104
108
105
1

IM

117

I

94

• 300 counties.
'FlftuntA C.-mu, oftM United Slate,: 1930, Population Vol. II.

From June through October 1935 males 16-24 years of nge left
the relief rolls faster than did females of the same ages. As a result
the ratio of males to females in this age group declined from 94 in
June to 85 in October.
1 Woodbury, Robert M., "Infant Mortality in the United Stat~," Ann.au
of the .American Academy of Political and Social Scienu, Vol. 188, November 1936
pp. 94-107.

Dg1

mlbyGoogle

66 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
AGE AND SEX OF HEADS OF RELIEF CASES

The head of the relief case is usually the one to whom the household
looks for its support. It is the function of the head to supply the
necessary means for maintaining the natural or legal dependents in
the household. The extent to which the head is able to exercise that
function under our competitive economic system is contingent to a
large extent upon age and sex.
Heads of rural relief cases were 43 years of age on the average in
June 1935 and about 14 out of every 100 heads were women (tables
26 and 27). One-fourth (25 percent) of all heads of households were
55 years of age and over and 10 percent had reached or passed the
age of 65. At the other extreme 8 percent were young persons less
than 25 years of age.
To•le 26.-Age of Heads of Rural Relief Cases, June 1935, by Residence and Sex
[300 counties]
Total rural

Open country

Village

Age
Total
Number __________
Percent_ __________
16-24 years ______________
2&-34 years ______________

3&-44 years ______________
4&-,';4 years ______________
~

years ______________

65 years and over _______

Median ___________

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

--- ----- -- ---- -- ---117,763
100. 0

100,947
100.0

16,816
100. 0

71,7::2
100.0

63,321
100.0

8,401
100.0

46,041
100.0

37.~2fi
100. 0

8,415
100.0

7. 7
23. 4
22.8
20.8
15. 7
9. 6

8.1
24. 9
22.9
20. 4
14.9
8.8

5. 9
15. 2
21. g
22. 7
19. 7
14. 6

7. 9
24. 4
23. 3
20. 6
15. 4
8.4

8.2
25. 7
23. 4
20.3
14. 6
7. 8

5. 4
15. 5
22. 3
23. 4
20.8
12. 6

7. 4
22.1
22.1
20. 9
16. I
11.4

7. 8
23.11
22.1
20. 5
15. 4
10. 3

6.3
14.8
21.6
22. l
18.6
16.6

43.8

42.8

47.8

- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- -

- -42.8- - -41.9- -47.-6 -42.-I -41.4
- -47.4

To•I• 27.-Female Heads per 100 Rural Relief Cases, June and Odober 1935, by
Age and Residence
[300 counties]
Total rural

Open country

Village

Age
June

All ages ____________________________ _
111--24 years _______________________________ _
2&-34 years _______________________________ _
3.">-44 years _______________________________ _
4&-54 years _______________________________ .
5.'H\4 years _______________________________ _
65 years and over ________________________ _

October

June

October

June

October

---------------

=

14.3
10. 8
9. 2
13. 7
15. 7
18.0
21. 7

16. 3

II. 7

12.8

18.3

22.2

12.6
12. 0
16. 2
18. 2
18.5
21. 7

8.0
7. 5
11.2
13. 3

9.1

15. 5
12.2
17. 9
19. 4
21.2

18. 4
16. 7
22. 2
23 6
24. 2
28. 6

--------------15. 9

17. 6

9.6
13.0
15. 0
14. g
15. 5

26.4

Village heads of households were older by 2 years, on the average,
than open country residents, the medians being 44 and 42 years,
respectively. This residence difference in average age was the result
of a concentration of aged heads in villages. More than 11 percent
of all village heads were 65 years of age and over as compared with
more than 8 percent of the heads in the open country (table 26}.

•

Dlgtized by

Google

AGE AND SEX• 67

Female heads of households were, on the average, 5 or 6 years
older than male heads. In the open country male heads averaged 41
and female heads 47 years of age. In villages the average ages of
male and female heads were 43 and 48 years, respectively. There
were relatively fewer young female than young male heads in both
the open country and village relief populations. Conversely, there
was a disproportionately large number of aged female heads among
relief clients.
A much larger proportion of female heads was found in villages
than in the open country in June 1935. This difference indicates a
tendency for widows, divorcees, and single women to concentrate in
villages. The difference was found in each age group (table 27).
Reslonal and Racial Dlfferenca

The proportion of female heads of rural relief households was
greater in the Southern States than in the other regions (table 28).
While the average number of female heads per 100 households was
about 14, in 13 Southern States the ratio was 18 per 100. One reason
for the difference between the South and other parts of the country
with respect to the ratio of females to all relief household heads was
the presence of Negroes, among whom the proportion of female heads
on relief was high. In June 33 percent and in October 28 percent
of all heads of Negro cases in the Southern States were women.
Tcr&le 28.-Female Heads per 100 Rural Relief Cases, June and October 1935, by
Region and Residence
(300 counties]

Open country

Total rural

Village

Region

June

October

June

October

June

October

-----------·]--- --- ------ --- --AIJ8tatee sampled ••••••••••••••••..

11 Northern States .....•.•...•.•••••••••••
13 Southern Statee .•.•.•••••••.•••..•..• __
White ••••••••••..••...•••••.•.•••••.•

Negro •......••••••••••..•••.••••••••..

e Western States•••.••••.•.••• -·····-··· •.

=

H.3
10. 5
18.3
14.8
33.0
10. 2

=

16.3
13. 6
19.0
16. 9
27. 9
14.1

11. 7

12. 8

7. 3

9.1
15. 7
14.0
24. I
9. 6

--- =
15. 6
12.1
31. 8
7. 2

18. 3

22.2

23. 8
20.6
35. 0
13.3

19. 7
26.1
23. 7
34. 1
18.8

- -14.7- =

In the total rural relief population of June 1935 every tenth household head was 65 years of age or older. The percentage of aged heads
of households on relief was highest in the North and among Negroes
of the South (table 29). Twelve percent of all heads of cases in
the Northern States were aged persons and sixteen percent of all
Negro heads of cases were aged persons. Racial differences in this
respect were particularly striking. Whereas almost 1 out of every
6 Negro heads on relief was an aged person, only 1 out of every 16
white household heads on relief in the same counties was an aged
individual.

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

68 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
To•le .29.-A9ed Heads I per 100 Rural Relief Cases, June and October 1935, by
Re9ion and Residence
(300 counties)
Open country

Total rural
Region
June

October

June

Octobec

June

October

-------------/·--- --- --- --- --- --AU States sampled ................. .
II Northern States ....................... .
13 Southern States •..........•............

White ..•.............................
Negro .............. . ....... ......... .
6 Western States •...•.....................
1

9.6

11. I

11.6
8.1
6. 2
lo. 9
8.9

14. 8
8. 7

8. 4

9. 3

II. 4

13.8

======I===
7. 7

12.6
9.0

10. 3
7. 2
5. 4
15.5
7. 5

12.11
7.3

13. 4
II.II

6.6
10. 7
8.1

16. 4
10.3

17.4
11. 8
10. 5
15. 7
II.II

i.9

65 years of 1111e a.nd over.

An especially large proportion of the aged heads of Negro relief
cases in the South were women. In that region only 19 percent of
the aged heads of white relief cases were women in comparison with
41 percent of the aged heads of Negro relief cases (table 30).
To•le 30.-A9ed Female Heads per 100 A9ed Heads I of Rural Relief Cases, June
and October 1935, by Region and Residence
[300 oountles]
Total rural

Open country

Village

Regior,
June

October

June

Octobec

June

October

------------- ------ --- ------ --15.5
All States sampled ................. .
21. 7
17. 6
21.7
26.4
28.6
---------=
II Northern States ••••..•................
:al. I
17. 4
12. 2
12.5
22. 6
'¥1.8
13 Southern States ..•...... _..... . . ....... .

White •••.••.••.......................
Negro ....•............................
6 Western States .•.......•.......•.......
1 65

'II. 2
18.6
40, S
20.3

24. 5
18. 5
39. 7
10.0

24. 4
13. 7
41.0
10. 0

:al. 6
14. 4
38.9
6. 1

31.2

25. 7
. 39. 7
'II.II

years of age and over.

Dig llzed by

Google

29. 7
24.6
40.6
211.9

Chapter VII
MAR./.TAL COND.IT.ION

OF
ALL rural persons 16-64 years of age on relief in October
1935 more than two-thirds were married or separated, one-fourth
1

had never been married, and the remainder had been married but their
marriages had been broken by death (6 percent) or divorce (0. 7
percent) (table 31).
Tol,le 37.-Marital Condition of the Rural Relief Population,1 October 1935.,. and of the
General Rural Population,2 1930, 16 Through 64 Years of Age, by :,ex
Total

Sex

Married•

Bingle

Widowed Divorced Unknown

--------------Rural relief population.-·-·-· ........... __
Male·-•·-·········-····--············
Female_--·.··-------- ... ·-·.··-··---·

100.0
100.0
100.0

68.1
66. 7
00.6

General rural population __ ··· ............ .
.Male. __ ·-···········-····· · ········-·
Female ___ ........ ----····-·· ........ .

100.0
100. 0
100.0

66. 2

25. 2
30.1
20. 7

8.0
2.8
8.11

0. 7
0.4
0.9

29.3

4.6
3.0
8.1

0.11
0.9
0.9

61. I

34. g

611.8

Zl.1

0.1
0.1
0.1

' 300 counties and 83 New England township,,. The rellel sample Included 88,698 males and 93,472 lemalea

HHl4 years ol age.

• Fi/tunlh Ctn•u• of th, Unfttd State,: 1930, Population Vol. JI.

• Including separated persons.

SEX DIFFERENCES

As in the general population, the sexes showed striking differences in
marital status by age (fig. 19). In both the open country and village
relief populations there were, relatively speaking, more young women
than young men married, owing to the fact that women generally
marry at a younger age than men. Conversely, there were more older
men than older women married owing to larger proportions of widows
than of widowers, especially in the advanced age groups (tables 32
and 33). For the age group 16-24 years of age, 43 percent of the
females but only 20 percent of the males on relief were married.
At the opposite extreme was the age group 55-64 years in which
81 percent of the men were married in comparison with only 68
percent of the women.
1 Data on the marital condition of the rural relief population are available for
October 1936 only.

69

[)91.zedbyGooglc

70 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

-401--

{mFemale

-Mole

r

i :L,._--..il222J=----Jll?l--"""--777771ZZZP-~--~1111111Ko~-......~1111111:1:z:L.--r i
16-24

25-34

35-44

55-64

45-54

AQeinyeors

i :1.

_________________
_l)i_vor_ced

16-24

25-34

==1ZZi!
25-34

35-44

45-54

,.,,m
35-44

J

Aile inyeors

~

__

__,F i

55-64

45-54

Aqe in years

IOOr----------------------1 00
80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

J

J

0

Morritd

80

!

l

60

J

40
20
0

25-34

35-44

45-54

Aqe in years

FtG. 19- MARITAL CONDITION OF THE RURAL RELIEF POPULATION
16 THROUGH 64 YEARS OF AGE, BY SEX
w.u.
October 1935

.,.1..,,

Dg1

zedbyGoogle

MARITAL CONDITION • 71

Nearly 10 percent of all women on relief were widowed or divorced
in comparison with only 3 percent of the men (table 31). The percentage of women on relief who had never married (21 percent) was
much less than that for men on relief (30 percent).
Tol,le 3.2.-Percent of Married Persons 1 in the Rural Relief Population,1 October 1935,
and in the General Rural Population,• 1930, 16 Through 64 Years of Age, by Residence
and Sex
R~ldence and sex

Ul-24

All age.s

~

25-34

year,,

years

41>-M
years

years

65---M

years

--------- --- --RJ:UKJ' POPULATION

Total rural •••••..........•.........
Male ...••..•••.................
Female ..•.••••.•...............
Open country ....•...•.•........•....•....
'\tale ....••••••...•.•....•....••••....
Female •.•.••••..•....•••.•.•••.......
Vi118!le ..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
'\!ale ....•....•..•..•.•.•.•••.•..••...
Female ...............•...••..•.•.....

68.1
66. i
6&. 6

32. 7
20. 4
4:!.0

69. 4
67. 2

3.1.6

---=

=

84.2
81. 6
86.6
85.4

=

!le.8
89. 3
84. 6
88. 5

81.6
&.5
ii. 5

74.9
80.6
ft7.9

83. i
86. 5
80.5

77.0
80.11
71.6

==---

82. 3

71.7

20.5
46.1

88. 2

90.4
86. 7

65. 6
65. 7
65.4

30.8
20.3
311.1

81. 7
80.0
83.2

83. 5
86.9
80.6

78.0
83. 6
72. 6

71. 7
7'..8
63.0

65. 2
61.1
69.8

27. 7
17.0
39. 2

77.1
71.0
83.4

84. 7
82. 7
86.8

81.9
82.1
81. 7

70.1

GENJ:RAL POPULATION

Total rural ........•.•.•••••••••.....
Male ...........•...............
Female •.•......•••.•••.........

74.8
78.3

' Including sepsrate<I persons.

• :lOO counties and 83 New Englan<l township.s.
I Fijlttnlll Ctmu, oJ tilt United Stalt1: 193(), Population Vol. II.

Tol,le 33.-Percent of Widowed Persons in the Rural Relief Population, 1 October 1935,
and in the General Rural Population,2 1930, 16 Through 64 Years of Age, by Residence
and Sex
Residence and sex

All Sile•

)l}-24
years

311--44
years

2(,-34

years

45-M

years

~

years

--- ------ --- --RJ:LIJ:J' POl'ULATION

Total rural •••••...•.....•.•..•.....
Male ..••.••.•..................
Female •••.••.••..•........•.•..
Open country •••••••.•••.•••••••••••••••..
Male ......•..............•...........
Female ..•.•.•.•....••.•.•.•.•.•......
Village ....•••.•.•.•.....•.•.......•.•.....
Male .•••.•...•.......................
Female •••.••....•.•..................

6.0
2.8
8. 9

---

0.6
0. I
1.0
~

=

2. 9
0. 7
4.9
2. 6
0. 7
4.2

=

6. 5
2. 2
10.5
5. 6
2.1
9.0

II. 7
5.8
18.0

17. 6
9.6
27.3

10. 3
5. 6
15. 7

16. 2
IO. I
24.6

---=

6. 2
2.8
7.6

0.6
0. 2
0.9

7. 4
3. 0
II. 4

0.6
0.1
1.0

3. 7
0. 7
6.3

8.3
2. 5
13. 2

14. 0
21.8

19.6
8.8
31.0

4. 6
3. 0
6.1

0. 6
0. 3
0.8

1.8
), 2
2. 6

3. 8
2. 6
6.2

7. 9
5.3
11.0

16.6
10. 0
22.5

6. 2

GJ:NJ:BAL POl'ULATION

Total rural ..•••.•...•...•........•.
Male ..••.••••••••...•.......•..

Female ••.•.•••••.•..••....•..•.

1 300

counties and 8.1 New England townships.

• FiJlttntll Ctm!U oft/le United 6lalt1: 193(), Population Vol. II.

The proportions of separated persons were much great~r for women
than for men on relief. As a general average, 3.3 percent of all
married rural relief persons were living apart from the spouse. The
percent separated wa.s three times a.s great for women as for men in
the-relief population (table 34).

Dig 11zed by

Goog Ie

72 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Tol,le 34.-Percent of Separated Penons Among All Married Persons 16 Through 64
Years of Age on Relief in Rural Areas, Ociober 1935, by Residence and Sex
(300 counties)

Open country

Total rural
Age

Both

Male

sexes

Female

Both

Male

sexes

Both

Female

Male

lll!Xell

Femw

-------- -----------------All ages...............
3. 3
I. 6
2. 7
8.0
1. 7
11.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ====lfl--24 years .•••••••.••••.••..
3. 4
0.9
4.4
2.8
0. 7
3.6
1. 2
11.ll
'-8
25--34years ...••••....•...•..

3. I

35-44 years .•..•..•.•........
46-54 years ..•.•......•..•...

3.5
3. 2
3.0

~years .•................

0. 8
I. 7
I. 7
2.6

6.1
5. 3
6. 0
3.6

2. 6
2.8
2.8
2. 7

o. 7

4. 3
4. 1
3. 7

I. 6
1.8
2. 7

LI
2. I
1.8
2. 6

'- 2

6.0
'- 4
3.6

2.8

II.II
7.8
7.6
'- 7

RESIDENCE DIFFERENCES

A slightly higher proportion of the relief population was married or
separated in the open country than in villages, 69 percent as compared with 66 percent (table 32). Greater proportions of separated
persons were found in villages than in the open country for all age
groups and for both sexes, except for men in the older age groups
(table 34).
The percent widowed was also greater among village than among
open country residents who were on relief in October 1935 (table 33).
Such differences were present only among those in the older age
groups, however, the incidence of widowhood falling about equally
upon young village and open country persons.
The proportion of divorced persons in the villages was more than
double that in the open country. The highest divorce ratio per
thousand was found among women 35-44 years of age residing in
villages (table 35).
ToMe 35.-Divorced Persons per 1,000 Rural Relief Population,• October 1935, and
per 1~000 General Rural Population,2 1930, 16 Through 64 Years af Age, by Residence
and :>ex
Residence and

se,

All ages

1!1--24
years

25--34
years

$--44

~

46-64

years

years

years

--- -----RELIIIF POPt'LATJON

Total rural ......................... .
Male .......................... .
Female ........................ .
Open country ...............•.•...•...•...
Male ................................. .
Female ...•.................•.........
Village ..................•..•..•...•••••.•.
Male .........................•.......
Female .............................. .

7

2

4
9

I
4

6
3

---

6

6

3
9

10
5
15

0
7
II

2

4

6

8

1

8

6

2

6

8
10

=

11

11
10
13
8
8
7

II
8

4

11

II

16

7

17

10
8

16

11

,0

11

11
12
11

12

12
14

8

17
10

17

GENERAL POPt:LATJON

Total rural. ....................... .
Male .....•..........•..........
Female ........................ .

II
9
0

• 300 counties and 11:1 New EnRland townships.
fifltent/1 Ctnl1U of IM United Mat~,: /99(), Popalstlon Vol.

I

4
2

6

10
12

14
10

n.

DgilzeclbyGoogle

II

MARITAL CONDITION • 73
RELIEF AND TOTAL POPULATION COMPARED

A larger number of relief persons were married in proportion to the
total relief population 16-64 years of age than of all rural persons in
proportion to the total rural population (table 31). When differences
in the age and sex of the two populations (fig. 20) and the deficit of
marriages during the depression 2 are taken into consideration, the
Rural relief population, October 1935

•

mGeneral rural population, 1930

100

100

801----

J

-

60 1----

-

40 1---

-

j
20

0

0

16-24 25-34 35- 44 45-54 55 -64
Mole

Female

FIG. 20-PERCENT OF MARRIE0- PERSONS IN THE RURAL RELIEF
POPULATION, OCTOBER 1935, AND IN THE GENERAL
RURAL POPULATION~* 1930, 16 THROUGH 64 YEARS
OF AGE, BY SEX
• 1ncludi11Q separotea persons.

••Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930,
Population Vol. II.

AF-IOI, .. II A.

difference between the proportions married becomes even greater than
the comparison with the 1930 Census indicates. The age and sex
distribution of the rural relief population differed from that of the
general population so as to give a smaller expectancy of married persons in the relief population, other things being equal. The relief
population was younger, a larger proportion was under the ages at
which the greatest percentages of people are married, and there were
fewer men per 100 women in the relief than in the general population. 3
1 Stouffer, Samuel A. and Spencer, Lyle M., "Marriage and Divorce in Recent
Years," Annal& of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 188,
November 1936, p. 64.
1 Groves and Ogburn have shown that a greater percentage of people is married
when there is an excess of men than when the sexes are equal. See Groves, E. R.
and Ogburn, Wm. F., American Marriage and Family Relationships, New York:
Henry Holt and Company, 1928, ch. XIII.

Dg1

mlbyGoogle

74 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

Persons in the relief population were married not only in larger proportions but also at earlier ages than persons in the general rural
population. In each of the three younger age groups a larger percentage of relief persons than of persons in the total population was
married (table 32).
In most age and sex groups the number divorced per thousand was
greater in the general than in the relief population (table 3.5). This
difference is to be expected since divorce rates are usually larger for the
higher income classes than for the lower economic groups which were
represented in the relief group and among which separations-"the
poor man's divorce"-are more prevalent.
For each age group the incidence of widowhood was greater among
women in the rural relief population than in the general rural population. Widowed males appeared in the relief population in about the
same proportions, however, as in the general population (table 33).
The number of single persons 16-64 years of age in proportion to all
persons 16-64 years of age was less in all age groups and for both sexes
in the rural relief population than in the general rural population in
1930 (table 36).

To•te 36.-Percent of Single Persons in the Rural

Relief Population,1 Odober 1935 1 and
In the General Rural Population,2 1930, 16 Through 64 Years of Age, by Residence

and Sex

Residence and ~x

All ages

16-24

years

~

years

35--44
years

45-54

years

~

yean

RXLIXF POPUU.TJON

Total ruraL ....•...•.•.••••.•...•..
Male ......•....................
Female .•.••••.•.•.•............
Open oountry ......•.•••••••••.•..........
Male ..........•..•.•.•.•••.•.••......

Female ••..••.••••.••.•••••.•.••••••..

Village ..•.........•...•.•.•.•.•••.•.••.•..
Male ...•...........•.....•.........•.

Female ••..•.•...•.•.•.•..............

25. 2
30.1
20. 7

66. 6
79. 4
M.7

24. ll
29. 7
20.1

6/i. 7
79.3

2.~. ll
30. 7
21. 7

29. 3
34. 9

12. 3
17. 5

6. 7
8.0

7.6

6. 8
8. 0

3.6

3.4

II. 7

6.3
7.2

5.2

16. 7

7.0

3. 4

2. 8

es. 2
79.6
59. I

13.6

6.4
11.6
3. 8

71. 3
82. 3
611.3

Ill.II
211. 7
12.ll

-----53. 8

Ill.I
S.8

7.3
7.0

11.4

'-8

fl. 5

8. 8
3. 5

fl.I
8.2

1.1
7.0

II.II
'-0

011:Nll:RAL POPULATION

Tots I rural.. .•..........•.•.•.......
Male ..••....•................•.
Female •...•.•.•...•............
1
I

23.1

10. 2
13.4

6.8

8.11
11. 2
6. 3

8. e

10. 3
6. 5

300 oountles sncl !ti New Enirlsnrl township.s.
FiJlunth Ctmu1 o/ the United l:italta: II/JO, Population Vol. II.

Larger proportions of young women on relief than of young women
generally were married, but relatively fewer women past 34 years of
age were married in the relief group, owing to disproportionately large
percentages of widows among older women on relief (tables 32 and 33).
Men on relief in every age group were married in somewhat greater
proportions than were men generally. The difference was largely
accounted for by a smaller percentage of single men in the relief group.
The percentage of widowed and divorced men in the relief population

D,gllzed by

Google

75

MARITAL CONDITION •

was not greatly different from that of men in the general population
(table 31).
AREA DIFFERENCES

Striking area differences in marriage • ratios were found when age
and sex were taken into consideration. The proportion of youth on
relief married varied from 23 percent in the Spring Wheat Area to 37
percent in the Western Cotton and Appalachian-Ozark Areas. Only
23 percent of the Negro youth on relief in the Western Cotton Area
were married but 30 percent in the Eastern Cotton Area were married.
Considering persons in the age group of maximum marriage ratios for
both sexes together (35-44 years), the areas varied from 81 percent
married in the Eastern Cotton Area to nearly 93 percent in the Winter
Wheat Area. The presence of Negroes in the Eastern Cotton Area
accounted only in part for the low percentage of relief persons married,
for while 79 percent of the Negroes of this age group were married
only 82 percent of the whites on relief were married (appendix table 27).
The smallest proportions of separated persons on relief were found
in the Wheat Areas, while the largest proportions were reported in the
Eastern Cotton Area, especially among Negroes. Next to the
Eastern Cotton Area the regions with the greatest proportions of
relief persons separated were the Western Cotton and the Lake
States Cut-Over Areas (table 37).
To•le 37.-Percent of Separated Persons Among All Married Persons 16 Through 64
Years of Age on Relief in Rural Areas, October 1935, by Residence and Area
(138 counties]

t' i
.
;a
.c
A
-.c:. ;~
... 0
l!::
.;
~ .
l:Q
";j ~
f!
.9
iz io
""< ~u u = ~
- - - - 9.0 2. 3 4. 2 3. 2 3. 2 I. 9
= - - - 6. 2 2.1 3.9 2. ft 2. 7 o_g

.,

-

!
:;!

RMidence

Total ruraJ _______ 3.3

-

OJ?!ln country __________ 2. g
Village _________________
4. I

1

Western
Cotton

E110tern Cotton

's0
£-,

3

:E
~

0

zr

30
£-,

3

:E

::::

-- -- - - - 8. 2
7.0 12.1 4. 2 3. 3
-7.0- -5.8- -11.9- -3. 1 -2.6
11.3

10. 7

12.5

7. 3

~ ...

al.:.
.,:i

0

6.5 18. 4

~

2. i

4_g

i

..

.c

.

~

.

"
"§.

I>,

0

3.5

3_g

3.4

-

al

J

.c

I"

-

I. 5

2. 7

2.3

3.5

=I.I - 1.2

The sli~ht differences In open country and vliiilll:e percent81(es between thl• table and table 34 are due

to the fft('t that this table Is bn.sed on the 138 counties constituting the area sample, whereas table 34 ls based

on the lsrgl!I' State sample ol 300 counties.

The proportion of the rural relief population widowed was smallest
in the northern and western areas and largest in the southern areas
(appendix table 28).
Single persons ranged from 23 percent of the rural relief population,
16--64 years of age, in the Winter "Wheat Area to 31 percent in the Lake
States Cut-Over Area. (appendix table 28).
' In this section the married include the separated in order to make the data
comparable with thoae in the preceding section which follows census procedure,
I. e., including the separated with the married.

Dig llzed by

Google

76 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
MARITAL CONDITION OF HEADS OF RELIEF CASES

fa October 1935 only three-fourths (75 percent) of all heads of rural
relief cases were married and living with their spouses. An additional
4 percent, while married, were living apart. About one-tenth of all
heads were widowed and an additional one-tenth were single persons.
About 1 out of every 100 was a divorced person (tables 38 and 39).
To•le 38.-Marital Condition of Heads of Rural Relief Cases 16 Through 64 Years of
Age, October 1935, by Sex
[300 countleo)
All heads
Age and sex

Married

Number

Single

Widowed Divorced Separated

Percent

------ --- --- --- --3_g
1.2
18. 2

78, 116
65,868
12,248

JOO. 0
100.0
100.0

74. 8
86. 2
13. 2

9. 2
8.6
12. 7

10.8
3.5
ro.1

1. 3
0.5
6.8

7,036
6, If,()

1000
100.0
100.0

67.0
76. 1
3.6

26.3
23.0
49.2

2. 3
0.5
15.1

0.9
6.8

25.3

2,496

100.0
100.0
100.0

80.6
90.4
9.6

9.2
8.1
16.9

6. I
0. 7
37.3

1.0
0.2
7.0

4.1
0.6
29.3

35--44 years ...••.•.....••.••....

Male ......•.•...•....•.....
Female•.••..•..••.•..•..••.

19,706
16,492
3,214

100.0
100.0
100. 0

77.0
89.9
10.8

6.4
6.0
8. 7

10. 2
2. 2
61.6

1. 7
0.5
7. 7

4. 7
1••
21.2

45-114 years .•.••.....••....•....
Male .....••.......•........
Female•••..•....•......•...

17,338
14.168
3,170

100.0
100.0
JOO. 0

73.1
86.0
15. 2

6.6
6.3
8.0

16. 6
6. 6
69.3

1.3
0. 7
4.4

1. 4
13.1

6IHl4 yellrll ••••••••••••••••••.••

13.254
LO, i74

100.0
100.0
100. 0

68.5

7. 7
7.9
6. 7

19.1
9.3
61.6

I.ft
I. I
3.9

3.1
2.1
7.3

All ~es •••••••••••••..••.
l\fole .........•..•....

Female...•...••....•.

1&-24 years .•••..•..•••••..•..•.

Male ...................... .
Female•.........•..•.......

=.==~====:=
886

26-34 years .........•..•........

20, 782

Male .....•.....•...........

18, 28-1

Female......•.....•....•...

Male .......•.•.......••....

Female••...•........•....••

2,480

79. 6
20.6

=

3.5
0.4

3.6

Tal,le 39.-Marital Condition of Heads of Rural Relief Cases 16 Through 64 Years of
Age, October 1935, by Residence
(300 counties)

All heads
Residence

1- - - - - - 1

Number

Married

Single

Widowed Divorced Separated

Percent

---------·1--- --- --- --- --- --- --Total rural...............

78, 116

100.0

74. 8

9.2

10.8

1.3

3.9

Open country..................

49, f<.'i-1
28, 262

78. 5
68. 2

8. 2

V UInge...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100.0
100.0

9.3
13. 5

0.9
2. 0

3.1
5.2

II.I

·while most male heads of rural relief cases were married, one-half of
all female heads were widowed (fig. 21 ). About 86 percent of the
males were married and living with their wives, whereas only 13 percent of the female heads were married and living with their husbands.
Divorce and separation rates were naturally much higher among
fem ale than among male heads.
The lowest marriage rates among heads of households on relief in
rural sect.ions were found in the Eastern Cotton and Lake States
Cut-Over Areas. The low marriage rat.e in the Eastern Cotton Area

DgilzeclbyGoogle

MARITAl CONDITION • 77

■ Married
100

~ Single
40

■ Widowed
Percent
0

[ ] Oi-ced

20

40

II
60

Separated

.80

100

MALE
ALL AGES

16-24 yecn

25-34 years
35- 44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
fEMALE
ALL AGES

16-24 years

25-34 ,-rs
35-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

FIG.21-MARITAL CONDITION OF HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF CASES,
BY AGE AND SEX

October 1935

(62 percent) resulted from the large number of separated and single
female heads. Only 61 percent of all heads in the Lake States CutOver Area were married, owing primarily to the large number of single
men in that area (appendix table 29).
The highest proportions of heads of rural relief cases who were
married were found in the Spring and Winter Wheat Areas. In
these areas relatively few female heads were found and 81 percent of
all heads of rural relief cases were married. In the AppalachianOzark Area. 77 percent of all heads of rural relief cases were married.
The remaining areas, Hay and Dairy, Corn Belt, Western Cotton,
and Ranching, were fairly close to the average for all areas with respect to marital condition of the heads of rural relief cases.

Dig llzed by

Google

78 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

Marked differences in marital condition were found between heads
of Negro and white cases in the South. In the Eastern Cotton Area
only 52 percent of the Negro heads of rural relief cases were married
as compared with 65 percent of white household heads. More
Negroes than whites on relief reported themselves as widowed or
separated. Relatively more Negro than white men on relief were
single, but a much greater proportion of white than of Negro women
on relief were single.
Race differences in marital condition of heads of rural relief households were even more striking in the Western Cotton Area. Here
a much greater proportion of whites than of Negroes was married and
more than twice as great a proportion of Negroes as of whites was
widowed. The proportions single and separated were also about
twice as great for Negroes as for whites (appendix table 29). These
race differences were due primarily to the large number of female
heads among N cgro households on relief.

DgltzectbyGoogle

Chapter VIII
EDUCATION

THE RURAL population of the United States is an educationally
underpriviliged group. Compared with those of cities, rural school
facilities are seriously limited.1 Small schools, inadequate curricula,
poorly trained and poorly paid teachers, unsafe and unsanitary buildings, lack of up-to-date equipment, inadequate professional leadership, insufficient local school revenue, and inadequate unit.a of local
school administration are factors which sharply limit the educational
opportunities of rural children. 2
The marked differences between rural and urban communities with
respect to school facilities lead to marked differences in the educational attainment.a of these two residence classes. The 1930 Census of
Population revealed the fact that 4.3 percent of the total population,
10 years of age and over, were illiterate, i. e., unable to read or write
either in English or in some other language. The illiteracy rate in
urban areas was only 3.2 percent as compared with 4.8 percent for
rural-nonfarm and 6.9 percent for rural-form areas. 8
As the rural population represent.a an educationally underprivileged
part of the total population, so the rural relief population represent.a
an educationally underprivileged group in the rural population. Of
all rural relief persons 10-64 years of age in October 1935,4 more than
one-fifth (21 percent) had less than a fourth grade education, and 6 percent had no formal education at all, having failed to complete a single
school grade (table 40 and fig. 22). The average achievement was
only 6.5 grades.
1 See Biennial Survey of Education in the United States: 1982-84, Bulletin, 1935,
No. 26, U. B. Department of the Interior, Office of Education, Washington, D. C.,
p. 40.
1 Dawson, Howard A., "Rural Schools of Today," Journal of the National Education ABllociation, Vol. 25, May 1936, p. 156.
• Fifteenth Cemua of the United States: 1980, Population Vol. II, pp. 1219-1220
4 Data on the education of the rural relief population are available for October
1935 only.

79

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

80 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

To•le 40.-Sdiool Grad• Compla.d by Rural R•li•f P•nons 10 Through 64 Y.ars of
As-, Octot>.r 1935, by Ag•

Lut grade or year
completed

...
All

(138 ooantlee)
10-13
years

H--15

18-20
years

8,726 10,.ao 21,ml 17,W 13, 111M
100.0 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 100.0

l&-17

21-24
years

100.0

100.0

11,810
100.0

7,478
100. 0

1-3 gradee . .. . .. . . ... . ...
+-6gradee ... • ........ . . •
llgradee ..... . .. .. .. . . . ..
7 ~..•• • ..• .. •• . ... .
8 grades __ ••..... . .......

6. 6
16.0
23. 7
11. 11
10.4
21.1

I. 7
31.3
42. 5
H.4
7. 9
2. 0

I. 2
8. 4
111.0
13.11
20.9
3'.2

2. 2
11. 2
12. 5
11.8
11. 3
23. 11

2. 8
7. I
12.11
9. 6
10. 6
28.0

7. 6
15. 6
10. 6
10.3
ao.1

High school:
I YIAI'------·······--····
2 years ..••••...•...•....
3 yean, •.••••.•......•...
4 years ..................

8. 2

4.1

0.2

9.11
2.4
0.4

11. 7
11. 5
8.3
l. 7

8. 3
7.4
6. 2
9.0

6.2
3. 0
7. 9

0.1

0.4

0.11

Percent ••. ·-···· ·· -··.
Grade IICbool:
None.••..•.•.....• . ... ..

Blgber education:
1 , - or more•••••••••• -

Median ...............

--

1. 7
2. 7

=

0. 8
6.6

•

-

36-44
years

years

-- - - - - - - --

Number_ •••• •• • •• . •. . llll,902 21,370

2&-34
years

years

- - = 4.8 = 7.4

3.2

4.8
10.2
111. 7
11 . 6
10. 9
28. 9

6.8

4.2
3. 4
1.6

3. 11

= 8. 2 = 8.8 = 8. l =

1.2
7. 4

8.2
13.2

65--M
years

46-M

:van

-11,218
100. 0

ll . 4
16. 3
24. 6
11. 4
21.4

19. II
17. 3
24. 1
10. 11
7.1
l&.1

3.1
2. 3
I.I
2.0

1.9
1.8
o. 7
1. 4

I.II
1. 5
0.4
1. 6

1.0

0.9

0. 7

22. 3

12. 4
9. 8
24. 8

8.3

= 8.5 = 5.8 =

6.3

•Leu than 0.05 percent.

In no age group had the children of relief families made normal
school progress if enrollment at age 6, the completion of one grade at
age 7, and the attainment of an additional grade each successive year
be taken as normal. On the basis of such a norm children 10 years of
age would have completed four grades. Of all rural relief children
10-13 years of age 33 percent had completed no grade at all or less
than four grades. The normal expectation would be that children
past 14 years of age would be through grade school. Of all rural relief
children 14 and 15 years of age, only 37 percent had completed eight
grades and 10 percent had not completed four grades, owing to having
left school or to extreme retardation. Of all rural youth just past
high school age (18-20 years), only 9 percent had attained a complete
high school education (table 40).
The educational attainment of the rural relief population was
directly compared with that of persons not receiving relief in a study
of rural relief and nonrelief families made in October 1933 in 47 sample
counties. 6 It was found that the proportion of heads of households
without any schooling was nearly three times as great in the relief as
in the nonrelief population. The study showed further that children
of relief families had less education than the children of their non.relief
neighbors although differences were not as great for children as for
their parents.
In spite of the more extensive educational facilities in urban than in
niral areas the average educational achievement of urban relief clients
1 McCormick, T. C., Comparative Study of Rural ReJ,ief and Non-Relief Ho11M•
holda, Research Monograph II, Division of Social Resea.roh, Works Progreee

Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935, pp. 91-92.

01Qt1z

dbyGoogle

EDUCATION •

81

FIG. 22-PERCENT OF RURAL RELIEF PERSONS
10 THROUGH 64 YEARS OF AGE
WITH OUT SCHOOLING

OCTOBER 1935

Percent

D Not sampled
Q] Less than ~
~ 2 - 3

■ 4 - 6
■ 7 - 10
■ 10 or more
t.F-2463,W P A.

is little greater than that of rural clients. In a study of the characteristics of the relief population in 13 cities the educational achievement
of heads of cases was determined for October 1935.8 It was found
that the median school grade completed by urban relief heads (7 .0
grades) was only 0.6 of a grade more than that for rural relief heads
(6.4 grades). The percentage of urban clients without any formal
schooling (9.9 percent) was slightly greater than that of rural clients
To&le .ff.-School Grade Completed by Heads of Rural Relief Cases 16 Through 64
Years of Age, October 1935, by Age
(138 ccuntles]

Last grade or year completed

All ages

16--24

yeers

:lb--34

years

35--44

years

45-M

years

6IHl4

years

--- --- --- --- --- --Number ...•.•..............•.......
PerceDl .. ..•.•.•.................•..

Grade IIChool:
None .•.•............................
1-3 grad1111 ............. ............... .
Hgrad1111 ................... .. ....... .
II grad1111 ....... ....................... .
7 grad1111 ........................... ... .
8 grades.••....•..•..••................

38, 63G

3,638
100.0

10,526
100.0

9,972

II. 2
11. I
23.11

3. 8
9.6
18.11
10. I
9. 2
27. 2

4. 4
II. 4
Ill.II
10.4
11.0
29.2

8. 4
14.4
22. 3
13.0
11. 7
23. 2

3. 4
2.G
1. 2
2. 3

5. 7
5. 7
3.4
5.6

4.8
3. 4
I. 5

3.1
2. 1

2. 0
1.8

3.0

I.I
1. 8

0.6
1.2

1. 7
1.11
0.4
1.11

0.9

0.8

1.0

0.9

1.0

0.9

100.0

100.0

8,354
100. 0

6,146
100.0

12. 3
17. 2
24.5

16. 7
17. 5
24.2
10. 3
G.9
18.2

--------- --- --- --9.0
14. 2
2'l. 2

11.1

7. 7
:al.G

Hlgb school:

1 year ................................ .
2 yeen......................... .. -. -3 yeen.. •••.••... .... •· ....••..........
4 YtllllB---··· ....................... •-

Higher education:
1 yeerormon,........................
Median ........ _....................

~~~

===:=.r=U ====u

Carmichael, F. L. and Payne, Stanley L., The 1935 Relief Population in 18
Cities: A Cross-Section, Research Bulletin Series I, No. 23, Division of Social
Reeearch, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., December 31,
1936, p. 8.
6

[)91.zedbyGooglc

82 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
(9.0 percent). Among urban clients, however, 8.9 percent had
finished high school as compared with 3.2 percent of the rural clients.
Moreover, there were 8 more grade school graduates per 100 clients
in urban than in rural areas where only 34 per 100 had completed 8
grades (table 41).
AGE DIFFERENCES IN SCHOOL ATTAINMENT

That educational opportunities have progressively improved is
reflected in the data on school attainment. In the rural relief population of October 1935 each successive age group past 20 years had had
less education than the preceding age group. The average grade
completed dropped from 8.1 for persons 21-24 years to 7.4 for persons
25-34 years of age. The grade attainment declined for each of the
three succeeding IO-year age periods to 6.5, 5.8, and 5.3, respectively
(table 40 and fig. 23).

...!!
!!

10

10

8

8

6

6

tu
0

...•t!

...!!
!!

r

0

u

4

4

C,

!

2

0

---"'l000.-"""""1-.JWWWll-_.......,._......,....___......____.......__~ 0
16-6 4
16 -1 7 18 - 20 21- 2 4 25 - 34 35-44 45-54 5 5-64
AQe in ~ors

FIG. 23-MEDIAN SCHOOL GRADE COMPLETED BY RURAL RELIEF
PERSONS 16 THROUGH 64 YEARS OF AGE
October 1935

The development of rural educational opportunities may be observed
by comparing the grade completion of persons 55-64 years of age with
that of persons 18-20 years of age. Persons in the older group reached
the age of elementary school graduation between 1885 and 1894.
About 34 percent reported no schooling or less than a fourth grade
education, and only 24 percent finished elementary school. Persons
in the 18-20 year age group reached their 14th year during 1929, 1930,
or 1931. Only 10 percent of these failed to attain at least a fourth
grade education, while 57 percent finished the eighth grade. Of the

o g1.lZed b,·

Goog Ie

EDUCATION • 83

older group 17 percent, but of the younger group only 3 percent, had no
formal schooling. Only 2 percent of the older but more than 9 percent
of the younger group had completed high school (table 40). 7
Among heads of households, also, the younger ones reported greater
educational achievements than the older ones. Of all heads 16-24
years of age only 4 percent had not completed any school grade.
Each higher decennial age group showed a greater proportion without
schooling, reaching 17 percent for the highest age group, 55--64 years
(table 41).
The degree of schooling attained by household heads also was less
for each higher age group. While 48 percent of the youngest group of
heads had finished the eighth grade, only 24 percent of the oldest
group had completed grade school. Twenty-one percent of the
youngest group of heads had finished 1 or more years of high school and
six percent had finished high school. At the other extreme, only 6
percent of the oldest group of heads had entered high school and less
than one-half of those who entered had finished all 4 years (table 41).
RESIDENCE DIFFERENCES IN SCHOOL ATTAINMENT

The open country relief population was decidedly more retarded
educationally than was the village population. The average school
attainment of the village population 10-64 years of age was seven
grades. The open country population lagged almost one full grade
behind this average. Nearly 41 percent of the village group had completed the elementary school grades, whereas only 29 percent of the
open country population had advanced that far in their education.
Only 16 percent of the villagers, but 24 percent of the open country
population, had failed to attain a fourth grade education. The percentage of open country persons with no schooling was nearly twice
as great as that of villagers, and the proportion of open country
persons who had finished high school was less than one-half the proportion of villagers who had completed high school (appendix table 30).
Similar differences were found between village and open country
when the comparisons were limited to heads of relief households
(appendix table 31). Village heads were better educated than open
country heads in all age groups.
SEX DIFFERENCES IN SCHOOL ATTAINMENT

Of all rural relief persons 10-64 years of age, females were better
educated than males. Although sex differences in educational attainment were not as great as were residence differences, such differences
were persistent, characterizing every age group (appendix table 32).
Also, among heads of rural relief cases females possessed some
educational advantage over males. This was particularly evident
7

A very small number of persons of any age had attended college.

Dig llzed by

Google

84 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

in the younger age groups. Of all female heads under 25 years of age,
57 percent had at least an eighth grade education and 14 percent had
finished high school. Of all young male heads, only 47 percent had
finished the grades and only 5 percent had completed high school.
Four percent of the young men and three percent of the young women
were without any formal education {appendix table 33).
As in the younger age group a larger proportion of female than of
male heads 25-34 years of age had finished grade school and entered
and finished high school. Of those heads of cases in the higher age
groups, about the same proportions of men and women had finished
the eighth grade but a larger proportion of the women than of the men
had continued their schooling (appendix table 33).
AREA AND RAOAL DlffERENCES IN SCHOOL ATTAINMENT

Educational attainment as indicated by the median school grade
completed was much less in the southern than in the northern areas of
the United States. The lowest educational level was found in the
Eastern Cotton Area where the average attainment for all persons
l<H>4 years of age was only 5.1 grades. The average grade attainment was somewhat higher (5.6 grades) in the Appalachian-Ozark
Area and was higher still (6.4 grades) in the Western Cotton Area. In
all northern areas the average attainment approximated 8 grades
except in the Lake States Cut-Over Area where it averaged only 7.5
grades (table 42 and fig. 24).
Tcr&le 4.2.-Median School Grade Completed by Rural Relief Persons 10 Through 64
Years of Age, October 1935, by Area
[138 counties)
Area

All areas _______________
Eastern Cotton ______________
White ____________________
Negro __________________
Western Cotton _____________ :
White ____________________
N~ro ______________ ......
Appalachian-Or.ark._._ .. _._.
Lake States Cut-Onr ________
Corn Belt_ ___________________
Ilay and Dairy ______________
Winier Whettt.. _____________
Spring Wheat_ _______________
Ranching_-----······ ________

Jdl
ages

10-13

years

14--15

16-17

years

years

6. 5

4. 8

7. 4

8. 2

5.1
5. 7
3.0
6. 4

3.6
4.0
2. 7

6. 7

4. 5
3. 8
4. 6
5. 5
6. 6
5.6
5.1
6.6
5.1

5. 5
6.9
4. I
6.5
6. 7
6.6
7. 0
8.1
8. 4
8. 2
7. 5
8. 2
8.1

6.3
7. 2
3. 3
8.1
8.3
7. 2
7. 2
11.0
9.1
9. 2
0. 2
8. 6
II. 3

5. 3
5. 6
7. 5
K2
7. 9
8.1
8. 0

&.a

4. 4

18-20

years
8. 3

= 6. 4
7. 3
4. 3
8.3
8. 4
7. 7
7. 5
8.6
9.5
8.9
10. 2
8. 6
II. 6

21-24

years

25-34

years

8. I

7. 4

6. 3
7. 4
3.6
8. 2
8.3
11.8
6.9
8.6
8.8
8.6

5.11
6. 4

--=

8. 8

8. 5
9. 2

3. 7
7. 2
7. 4
11.5
6.1
8. 4
8.6
8. 4
8.4
8.3

8.8

35--44
years

years

11.5

5.8

a.a

6. 2
3.1

6. 4
2. I

11.6

II. 2
6.5
6.0
4- 9
6. 2
7.6
7. 2
8.2
7.11

o.u

45--64

~

years

-5.4
- -4.6
-=
6.8
6.3
6. 4
7. I
8. 3
8.0
8.1
8.0
8. 4

8.3

4- 2
5. l

5.1

6.8

4.0
4- 2
5.8
6.8

6. 7
II.fl

8.2
8.1

Children were decidedly retarded in their educational development
in each of the three southern areas. Assuming normal school progress,
children 10-13 years of age would have a maximum average of 5.5
grades completed. In the Eastern Cotton Area children 10-13 years of
age logged about two grades behind this norm, and in the AppalachianOzark and Western Cotton Areas a log of about 1 year was found.
On the other hand, the normal expectancy was met in all but two of

Diglized by

Google

EDUS::ATION • 85

the northern and western areas. Children 14 and 15 years of age
would, under normal progress, have completed an average of 8.5
grades. A lag of 3 grades behind this norm was found in the Eastern
Cotton Area, of 2 grades in the Wes tern Cotton Area, and of 1.5
grades in the Appalachian-Ozark Area. In no other area except
the Winter Wheat was the lag from expectation for this age group more
than 0.4 of a grade. Similar differences in educational attainment of
rural relief persons by area appear in all older age groups (table 42).

J

f

10

10

8

8

6

6

0

u

i
c:5

i~
u

I

7'

4

2

i
(5

2

0

0
All

o,eo,

Rc,,ching Co,n
Ekll

W1nltr

Wheal

Sp,ing
Wheal

Ho~
e nd

Lake White Nt' g,o Ap00 ~ W h ite Neqro
Stole~
Wt?i l t , n
loc h1on
E.os te, n

Ooiry Cut-Over

Cotton

Ozark

Cotton

FIG. 24- MEDIAN SCHOOL GRADE COMPLETED BY RURAL
RELIEF PERSONS 10 THROUGH 64
YEARS OF AGE, BY AREA
October 1935
AF-2467, W. P. I..

When heads of rural relief cases were considered, regional differences
again were found. On the basis of the percentage of all heads 16-64
years of age who had completed the eighth grade, the Ranching Area
stood highest, two-thirds of the heads of cases in that area having at
least an eighth grade education. Next in order were the Com Belt,
the Winter Wheat Area, and the Spring Wheat Area in each of which
nearly three-fifths of all heads of cases had completed grade school.
In the Bay and Dairy Area almost one-half of all relief heads had completed their elementary education. A much lower level of educational
attainment was reached by relief clients in the Lake States Cut-Over
Area where little more than two-fifths of the heads had finished eight
grades and one-tenth were without any schooling. Even this low
level of achievement was considerably above that in the southern
areas. In the Eastern Cotton Area only one-fifth of all relief heads
had completed the eighth grade. The situation was similar in the

D~11·

zeobyGooglc

86 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

Appalachian-Ozark Area where less than one-fourth of the heads had
an eighth grade education. The Western Cotton Area made a little
better showing with 30 percent of its clients having had at least a
grade school education (table 43).
In the Eastern Cotton Area Negroes lo-64 years of age lagged 2.7
grades behind the whites of the same age in average grade attainment
although the attainment of whites was also low. In the Western
Cotton Area. the discrepancy between whites and Negroes in average
grade attainment we.s 1.4 grades (table 42).
Racial differences in educational attainment were less for children
than for youth and adults. This situation reflects the improvement
in educational opportunities for Negroes during recent years and also
the migration of the better educated Negroes from the rural areas of
the South.
Toltle 43.-School Grade Completed by Heads ol Rural Relief Cases 16 Through 64
Years of Age, October 1935, by Area
[138 counties)
Peroen t of all bead!
Area

All beads

All are&ll •• •• • • ···· ••· - • -

38,638

11. 0

34. 3

Eastern Cotton •••••.•• •••• •. .
White ...••.••••.• ••..... .
Negro . .... .•• •••••••.•... .
Western Cotton • ••• • ••• .•....
White •••••• •••••.•...•...
Negro . . .•. •.• •• •• •••......
Appalachlan•Ozark . . .••. ••.. .
Lake Bt•tes Cut•Over •• . . • ...
Com Belt . . . .. •.•• •••• •• • . •...
Bay and Dairy •• ••••••• •.•...
Winter Wheat • ••• • .• .. •.. .. ..
Spring Wheat •••••.. . .....•. ..
Ranching . ..••• • ••• •.. .. . .....

4,294

H. 4

22. 2
28. 1

29. 4

6.5
30.4
33. a
17.fl
23.0
42.1
68.3
48. 11

3,

11. 2

]II()

1,104
4,610
3,728
882

16,736
2,410

2,724
6,156
790

1, 982

-

8gndea Blgbacbool: Blah 11ehool
No grade
completed completed' 1 year or completed•

6. 4
6. 4
JO. II
12.6
11. 9
2.4
2. g
2. 8

934

• Including those who went to high school .

6. 2
3. 2

68. 2

65. 6
&6. 0

10. 4

3. 2

11.0
Ul.8

I. II

2. 4
12.11

...

l&. 7

11. 2

14. 8
17. 2
14. 8
16. 6
13..3
24.9

College:
1 ,-r or

more

6.1
0. 8
2. l
2. 2
L6
1. 2
4.0
7.4
6. 0
6. 7
6. 6
II. 6

0.11

2. 6
I. I

o.e
0. 8

o. 7

1. 0
0..
0. 7
1. 2
1. 1
1. 1
1. 2
2.7

• IDcludlDg those who went lo colJece.

Considering only heads of relief households, the level of educational
attainment was much lower among Negroes than among whites in the
two Cotton Areas. In the Eastern Cotton Area 29 percent of the
Negro heads of rural relief cases had not completed a school grade and
less than 6 percent had finished the eighth grade. In comparison
only 9 percent of the heads of white cases in the Eastern Cotton Area
were without any formal education and 28 percent had finished at
least eight grades of schooling (table 43).
Both Negroes and whites were better educated in the Western Cotton Area, but here again the races differed greatly in educational
attainment. In this area 33 percent of the white heads, but only 18
percent of the Negro heads, had finished the elementary school
grades. Five percent of the white and eleven percent of the Negro
heads lacked any formal educat ion (table 43).

Digitized by

Google

EDUCATION • 87

It is interesting to note in the Cotton Areas, where a small proportion
of household heads had finished grade school, that a large proportion
of those who did finish continued their schooling. In these areas
grade school graduates constituted a select group that went on to
high school although relatively few actually finished high school.
The same situation was not found in the other southern region, the
Appalachian-Ozark Area, where only a small proportion of those who
finished grade school went to high school. This reflects the lack of
educational facilities beyond elementary school available to mountain
people.
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

Closely related to the problem of grade attainment is the problem of
school attendance. Between 1852 and 1918 every State in the Union
enacted compulsory school attendance legislation. The laws differ
greatly from State to State. They place the minimum compulsory
attendance age at 6, 7, or 8 years and the maximum at from 14 to 18
years and require from 6 to 12 years of attendance. 8
Under the compulsion of legislation and under the stimuli of improved courses of study, better health conditions, better means of
transportation, and increased interest in education, school enrollment
of children of compulsory attendance age has steadily improved.
School attendance laws allow for very few exemptions for children
7-13 years of age. As a result, attendance for this group is at a maximum. In 1930, 93 percent of all rural children in this age group were
attending school (table 44).
To&le +f.--Percent of the Rural Relief Population{• October 1935, and of the General
Rural Population,1 1930, 5 Through 24 Years o Age Attending School, by Area
Area

7-13
yean

H
yean

All BllCS

16--17
years

14--15
yean

lS-·:Ml
yean

21-24
years

--- --- --- --- --- --Allan,u ..•....•.........

Eastern Cotton •.........•••...
White •••...•.......•.......

95. 5

86. 7

40.2

9.3

o. 7

28. 1
29. 3
24. 9
14.11
14. 5
16. 5
24.3
41. 8
51. 2
43.0
35. 7
31.6
22.11

88. 8
90. 2
84:7
114. 2
95. 3
90. 2
114.6
911.0
98. 9
1111.2
98.6
98. 1
96. 1

n.4
79.0
71. 7
89.1
89. 5
87. 7
83. 8
90.0
90 9
97. 6
114.9
77. 9
95. 7

33.6
37.4
21. 1
45. 5
48.6
33.0
30.8
48.0

9. 1
9.0
11.2
12. 4
12.6
11. 7
6.6
8. 0
13.3
10. 4
:Ill. 0
11.9
14. 6

1.1
1. 6

113. 3

85.0

IIO. 6

White •••••••••••..•........

Negro .......•..............
~achlan•Or.ark ............

Oent'ral rural population,
lll30............ .. . ...••

29. 4

55. 4
57. 2
50. 3

------ ------

Negro •.......•••.••.•••....
Western Cotton ..•••.•.........

e States Cut•Over ••.....•..
Com Belt ......•.••••..••......
Hay and Dairy .••.•••..••..••.
Winter Wheat. ....•...........
Spring Wheat••••••••••••••••••
Ranching ••••••....•..••.•..•..

58. i

=

60.4
61.6
52. 9
62. I
67. 6
GS.0
67. 5
60.5
6.1. 4
(')

=

33.6

=

52. 8

=

55. 3
00. 0
32.1
67. 6

---

0.8
0.3
0.G
0.3
3.1
1.3

=

53.9

1 138 counties.
• Fiftu'IIJI& Ctnffll of/~ l'niled State,: 1~$0, Population Vol. Ill, Part 1, p. 17.
• Comparable data for 21-24 year group not available.

• Deffenbaugh, Walter S. and Keesecker, Ward W., Compulsory School AUmdance Lawa and Their Administration, Bulletin, 1935, No. 4, U. S. Department of
the Interior, Office of Education, Washington, D. C.

Dig 11zed by

Goog Ie

88 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

Children of rural relief clients attend school with about the same frequency as other children. In October 1935 about 94 percent of all
open country relief children and 97 percent of all village relief children
7-13 years of age were attending full-time day school or intended to
enter school upon the opening of the 1935-36 session (appendix table
34). The attendance rate of children in rural relief households (96 percent) (fig. 25) wa.s actually higher than that for children in the general
rural population of 1930 (93 percent) (table 44). The proportion of
children 14 and 15 years of age in the rural relief population attending
school was also higher than the proportion of all rural children of these
ages in school in 1930. It is likely, however, that ,attendance rates
were generally higher in 1935 than in 1930 because of constant improvement in school attendance.
100--------------------100

75

c

c

•~
t.

50

•

1

25

..__.._...... o
5-24

5-6

14-15

16·17

18·20

21·24

A9e in years
FIG. 25- PERCENT OF THE RURAL RELIEF POPULATION
5 THROUGH 24 YEARS OF AGE
ATTENDING SCHOOL
October 1935

Whereas relief children under 16 years of age attended school with
about the same frequency as did children in the general population of
1930, the older youth on relief were out of school in much greater proportions than were the same age groups in the genera.I rural population. Attendance rates were much lower for rural youth 16-17 and
18-20 years of age in the relief population than in the general population of 1930 (table 44).
The nonattendance at school of children of relief parents was much
greater in the South than in other areas. In all northern areas only
1 to 4 percent of children 7-13 years of age were out of school in October

Diglized by

Google

EDUCATION •

89

1935. In striking contrast was the Eastern Cotton Area. More than
11 percent of all relief children, 15 percent of the Negro and 10 percent

of the white children, of that area were out of school. Farm work
during the cotton-picking season was probably the chief factor responsible for that condition. In the Western Cotton Area a similar but
less severe situation was found. There 5 percent of the white children
and 10 percent of the Negro children 7-13 years of age were not
attending school. In the Appalachian-Ozark Area 5 percent of all
relief children of elementary school age (7-13 years) were out of school
(table 44).

Dig t1zed by

G oog IC

Dlgtized by

Google

Chapter IX
EMPLOYABILITY COMPOSITION AND
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

EcoNOMIC DISTRESS is an ever present condition in a modem industrial society, such as that characterizing the United States. The
amount and intensity of distress rises and falls with the business cycle,
but even in periods of general prosperity many individuals find themselves deprived of the means of livelihood. In normal thnes the distress is largely that of the defective, the invalid, the crippled, and the
aged who are unable to compete in the labor market. The widespread distress of recent years, however, has been to a very large
extent that of able-bodied persons who have found themselves and
their dependents submerged by an avalanche of economic disaster.
It is the purpose of this chapter to indicate the extent of employability
of the rural relief load and the size, composition, and occupational
distribution of the rural labor force receiving relief in 1935.
WORKERS I AND DEPENDENTS ON RELIEF

In the rural relief population of June 1935 persons 16-64 years of
age who were working or seeking work comprised 30 percent of the
To&le 45.-Worlcers and Dependents in Rural Relief Cases, June and October 1935,
by Family Status
(138 counties]
lune
Workers end dependents
All per•

sons

Number_ ..........••.•••••..•..••..
Percent •.•..••.•..••....•...... _.•..
Peroons 1 ~ years or 1\11:e ___ ...••••••.....
Workln{ or seeking work_ •••••••...•.
Wit work experience .....••.•.. Without work ,•x1)('rience••••••.•.
Not working or seeking work .....•.. _
Persons under 16 years or 1\11:e ......•..••..
Persons over 64 years of Bile...••..•.•.•...

Household
heads

October

Other
members

All per•
sons

58,474
100.0

195, lff2
100.0

186,812
100.0

51. 4

90.3
84. 7
82.3
2. 4
6.6

39.8
13.1
9. 3
3.8
26. 7
56.4
3.8

48_9
2i.O
23. 9
3.1
21. 9
45. 9
5. 2

29. 6
26. l
3. 5
21.8
43. 4
5. 2

-

9. 7

beads

Other
members

- - - - - - --- - - -

25.1, 636
100. 0

---

HoUllC•
hold

43,912
100.0

142.000
100.0

82. l
711. 5

10. I
6.8
3. 3
26.3
60.0
3.6

- -119.-6 - -36.4
'.l.6

7. 5

-

10. 4

1 A worker is defined in this study as a person 16-64 years of age who is working
or seeking work.

91

Dig I1zed by

G oog IC

92 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

total persons on relief (table 45). Hence, there were in the relief
group more than two dependents for every worker.
On a case basis 87 percent of all rural relief cases in June included
at least one worker (table 46 and fig. 26). About 9 percent of the
June 1935 rural relief cases that had workers were without any male
worker and 8 percent had only one female worker. Of all cases that
had workers, 70 percent had one worker only, 19 percent had two
workers, 7 percent had three workers, while 4 percent had four
workers or more (table 47).
To&le 46.-Employability Composition of Rural Relief Cases, February, June, and
October 1935
[138 counties]

Employability composition

February

Number __________________________________ .____________ _______
Percent __ . _________ . ___ . ____________ ••.............. _.... _____

84, 13G
100. 0

lune

October

58,516
100.0

43,lm
100.0

1----1-

Cues with workers _______ ---··----······--·-··-····-··-··--·•·-···-

811.11

Female workers only_._ ...... ····- · _-·····-_ ..... ··-······-··__
l worter_······-···-·--- ····-·· ··•·- _.. . ... _. ·-··-·· ... ___ . .
2 workers or more ... -··_-· ..... ·-- __ ._ ..... _.•. _···-··--··__
1 male worker or more .. ··-······ ........ ·-·······-······--···-Cues without workers .... --··-··--····--··--···-··-·-········-····No person !1Hl4 years of age.···················-·····-·······-·
No person UHl4 years of age working or seeking wort. • . • . . . . . . .

6. 1
5. 2

O. 9

83. 8
10.1

5.3
4. 8

87. 4
7.8
6.6
I. 2
79.6
12.6
6. 7

85. 7
10. 7
9.2

1-5
i5.0
14_ 3
7.6
6. 7

5.9

About 85 percent of all heads of households were workers. Most of
the heads not working or seeking work were past 64 years of age and
the rest were widows, disabled persons, or others not looking for gainful
employment.
Only 13 percent of all persons 16-64 years of age other than heads
were working or seeking work. They accounted for about one-third
of all workers.

II

One mole worker or more

~

No persons 16 tlvoUQh 64
~ )'90•1 of 0911
0

10

20

30

40

Percent
50

~ Femole workers only
r.:, No ~loyable persons 16
W

throu9h 64 yeor of 0911

60

70

90

Februory
June
October

FIG. 26- EMPLOYABILITY COMPOSITION OF RURAL
RELIEF CASES.

February, June, and October 1935

D91

zeabyGooglc

IOO

EMPLOY ABILITY COMPOSITION AND EMPLOYMENT • 93

Ta&/e 47.-Number of Workers in Rural Relief Cases Havin9 1 or More Persons 16
Throu9h 64 Years of A9e Workin9 or Seekin9 Work, February and June 1935, 1 by
Residence
[138 counties]
February
Number or workers
Total rural

Open
country

Numh<-r. ...............
Percent.................

75, 1\34
100. o

52, 147

2 workers.....................

18. 4

18.6
8.3
3. 2
1.6

lune
Total rural

VIiiage

100. 0

Open
country

23,487
100. 0

51, 142
100.0

31,838
100.0

Ii. 9

19. 2
7.4
2. 8

19. 7
8.2
3. 2

I.I

I. 4

1-----J----i-----1----1-1 worker......................
70. I
69. 5
67. 5
68. 3
73. 7

3 workers.....................
4 workers.....................
5 workers or more.............
1

7. 5
2. 7
I. 3

5. 9
1.8
0. 7

VIiiage

19, 3114
100.0
72.8

18. 4
6.1
2. I

0.6

Comparable data not available ror October 1035.

Unemployable Households

Thirteen percent of all June 1935 rural relief cases consisted entirely
of dependent persons. This was an increase in the proportion of such
cases since February when only 10 percent of all rural relief cases were
without workers. By October the proportion of unemployable cases
in the rural relief load had increased still further, to 14 percent. The
influence of the rural rehabilitation program, the Works Program,
and private industry in removing employable cases from general relief
rolls is reflected here (table 46 and fig. 26).
The cases without workers were mainly of three types: (1) oneperson households (41 percent), (2) couples without children (31
percent), and (3) broken families, mostly mothers and children (12
percent). About one in every five was an aged man alone, and one
Ta&/e 48.-Type of Rural Relief Cases Without Workers, June 1935, by Residence
[138 counties]

BotLsebold composition

Total rural

Open
country

VIiiage

7,352
100.0

3, ll44

100.0

3,408
100. o

Busband and wife..................................................
Without others.................................................
With other.! .••••..................................... ,.........

31.4
28.6
2.8

32.3
28.9
3.4

30. 3
28. 2
2.1

Husband, wile, and children........................................
W itboot others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
With others....................................................

10. 1
9. 5
0.6

11. 3
10. 5
0.8

8. 8
8. 3
0. 6

Father and children................................................
w !thout others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
With others....................................................

1.8
1.4
0.4

2. I
1.6
0.6

I. 5
1. 3
0.2

Mother and children .......................... : .....................
Without others.................................................
With others....................................................

11. 7

9.3
8.1
1.2

10. 2
9. O
1. 2

Number......................................................
Percent.......................................................

l----~----1----

8. 5

1. 2

Nonfamilygroups..................................................

6. 3

6.3

6.2

I •person households.................................................
Male 16-M years or age.........................................
Male 65 years or age and over............................. . . . . ..
Female ltHl4 years or age.......................................
Female 65 years or age and over.................................

◄O. 7
◄. 4

38. 7
4. 6
19. 6
4. 3
10. 2

43. O

19. 1
4. 8
12. 4

._ 1
IR. 8
5. 3
I._ 8

[)91.zedbyGooglc

94 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
■ Husband, ~
wife, and
~
children

r:mNon-

Husband
and wife

II~

~ fomily

households

CJl'oup5

Plrcent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

80

70

90

100

RURAL
()pen COlallry

v,11091

FIG. 27· TYPE OF RURAL RELIEF CASES WITHOUT WORKERS,
BY RESIDENCE

June 1935
Af•247 I, W. PA.

in every eight was an aged woman alone. Nine percent were lone
individuals between the ages of 16 and 64 years who were unable to
work (table 48 and fig. 27).
Nearly nine-tenths of all rural relief cases without workers were
one-, two-, or three-person households. More than two-fifths of the
cases without workers were one-person cases, almost two-fifths were
two-person cases, and about one-tenth were three-person cases
(table 49).
Tcrl,le 49.-Siie of Rural Relief Cases Without Workers, June 1935, by Residence

I1:18 counties)
Total rural

Siie ol case

Open
country

Village

Number ...............•.....................•.........•......
Percent ..••.. - .......•.•............................••..••••..

7,364
100.0

3,964
100.0

3,410
100.0

1 person._ ••.••.•..•................ _... _............... _........ _..
per.;ons .. __ ................................•.•....................
persons .. -··· ............................................•........
persons ................................................•••...•....
pers,ins .• - .....................•...........•.......•..........•...
persons ............•.........................•...........•........
7 persons ....••.....................................................
8 persons·--························································
V persons •• _.•.•..••.•...•..•....••..•.....•••••.•••••.•••..•.......

U7
36.9
9.6
5. 1
3.0
1.8
1. 2
0.4
0.4

39.6
36.9
10.8
4. 9
a. 2
2. 2
1. 4
0. 7
0.4

43.9
36.9
8. 2
6.4
2. 7
1.3
1.0
0.2
0.4

Median .•..•..•..•..•.•........•......•..•••••..••••••........

I. 7

I. 7

1. 7

2
3
4
6
6

Age and Sex of Worlcen

Workers on relief in rural areas were preponderantly youth and
adults less than 45 years of age. The median age of all workers was
33 years, while 31 percent were youth less than 25 years of age and
only 27 percent were past 44 years of age. The median age of workers
other than heads of households was only 22 years, and nearly threefourths were youth 16-24 years of age. The median age of household

Dig lized by

Google

EMPLOYABILITY COMPOSITION AND EMPLOYMENT • 95

heads who were working or seeking work was 40 years. Only 36
percent were less than 35 years of age while about two-fifths (38 percent) were 45 or more (table 50).
TolJ/e 50.-Age and Sex of Rural Relief Persons 16 Through 64 Years of Age Working
or Seeking Work, June 1935, by Family Status
[138 counties]
All ages
16-24
years

Family status and sex

All workers. ______________
Male _________________
Female _______________
Household heads _______________
Male _______________________
Female _____________________
Other members _________________
Ma)e _______________________
Female _____________________

2&-34
years

Number

Percent

76,230
58,892
16,338

100.0
100.0
100.0

30.8
26.9
44.6

44,220
6,338

100.0
100.0
100.0

9. I
7.6

v.o

27. I
28. I
19.6

25,672
14,672
IJ,000

100.0
100.0
100.0

72.9
80. 7
62. 6

16. 7
14.4
17.3

= 411,558

36--«
years

4&-M
years

M-64
years

Median
age

- -- - - - - - - - - 23.2
24. 7

18.1

HU

18.8
19.6
15.9

17.4
13. I

10. 7
11.4
8. 3

25.3
27.2

22. 7
26.0

14.8
IV. 7

3V.6

6.9
2.5
10.6

3. 7
1;3
6. 8

1.8
I.I
2. 8

21. i
21.1
22. 7

- -15.3
-=
= 25.5 -23.1

32.8
33.V
27. 6
40.0
42.V

More than one-fifth of all rural relief persons 16-64 years of age
working or seeking work in June 1935 were women, mostly young
women, their average age being only 28 years. Whereas threefourths of all male workers were heads of relief cases, only one-third
of all female workers were household heads. A large proportion of
the female workers were young girls only recently out of school.
There were, however, fairly large percentages of older women working
or seeking work. One-fifth of all fem ale workers other than household heads were 35 years of age or more (table 50). The drastic
changes wrought by the depression led many housewives to seek jobs
outside the home.
Of the household heads who were workers, about 11 percent
were women (table 50). The average age of the male heads was
40 years although 15 percent were 55-64 years of age and 38 percent
were 45-64 years of age. The average female worker head was 43
years old, 3 years older than the average male worker head. About
20 percent of these women were past 54 and 46 percent were past
44 years of age.
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE OF WORKERS

Although 30 percent of all rural relief persons were working or
seeking work, only 26 percent had been gainfully occupied for at least
4 consecutive weeks during the past 10 years. The other 4 percent
represented inexperienced persons who had never worked or retired
persons who had not worked during the past decade (table 45).
Of the heads of households who were employable, 2 percent were
without work experience (table 45). These belonged to three main
groups. One group consisted of able-bodied young persons who

01g 11,ed by

G oog Ie

96 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

reached employable age, or reached the end of their schooling, and
became responsible for themselves and their dependents during depression years when no jobs were available. Another group consisted of
homemakers who had been left alone or with dependents upon the
death or disability of, or separation from, the male breadwinner.
More than two-thirds of the inexperienced workers who were heads of
households were women, whose average age was 39 years (table 51).
The third group consisted of elderly men who had suffered from disabilities during the past 10 years which kept them from working,
whose independent sources of livelihood had failed, and who were,
against many odds, seeking work to support themselves and their
families. Twelve percent of the male heads of households who wanted
work but had not worked during the past 10 years were 55-64 years
of age.
More than one-fourth of the household members other than heads
who were working or seeking work were without employment experience (table 45). This lack of work experience was largely due to their
youth, the great majority being 16-24 years of age (table 50).
Usual lnduttria

Six out of every ten workers on relief in rural areas in February 1935
were usually agricultural workers, including farm operators, farm wage
workers, and unpaid family workers on the home farm. Seven out
of every ten were usually employed in either agriculture or manufacturing and mechanical industries. Transportation and communication hud given employment to nearly 6 percent, trade and public and
professional service to 4 percent, domestic and personal service to
5 percent, and mining and forestry and fishing to 6 percent. Nine
percent were inexperienced persons without work histories (table 52). 2
About 3 out of every 10 workers usually employed in manufacturing
and mechanical industries had been in building and construction, and
an additional 2 or 3 hud been in the lumber, furniture, and textile
industries. The remaining workers from manufacturing had been
scattered among a large number of industries.
1 This distribution is based on a sample study in 138 counties.
The results
are not comparable with those given in Hauser, Philip M., Workers on Relief
in the United States in March 198/i, Vol. I, A Census of Usual Occupations,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
1938, for the following reasons: The sample study included farm operator families
receiving drought relief which were excluded from the census enumeration. Many
persons classified by the sample study as farm laborers on the home farm were
classed as "inexperienced persons" by the occupational census. Many persons
who had performed no otll('r work than that on Government emergency projects,
RIIC'h as those C'ornl11rtc-d by the Civil Works Administration, by the Civilian
C'onspn·ation Corps, anrl 11lHIPr the emergency work rcliPf program, were assignPd
a usual occupation hy the census hut were classed as "inexperienced persons" in
the sample study.

Diglized by

Google

97

EMPLOY ABILITY COMPOSITION AND EMPLOYMENT •

Ta&/e SJ.-Age and Sex of Heads of Rural Relief Cases Working or Seeking Wotic,
June 1935, by Usual Occupation
(138 oountles]

Alla~es
l 1 sual oreupatlon and sex

TotaL
_-----···-·
---·-····
:'>!ale
. ____ ______
______
Female _______________

F~l~r._ra~~::::::::::::::::::

25---34
years

16--24

Numher

years

Percent

35....44

45-,54

5.'Hl4

years

years

years

Merlian
age

- - - - - - - --- --- - - - ----- -25.
100. 0
9.0
2i. I
49,518
23. 1
15.
!j

=

Female. ········ · · ·-· .. .... .

Farm
laborer
.. ······
···· -·----Male
__________
________
_____
Female . _____ ·-··········-·_
Unskillerl laborer _______________
Mnle _____ __________________
Female_ ... __________ . ___ ._.

44, 186

IIMl. ll

9. 2

5. 332

1m.o

7. 5

100. 0
100.0
100. 0

7. 3
i.8
1.8

688

100. 0
100.0
100.0

14.3
15.2
6, 7

32. 0
3'l. g
22. 4

14,400
13. 0 12
I, 478

100. 0
100.0
100.0

8.6
8. 7
7. a

8.640
7,006
674

100.0
100. 0
100.0

6. 5
6. 2
10.1

1,414
44R

100. 0
100. 0
100. 0

23. 2
39. 8
15. 5

1s.m
16, .591l
1,526

- - -- =

6,850
6, Jf,2

Other
nonagricultural
worker_ ..
Male
______ _________________
Female. __ ----------------·.
No usual occupation ____________
!'.fate
. ··-···-·-·----···--··
Female
_____________________

006

2!1.0
JU. 7

- -25. 8
27. I
II. 7

2.5. 3

22.;

77. 1

26. 0

2.5. ft

23. 6

23.6

3
14. 8
19. 7

------25. 6
24. 4
16.9

40.0
39. 6
42. 9

---

33. 4

15. 7
29.5

41 . I
40.4
48.4

22. fi
21. 6
31. 6

17. 9
17. 4
22. 7

13. 2
12. 9
16. 6

3:,, 4
41.1

26.6
27. 5

2,.5. 6
25.0

19.9

29. 6

23. g
23. 7
25. i

15. 3
15. 1
Ii. 5

40. 3
40. 0
42. 2

27. 6
27.5

28.1
28.2
26.4

23.8

29. l

20.8

14.0
14.0
13. 6

38.6

22. 5
20. 5
23. 4

22. g
16. 5
2.5. g

18. 0
II. A
20. g

13. 4
11.6
14.3

36. 4
29. 5
38.8

24. I

36. l

40. 2
40. 3

Of workers residing in the open country, nearly three-fourths had
followed agricultural pursuits. Six percent had pursued occupations
in manufacturing and mechanical industries. Nearly 5 percent were
miners, woodsmen, and fishermen. Three percent had usually been
engaged in transportation and communication, two percent in trade
or public or professional service, two percent in domestic or personal
service, and eight percent had never worked at any nonrelief job
(table 52 and fig. 28).
Ta&/e 5!.-Usual Industry of Rural Relief Persons 16 Through 64 Years of Age Working
·

or Seeking Work, February, June, and October 1935, by Residence
(138 oounties)

February
Usual indUBtry

Toi-al
rural

Open
country

June
Vil-

!age

Percent__________________ ... _.

Domestic and personal servioe____ . _.
No usual Industry. ____________ _____

l'OllD-

try

October
Vil•

!age

Totnl
rural

Open
country

\'ii!age

-- - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

Number _________________ ____ _ i0i,644 7i,26.3 30,381
AIJ-fculture _________________ ________
Farm operator _________ _______ ..
Farm laborer .. ···---·· ·-- .. __ _.
Forestry and fishing.·-·-·· ··-- ____ .
Extraction of minerals __ .. ______ _.. .
Manulacturing and mecbanlcaL _. ..
Building and oonstruction. __ . __
Lumber and furniture __ . ____ .. .
rextile ________________________ _
Other · -······ .... _-· ___ . ___ . --..
Transportation anrl mmmun irntion _
Street and roarl NmstruC'tion . ___
Other. _.. ···--···-··--- _____ __- .
Trade, public and professional
service ___ _________________ _____ __.

Total
rural

Open

182 47,150 25. 032 1;, 938 30, flM
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

;2,

100.0

100.0

100. 0

31. 4

40. 8
33. 3
I. I
3. 6
6. ()
1.6

8. 4
Ii. 2
I.I
8. 8
20. 2
6. 2
2. 8
2. 2
9.0
12.tl
5. 0
7. r.

24. 5
24. 9
I. 9

8.6
9.9
13. 2

4. 5
S. ti

1;, 284

100.0
-74.-I -25.-6 -49.-4 -64---22.-3 -48.-0 -64.0
- -20.8
60. 0
.3
2ll. 6

1.0
6. 0
JO. 2
2. g
I. 7
1.0
4. 6
5. 8
2. 5
3. :1
4. I)
◄ . fi

9. 4

I. 3
0. 4
2. i
3. 0
I. 5
1.5

2. 1
2. 4

,. ,

8. 5
11.0
3.0

1.8
I.I
5. I
6. 4
2. 8
3. fi

12. 7

33. 8
30. 5
2. (I
6. 2
i.O
I. 7
I. 4
0. 7
3. 2
4. I
2 0
2.1

7. 7
14. 6
I. 5
12. 6
18. 2
5. 3
2. 5
I. g
8. 5
10. 6
4. 5
6. I

2.~ . 7
22. 3
I. 4
14. 3
9. ,5
2. 8
I. 3
0. 8

2 2
3. 0
II. 2

8.

r.

3.3
6.1
12. 8

IIJ. ◄
15. 9

4. fl
4. 6
2. I
2. 5

36. 4
27. 6
I. 7
7. 4
6. 6
I. 7
I .I
0. 5
3. 3
3. 2
I. 7
1.5

i. 4
13.4
0. 8
26. 0
14. 2
4. 4
I. 7
I. 2
6. g

1.9

5. 4
9. 8
15. 8

3. 9
11.3

7. 2
3. (I
◄. 2

98 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

0

II

Agnculti,e

10

20

~
30

Nonogriculture •

40

Percent
50

60

m

No usual industry

70

80

90

100

FEBRUARY
RURAL

Open country
V,lloge

JUNE
RURAL

Open country
Village

OCTOBER
RURAL

Open country
Village

F1G. 28 - USUAL INDUSTRY OF RURAL RELIEF PERSONS
16 THROUGH 64 YEARS OF AGE WORKING
OR SEEKING WORK, BY RESIDENCE
February, June, and October 1935
Af•2475,"' PA

Agriculture had usually given employment to 26 percent of the
rural workers on relief in :February 1935 who resided in villages.
About one-fifth (20 percent) of the village workers had been usually
engaged in manufacturing and mechanical industries, and 13 percent
had been employed in transportation and communication. About
one-tenth (10 percent) were domestic and personal servants, and 9
percent were tradesmen or in public or professional service. An
additional 9 percent were miners, 1 percent were woodsmen or fishermen, and 13 percent were inexperienced.
Between February and June 1935 a large movement of farmers
from general and drought relief to the rural rehabilitation program
took place. Since families assisted under the latter program were
excluded from the relief survey, the occupational distribution of workers was quite diffNent in June from that of 4 months earlier. While
nil workers on relief declined by one-third from February to June,
farm workers declined with greater rapidity. As a result, agricultural workers comprised only 49 percent of the June workers, whereas

Dg1tzedbyGoogle

EMPLOY ABILITY COMPOSITION AND EMPLOYMENT • 99

they had comprised 60 percent of the workers on relief in February.
Although the rural relief load continued to decline rapidly between
June and October, largely because of the inauguration of the Works Program, efforts to eliminate borderline cases from relief, and seasonal
factors, agriculture's proportion of the total workers remained about
constant. In October farm operators and laborers comprised 48
percent of the total (table 52).
While the total labor force on rural relief rolls declined consistently
from February to October 1935, miners showed a persistent increase
both in actual numbers and in proportion to the total. 3 From February to June the number of workers on rural relief experienced in extraction of minerals increased and their proportion of the total rose
from 5 to nearly 9 percent. The movement of miners onto the relief
rolls continued throughout the summer and by October miners accounted for 14 percent of all rural workers on relief.
The movement of miners onto the relief rolls was particularly characteristic of villages. In February mine workers comprised only 9
percent of the village total. Their proportion rose to 13 percent in
June and to 26 percent in October.
The distribution by usual industry of heads of rural relief cases
working or seeking work did not differ markedly from that of all workers in 1935 (table 52 and appendix table 35). Farm operators were
much more important proportionately among heads of households,
however, than among all workers. Few of the heads reported no
usual industry although the percentage rose slightly from February
to October.
Usual Occupations

In February 1935 farmers by usual occupation formed 31 percent
and farm laborers 29 percent of all workers on relief. Professional
workers formed only slightly more than one-half of 1 percent of the
total; proprietors, managers, and officials less than 1 percent; and
clerical workers less than 2 percent. Together, these three groups,
often referred to as "white-collar" workers, formed 3 percent of all
workers on relief in rural areas in February 1935. Skilled workers
comprised 4 percent and semiskilled workers 5 percent of the total.
Unskilled workers constituted 19 percent of the total if farm laborers
are excluded or 47 percent of the total if farm laborers are included
(table 53 and fig. 29).
During 1935 the occupational distribution of workers in rural relief
cases changed considerably as a result of the transfer of farmers to
a The data are markedly affected by the abnormal decline in employment in
mining between Febrnary and October in Muhlenburg County, Ky., and by an
increase in part-time employment in mining in the other sample counties in the
Appalachian-Ozark Area. See Coal, Employment and Related Statistics of Mines •
and Quarries, 1935, Mineral Technology and Output per Man Studies, Report
No. E-4, Works Progress Administration, Philadelphia, Pa., July 1937.

D~11·

zeobyGooglc

100 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

the rural rehabilitation program and of various seasonal factors. While
the proportion of agricultural workers in relief cases declined from
February to October 1935, the proportion of unskilled nonagricultural
workers rose from 19 to 29 percent and the proportion of inexperienced
workers rose from 9 to 12 percent (table 53).
Table 53.-Usual Occupation of Rural Relief Persons 16 Through 6-4 Years of Age
Working or Seeking Work, February, June, and October 1935, by Residence
(138 counties]

February
Usual oc,·u1,a1 ion
Total
rural

Open

try

C"OUD·

0(-toher

June

VII•

lage

Total
rural

Open

"°~t

Vil-

lage

Total Open
rural ~~;-

Number. •.•.••.•.••.•....•... 110.910 78,747 32, Hl:I 75,126 48.310 26,816 S0 • .520 31. 790
Percent....................... 100. O 100. O 100. O 100. O 100. O 100. o IIJO. o too. o

Agriculture. _______________________ _
Farm operator. ________________ _
Owner. __ . ___ .. __ . _________ _
Tenant. _______ . ___________ _

Far~•,~~"';,,:::::::::::::::::::
Proprietary _____ ... _.......... _.
f' lericaL ....... _... _. . __ .. _. __ _

Nona~riculture ____ . _______ . _______ _
Proles.sionaL .... . ..... ________ _
Skilled ........................•.
Semiskilled ..... _.. . . . . _....... .

Unskilled ......... __ . . . _. ... ___ _
Servant ... _._ ........ _..... .

Other.... _ .... _..... --- .. .
1'0 usual occupation. __ ............ _

60.0
31. 4
10. 3
14. 7
6. 4
28.6
31. 4
0. 6
0. !I
I. 6
4. 4
5. 2
18. 7
3. .5
15. 2
8. 6

74. I
40. 8
13. 4
Ill. 2
8.2
3.l. 3
18. 8
0. 4
0. 4
0. 7
2. 4
2. 8
12. I
1.8
10. 3
7.1

2S. 6
8. 4
2. ft
3. II
I. II
17. 2
62. 3
I. 3
1.!I
3. 9
II. 2
11.0
35. 0
7. 6
27. 4
12.1

49. 3
24. 5
8. 7
11.6
4. 2
24. 8
38. 8
0. 7
0. !I
2.1
4. 6
5.8
2◄. 7
5.0
Ill. 7
It. 9

64. 3

22. 3

33. 8

7. 7

12. 2
16. 0
5. 6
30.5
25. 3
0. 4
0. 4
0. 9
2.8
3. 9
16. II
2. 7
14. 2
10. 4

2. 3
3. 8
1.6
14. 6
113. 2
I. 2
1.8
4. 4

8.0
II 2
38. 6
II.I
29. 5
14. 5

48.0
25. 7
11.0
10. 7
6.0
22. 3
40. 4
0.6
0. 7
1.5
4. 2
4. 5
28. II
5. 3
ZI. 6
11. 6

64.0
36. 4

12. 8
14. 7

8.11
27. 6
2.~. II
0.4
0. 3
0. 7
2. 5
3. 2
18.8
3. 4
15. 4
10.1

Vil-

la~e
18. T.IO
100.0
20.8
7. 4
2. 3
3. II
I. 2
13. 4

6-1.11
I.I
I. 2
2. 7
6. II
6. II

46. I
8. 5
37. 6
14.3

Uaual Occupations of Heada of Relief Ca.,ea

Almost three-tenths of all employable heads of rural relief cases in
June 1935 were unskilled nonagricultural workers by usual occupation (appendix table 36). The average age of these unskilled workel'I!
was 40 years. About 10 percent of them were women, whose average
age was 42 years (table 51).
Approximately 17 percent of all employable heads of rural relief
cases were other nonagricultural persons including semiskilled, skilled,
and white-collnr workers. About 8 percent of these were women,
whose average age was 39 years.
Of those employable bends who were experienced workers, farm
operators were oldest and fnrm laborers were youngest. The average
age of farmers was 41 years, while the form ln borers averaged only 36
years of age. Approximutely 8 percent of all farm operators by usual
occupation were women, who averaged 8 years older than the male
farmers. Three out of ten of the women formers were past 54 years
of age. These elderly women formers W<>re mostly widows who were
op<>rnting forms with the aid of fnmily members or with outside help
or who had retired from farming, or they were wives of farmers considered unemployable because of age or disability (table 51).

Dig uzed by

Goog Ie

EMPLOY ABILITY COMPOSITION AND EMPLGYMOIT • H)1

■

Farm operator

~ Skilled and
~ semiskilled

[:3 Form laborer

II

~

r::::l

Unskilled

W

White collar

No usual
occupation

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FEBRUARY
RURAL
()pen COI.Wllry

Village

JUNE

RURAL
()pen country
Village

OCTOBER
RURAL
Open COl.fllry
Village

FIG. 29-USUAL OCCUPATION OF RURAL RELIEF PERSONS
16 THROUGH 64 YEARS OF AGE WORKING
OR SEEKING WORK, BY RESIDENCE
February, June, and October 1935
AF'.-2477, W. RA.

Ten percent of all farm laborer heads of households were women,
who averaged 6 years older than men laborers. A large proportion
of the farm laborers who were heads of cases were young men. More
than 15 percent of all male farm laborers were youth under 25 years
of age and nearly one-half (48 percent) were less than 35 years of
age (table 51 ).
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT OF WORKERS

A large proportion of workers in rural famili<'s receiving emergency
relief had some form of employment. Thus, in February 1935 only
45 percent were totally unemployed while 55 percent had work for at
least 1 week during the month (table 54). A major reason for the
high employment rate for workers on relief in rural areas lies in the
fact that farmers operating farms were reported employed even though
they were operating without profit or at a loss. Only 11 percent of
all farm operators by usual occupation were unemployed. A much

Dig 11zed by

Goog Ie

109. • tH.).l)IOING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

larger proportion of all farm laborers (43 percent) were unemployed,
and many of those who were working received little or no remuneration. They were often engaged as unpaid laborers on the home farm
because they could find no other work.
Employment rates were, of course, much lower for nonagricultural
workers than for agricultural workers. The pt:rcentage with some
employment during the month was 51 for domestic and personal
servants, 38 for persons usually engaged in public and professional
service, 34 for miners, 32 for tradesmen, 28 for those experienced in
forestry and fishing, 27 for those usually occupied in manufacturing
and mechanical industries, and 24 for those in transportatiQn and
communication industries. Not all of these workers were employed
at the same time that they received relief. They may have left relief
rolls to accept employment or lost their jobs and gone on relief within
the same month.
Ta&le 54.--Percent With Some Employment 1 of All Rural Relief Penons 16 Throug~ 6-4
Years of Age Working or Seeking Work, February and October 1935,2 by Usual
Industry and Residence
(138 counties]
February
Usu&! lndWltry

Total. __ --- -- --- --- --- -- --- -- - -- -- - -

Agrira~:~perntor: :-_-_:::-_-_-_::: :::::::::::

Fann !Rhorer. _______________________ _
Forestry and fishing _____________________ _
Extraction of minerals. __________________ _
ManuracturinR and mechanical. .... -----Transportation and connnunication _____ ..
Trade .. . ____ .. _____ ....... ________ . ______ _
Public and proressional service ___________ _
Domestic and per,ional service.-----·-----

Total
rural

Open
country

October

Village

Open
country

Total
rural

Vlllag8

------ --- -----68.0
21.8
58.6
31.4
48. 8
------ ------ -----73. 6
80. 2
Z7.2
76. i
71. 3
42. 8
54.9

89.0
56.8
Z7. 7
33. 7
26.9
23.5
32.1
37. 7
50.11

92. 7
64.8
3a. I
54.0
38. g
36. 2
40.9
45.5
48.6

44.4
18. 7
II. 4
13. 3
18.2
16. I
Z7.6
31.1
52. 4

87.2
52.9
31.3
44.8
2"2.8
25.8
28.0
211. 5
36.0

89.9
69.4
33.6
40.0
24.1
33.9
31. 7
23.0
32. 3

M.4
30. 2

23. 5
47. l
21. 7
19. 7

211. 0
28.9
38. 4

Employment or at least I week's duration during the month.
• Comparable data not available for June 1935.

1

Removal of agricultural families from relief during the spring and
summer months caused employment rates of workers on relief in the
open country to be generally lower in October than in February 1935.
While 68 percent of all open country workers on relief in February
had some employment, only 59 percent of those on relief in October
had employment, usually farming (table 54). Returns from employment of this type reached a maximum during the harvest and postharvest season.
In villages the opposite tendency was found in regard to employment of workers on relief. The proportion of workers in village relief
cases with employment increased from 22 percent in February to 31
percent in October. These workers were engaged at low-paid or pa.rt-time nonagricultural jobs which caused them to require supplementary

Dig l1zed by

Goog lC

EMPLOY ABILITY COMPOSITION AND EMPLOYMENT •

103

aid. The increase in such employment in the village relief population
between February and October may reflect greater opportunities for
this type of work in the fall, as compared with the winter months.
Transfers to the Works Program which were beginning to take place
at this time may also be reflected here. Workers transferred from
relief to the Works Program during October would be reported as
having both relief and employment status.
lnclUllry of Current EMployiNnt

Nine-tenths of all workers who had some employment while on the
relief rolls in February 1935 were employed in agriculture. Fiftynine percent were employed as farm operators end thirty percent as
farm laborers. Apart from agriculture, domestic end personal service
was the only industrial group employing any appreciable number of
workers who were on relief rolls. A little more than 4 percent of all
workers with employment were servants. Only 2 percent of all workers with employment were working in manufacturing and mechanical
industries, only 2 percent in trade and public and professional service
combined, and only 1 percent in transportation and communication
(table 55).
TofJ/e 55.-Current Industry of Rural Relief Persons 16 Through 64 Years of Age Employed
in Private Industry, February and October 1935, by Residence
(138 counties)
February
Current lndu.stry

Numher ___________________________ _
Percent ____________________________ _
Agriculture ______________________________ _
Farm op,>rator ____________________ ---Farmand
laborer_-----------------------Forestry
fishing _____________________ _
Extraction of minerals ___________________ _
Manufacturing and mecbanlcal __________ _
Transportation and communication ______ _
Trade, public and profossional service ____ _
Domestic and personal ~rvice ___________ _

Total
rural

Open
country

October
Village

Total
rural

Open
country

Village

--- --- --- --- --- --58,540
100. 0

--89.6
59. 1
30. 4
0. 4
0. 6
2. 3
I.I
1.9
4. 2

52. 345
100.0

6, 19.~
100. 0

23,340
100.0

18. 052
100. 0

5,288
100.0

95.8
63. 5
32. 3
0. 2
o. 3
1.0
0. 3
0. 7
I. 7

37. 6
22.8
14.8
1.3
3. I
13. 0
7. 3
12.1
25. 6

79. 4
52. 6
26. 8
0. 4
IO. 1
2. 8
I. 3
I. 6

92. 7
62. 7
30. 0
0.3
2. 5
I. I
0. 7
0.8
1.9

33. 7

- - - - - - - - - ---- - - -

4. 4

18.1
16. ff

o. 8

35.ll
8.8
3. 7
4. 7
12. 4

In the open country agriculture accounted for 96 percent of all
workers on relief with employment, and agriculture and domestic and
personal service combined included nearly 98 percent of all workers

with employment.
Agriculture was also the most frequent source of employment for
village residents, 38 percent <Jf all employed persons in villages being
farm operators or farm laborers. More than one-fourth (26 percent)
of all village workers with employment during the month were working
as servants. The proportion employed in manufacturing and

Dig ll,ed by

Google

104 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

mechanical industries was 13 percent; in trade and public and professional service combined, 12 percent; in transportation and communication, 7 percent; in mining, 3 percent; and in forestry and
fishing, 1 percent.
IIICOIH Fioe Current EaployiNnt

The majority of workers employed while on relief rolls in rural
areas were farmers and other persons employed on "own account"
rather than for wages. Io October 1935,' however, it was found that
12 percent of all cases on relief during that month had a member
employed in private industry for wages for at least 1 week. For
those wage workers the amount of weekly wages per household was
determined.
The median weekly wage received by cases with employment in
private industry was $5. For some households employment. of a
worker during October lasted only 1 week. Other households had
members employed for a longer period or for the entire month.
Some cases obtained regular employment paying adequate wages
after receipt of relief earlier in the month. For most of the cases,
however, income from wage employment, even when regular, was
insufficient to meet budgetary needs and required supplementation
by relief (table 56 and fig. 30).

12r-------------------------,12

0

All
oreot

Total Whtt Hte,o
[cttl.,n Cottoll

-N..,-o
~ AclPG· LN Corti
Toto! Wtitt
Wltter'R co,. IOCMon• Stalel 8111

o-

C..-0-

Ho, WiftNr Sp,... ,._._
GIid ..._. .,.._
...
0oify

0

F1G. 3O-MEOIAN WEEKLY INCOME FROM WAGE EMPLOYMENT
OF RURAL RELIEF CASES WITH A
MEMBER EMPLOYED, BY AREA

October 1935
Af'•24H,W.Pll

'Data on wages were not available for February and June 1935.

o g1.lZed b,·

Goog Ie

EMPLOY ABILITY COMPOSITION AND EMPLOYMENT • 105

TrrfJle 56,-Current Em_ployment Status of Workers and Wage Income Received by
Rural Relief Cases, October 1935, by Area
(138 counties]

Total cases

Cases with I or more workers
-

Aroa

Nbuemr •

Cases
without
Percent workers

-

Median
weekly
Own
income
No
account Wago
from
employ• employ• employ•
wage
ment
ment
ment 1 employ•
only
ment

--,.-

Total

---,-.--...,..---11

---1----1---11--- - - - - - - - - -

All areas ....•........•

43,932

100.0

12.6

87.4

Eastern Cotton .......•••.•..
White ........•.•.•.•••..
l'\egro ......•.••.••......
Western Cott.on •••••••......
White ....•.•.••....•....
Negro ..........•.•.•.••.
Appalachian•Otark ...•.••...
Lake St:1tes Cut-Over .••..•.
Corn Belt. ............•.•.•.
Hay an<! Dalry •........•••••
Winter Wheat .........•.••••
Spring Wheat .••...•........
Ranching ....•.•..•.••.••....

4,468
1, li2
3,296
5,576
I, 25),!
4,318
17,108
3,163
3,134
6,448
1142
2. ()Wj
1,000

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

5.6
5.2
6. 7
19.3
18. 2
29. 7
8. 9
20.3
15. 3
19.3
6. 4
5.6
H.3

114.4
94.8
93.3
80. 7

1

llXl.O

100.0
100.0
100.0

S:l. 8

70. 3
91.1
79. 7
114. 7
80. 7
93. 6

94. 4
&.7

46. 2

28.8

12. 4

$6.10

59.9
60. 2
68. 9
43.8
4.~. 9
36.4
47. 0
37. 6
49. 7
45. 3
50.1
26. 7
44.8

17. 7
18.3
16.0
21.9
22. 5
20.1
39. 5
28.9
12. 9
12. 5
32. 6
55.0
28.8

16.8·
16. 3
18. 4
15. 0
15. 4
13.8
4. 6
13. 2
22. l

3.10
3. 20
2.00
4.30
6.20
3. 10
3.00
8.00

- - - - - - --- - - -

4. 50

2'l. 9

7.00

10.9
12. 7
12. 1

6.80

7. 40
11.60

Employment ol at least I week's duration during October.

Unemployment of Heads of Relief Cma

About one-half of all worker heads of cases receiving relief in June
1935 were unemployed at the time records of their employment status
were made, that is, during one or another of the months February
through June 1935 (table 57). The extent of unemployment among
agricultural heads bore an inverse relationship to the occupational
status of the head. The ratio of unemployed heads to all heads in
the same occupational group increased from 6 percent for owners to
14 percent for tenants, to 29 percent for croppers, and to 73 percent
for farm laborers. Seventy-one percent of all nonagricultural heads
were without any employment.
The incidence of unemployment among all heads of rural relief cases
was greatest in the Western States. In the West 10 out of every 100
farm owners on relief and nearly ~0 out of every 100 farm tenants (by
usual occupation) had lost their farms and were without any other
employment. In the South only 4 out of every 100 farm owners and
12 out of every 100 farm tenants (exclusive of croppers) on relief
were unemployed. Among farm wage workers on relief 85 out of each
100 were unemployed in the West as compared with 69 out of each
100 in the North and 72 out of each 100 in the South. Similar comparisons could be made for heads of households usually employed in
nonagricultural industry. The incidence of unemployment was much
greater among village residents than among open country residents
for all occupational groups on relief (table 57).
The average unemployed head of a rural relief case had been idle
for nearly 1 year. The median period of time which had elapsed

Dg1

zeelb,-Google

106 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

between loss of the last nonrelief job of at least 1 week's duration and
the recording of information was 11 months. This average was surprisingly constant for all classes of heads, agricultural and nonagricultural (table 57).
Tallie 57.-Percent of Heads of Rural Relief Cases 16 Through MYea11 of Age~ Working
or Seekin, Work, Who Were Unemployed and Median Number of Montns Unemployed,1 June 1935, by Region, Usual Occupation, and Residence
(300 counties)

Total rural

Beeton and usual OCC11patlon
of bead

All States sampled •. _•..

Vlllap

Open 0011Dtry

Median Peroentun- Median Percentan- Median
Percentun- montbauomontbaun•
employed employed employed montbaunemployed employed employed

Farm tenant •••••.••
Farm cropper•. _•...
Farm laborer.... _•.
N onagrlculture _. ___
Unskilled. .. _. __
Other.•••.......

48. 6
6.9
13.6
29.3
72. 9
70.9
89.9
72.3

11
12
ll
11
10
11
11
11

34.0
3.4
7.4
~-2
68.1
62. 2
61.3
83. 6

11
11
10
10
10
11
12
12

11 N ortbern States..•••.......
Farm owner .•••.•.••.....
Farm tenant ••.....•......
Farm laborer.••••.•••..•.
Nonagrlculture .••..•.....
Unskilled. •.••.•......
Other •..•••••••••.•...

48. 8
6.8
14.3
fl1U
71. 2
72. 9
es. 8

11
14
12
11
11
11
13

30.8
2.4
6. 7
83. 1
81.6
M.7
67.2

11
11
10
12

13 boutbem States .•• ·-·······
Farm owner .••••.•••..•. _
Farm tenant •.••••.•.... _.
Farm cropper•..••••..... _
Farm laborer .......••... _
N onagrlculture•.•.. _. _...
Unskilled .......•.....
Otber.•.. ·-·······-···

46.0
4. 4
12.2
29.3
71. 9
67.4
M.6
72. 4

11
12
10
11
10
11
14

33.8
8.3
8. 8
24.2
89.1
69.2
M.fl
M.6

11
11
10
10
10
12
16
11

89.1
12.1
42.2
67. 7
78. 2
7t.6
72.2

e western states..............

82.8
10.3
18.9
84.6
81.1
82.4
80.0

10
11
10
10
10
10

48. 6
7.3
6.6
78. 8
74.0
74.6
73. 7

10
11

80. 7
23.2
64.D
88. 6
1111.4
87.3
86.4

Farmo'lt'Iler •••••...

Farm owner ••...••.......
Farm tenant.·-······-····
Farm laborer•.•..........
Nonagrlculture......... _.
u oskllled ........... - .
Otber.·--···········-·

11

10

11

11

13

t

10
10
10
11

73.6

:N.2

66.4
67. 7
80.4
77.4
78. 7
78.3
76. 4
42. 2

1111.2
77.6
77.2
78. 2
76.8

78.2

11
UI
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
16
12
12
11
10
13

11
11
11
10
11
13
11
10

'

D
10
D
10

t Median not computed ror (ewer than 100 cases.
1 Mon tbs unemployed refers to months between Joa or last noorellef Job or 1 week or longer and the month
In wblcb tbe data were recorded. Tbe data were recorded In February 1936 or In 1 or tbe (ollowlnc 4 months.

Employment of Heads of Relief Casa cit Usual Occupation

In addition to the heads of rural households on relief in June 1935
who were without any employment (49 percent of the total), 10 percent
had jobs at other than their usual occupation (tables 57 and 58). ·
Farm operators were employed at their usual occupation to a much
greater extent than were other heads of cases. However, 8 percent of
all owners, 17 percent of all tenants, and 36 percent of all croppers
had lost their land or, to a lesser degree, had shifted their tenure class
or found a nonagricultural job. Only 19 percent of all experienced
farm laborers were currently employed at their usual occupation, 73
percent were idle, and 8 percent were employed at other occupations.
Still larger proportions of all nonagricultural workers were without

Dig lized by

Google

EMPLOYABILITY COMPOSITION AND EMPLOYMENT•

107

employment at their usual occupations. Only 14 percent of all
unskilled workers were employed at their usual· occupation, and only
10 percent of all other nonagricultural workers were currently exercising their usual skills (table 58).
TofJle 58.-Percent of Heads of Rural Relief Cases 16 Through 6-4 Years of Age, Working
or Seeking Work, Without Employment at the Usual Occupation and Median Number
of Months Without Such Employment,1 June 1935, by Region, Usual Occupation, and
Residence
[300 countlel)

Open countr)'

Total rural

Reclon and naual occupation
of bead

Percent
without
employment at
usual

occupation
All StatesllBlllpled.•....
Fann owner .••.....
Fann tenant ••...••.
Fann cropper .•..•..
Fann laborer •.••.••
NODllllricultun .•...

UDBldlled •••••••
Other••••.••••••

11 N ortbern Statee ............
Fann owner •••...........
Fann tenant••••.•.•......
Fann laborer ••••••..•.•••
NODllllricultun•••••..•••.
Unakllled •••..•.••...•
OU!er•••••••••••••••••

68.8
8.0
17.1
35.6
81.4
87.6
86.8
IIO. 2

611.3
8.1
18. 6
80.0
811. 7
86.8
87.11

13 Southern Btatee......••...•
Fannownl,I' ••.•••...•••..
Fann tenant. ••.••..••••.•
Farm cropper ••••.. _..••..
Fann laborer•••.•.....•..
No~cultun••....•....
naldlled. •••....•••..

M.2
6.1
16. 2
36.6
78.11
88.2
84.0
IIO. 2

6 Western Btatee••••.•...•.•..
Farm owner ..............
Fann tenant ••••.•...•....
Farm laborer •..••.•...••.
N~cultun••.........
willed .............

72. 2
12. 8
22.6
112.6
114. 6
113.8
U5. 4

Oiher•••••••••.•••....

Other•••••••••••••••••

Median
montba
unemployed

Peroent
without
employ•
mentat

USUBI

4a. 6

11
Ill

18
22

78.1
IIO. 3
88. 2
113. 6

18

'2. 6

13
18
16
211
17
24
21
21
11

21
22
21
14
30

18
11

16
13
22

Peroent
without
employmentat
usual
occupation

Median
months
W18111·

ployed

occupation

17
27
22
21

211
23

Vlllap

18

6.1
II.ti

23
Ill

80.3

:io

4.1
8. 6
76.4
811. 2
87.3
Ill. 7

11

24
111
26
18
25
:io
11

22
18
80

44.11
.. 7
11. 2
30.3
78. 2
811. 2
87.6
112.11

18
21
111
:io

1111.6
11.8
8.4
114. 2
118. 7
115. I
117. 8

17
28

11
27
28
211

t

11
:io
16
27

81.4

211.3

1111.2
M.6
86.6
86.6
83.tl
87.tl
83. 7

no

81.6
86.0
86. 1
84.8
86.6
77.4
16. ti
61.0
M.8
86.1

Median
montha
IIIIIIID•

ployed

l&

32

2'

211
12

u~

15
23

17
32

2'

17
15
H

2'
16
33
26

211
11

83.6

17
17
18

811. 2
25.3
M.4
111.6
112.11
112.6
113. 3

12

80.8
88.3

1l
11

18
12
18

t Median not computed for fewer than 100 cases.
• Months without employment at the usual occupation refers to number of month.! between 101!11 of tut
Job at the usual occupation and the month In which the data were recorded. The data were recorded In
J'ebrnary 11135 or 1n I of the followlnil 4 months.

The incidence of unemployment of heads of relief cases at their
usual occupation differed between open country and village residence.
Five percent of all farm owners, ten percent of all tenants, and thirty
percent of all croppers in the open country were without land or jobs
or had shifted up or down the agricultural ladder. In villages 29, 66t
and 65 percent of all farm owners, tenants, and croppers, respectively t
had lost their usual tenure status. As would be expected, more of the
farm laborers residing in the open country (22 percent) than of those
in villages (13 percent) had jobs as farm hands. The opposite was true
of nonagricultural workers: 14 percent of those in villages but only

[)91.zedbyGooglc

108 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

10 percent of those in the open country wore employed at their usual
occupations (table 58).
The average head who was not working at his usual employment
had been without employment at that occupation for nearly 1½years
(median-17 months) at the time the employment record was taken
(table 58). For 20 percent of all heads the duration of unemployment was more than 3½ years, and for 13 percent it was more than 4½
years, covering nearly all of the depression period (table 59). The
average period of unemployment at the usual occupation was considerably longer for farm owners than for any other occupational group.
Tolt/e 59.-Number of Months Without Usual Employment 1 of Heads of Rural Relief
Cases 16 Through 6-4 Years of Age Who Had Lost Their Usual Employment, June
1935, by Residence and Usual Occupation
·
[300 countiesI
Total
M
7-12 I, 13-18
Residence Blld USUIII
1-3
4~
19-30
31-42
43-54 months
months month!! montha months months months months or
oocupation of head Nllmmore
ber Percent

------ ---

- - - - - -- -

Total rural .. _ 52,294

100.0

7.4

7.ll

26. 1

11.1

17.11

9. 7

ft.9

13.4

Farm owner •••••..
998
Farm tena.nt ...••• _ 2,782

1,872
11,498
35,144
19, 746
15,398

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

2. 2
2.4
I.ft
6.9
8.5
9.5
7.1

3.4
6.0
2.4
ft.5
8.6
10. 1
6.4

17.8
211. 7
33.4
41.8
20.6
21. 7
19.3

10.8
9.0
4. 2
12. 7
11. 2
II.II
10.2

20. 7
26.9
33. 7
18.9
16.0
15.3
lft.8

14.4
12. 3
12.3
6.0
10.4
9.5
11.ft

10.4
6.0
ll.9
3.0
8.2
7.1
II.ft

20.3
12. 7
ft.II
4.2
16.6
14.9
19.0

Open country 211, 2llO

100.0

6.2

6.9

26.ft

10.4

17.9

11.9

7.6

14.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

2.6
3.2
1.6
6. 7
6. 7
7.5
5.6

4.4
5. 6
2.8
7.6
7. 1
7.P
6.0

23.0
30.2
35.&
44.3
18.2
19.4
16.6

11. I
8. 7
3. 7
12.2
10.3
11.4
8.8

20.0
27.6
34. 7
17. 7
16. 7
15.2
16. 5

14.8
11.4
11. 7
6.3
11.4
10.6
12. 4

8.5
6.9
6. 1
2. ft
10. 1
9.2
11.4

15.ft
7.4
6.1
3.ft
20.5
18.8
22. 7

100.0

8.6

8. 2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

!. 7
1.7
1.5
7.3
9.8
11.2
8. I

2. 2
4.4
I.I
4.9
9.6
ll.9
6. 7

-- - - - -

Farm cropper ______
Fa.rm la.borer_______
Nbna.griculture •..••
UnskiJled ..••..
Other.•••.•••.•

Farm owner _______
Fa.rm tenant. •••.• _
Farm cropper_ •••••
Fa.rm la.boror _______
Nonain-icnlture_. ___
Unskilled
••••..
Other
__________

540
1,328
1,336
6,594
15,452
8,976
6,476

Village _______ 27,044
Farm owner ..••...
Farm tenant ..••.••
Farm cropper ______
Farm laborer _______
N onagricu Iture. __ • _
UnskilJed. _____
Other __________

468
I, 454
536
4,904
19,692
10,924
8,768

11.8
17.8
9.5
8. 2
12. 4
-10.6
- - 21.4
- 211.5
-14.0
--12.-7 - 211.-7
11. 8
21.6
29. I
38. 7
22.6
23. 5
21.4

9.2
5.2
13.4
11. 8
12.3
11. 2

26.2
31.4
20.4
16. I
15. 3
17.1

13. 1
13.8
ft.9
9. 7
8. 7
11.0

6.2
7.8
3.6
6. 7
5. 5
8. 3

17.ft
JO. 1
4. 9
13. 7

11.8
18. 2

1 Months without employment a.t the usual occnpation refers to number of months between loss of last
Job a.t the usual occupatwn a.nd the month in which the data were recorded, The da.ta. were recorded in
Februa.ry !Y35 or in I of the following 4 months.

RELIEF HISTORY IN RELATION TO USUAL OCCUPATION

Rural households differed greatly in their ability to remain off the
relief rolls when overtaken by unemployment. Some turned immediately to the relief agency for assistance when their jobs failed, while
others held off destitution for years before seeking relief. Nearly onefourth of the rural households receiving relief in June 1935 were
employable households receiving assistance in their first relief period
and were distinguished by the fact that the head of the case had lost
his regular employment prior to accession to relief. Such loss of

Dg,tzedby•Google

EMPLOY ABILITY COMPOSITION AND EMPLOYMENT • 109

employment was the immediate or the remote cause of accession in
most instances. For this group of rural relief households the length of
time between the separation of the client from his usual job and his
accession to relief was determined.
The average head of such a. rural relief case was able to continue off
the relief rolls only 4 to 5 months (median-4.5 months) after losing
his job (fig. 31 and appendix table 37). In that short interval the
job-seeker exhausted both his savings and all other independent
sources of livelihood for himself and his dependents. Overtaken by
destitution and unable to find reemployment, these heads were soon
driven to seek public relief.

.

,I;;

g

:::E

6-----3

3

0

0
A9riFarm Farm
Non- White Skilled Semi- Unculture operator laborer a9ricullure collar
skilled skilled

. FIG. 31- LENGTH OF TIME* BETWEEN LOSS OF Ll(ST JOB AT USUAL
OCCUPATION AND ACCESSION TO RELIEF BY HEADS
OF RURAL CA$ES IN THEIR FIRST RELIEF
PERIOD, BY USUAL OCCUPATION

June 1935

* Median number of months.
The average time interval for the several occupational groups varied
widely. The jobless worker's resistance to destitution depended to a.
high degree upon the socio-economic status of his usual employment.
For those at the base of the economic pyramid loss of employment
created almost immediate distress. For those at the top who had
been able to accumulate more savings, actual economic calamity was
more remote.
The average farm owner who lost his land and eventually sought
relief did so only after an interval of 16 months. The average farm
la.borer, on the other hand, had to seek relief after the short interval

Dig llzed by

Google

110 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

of 3 months without employment at his usual occupation. The dispossessed fann tenant remained self-supporting 9 months after dispossession and the dispossessed cropper 6 months.
In nonagricultural industries, also, those heads of cases usually
employed at the top of the occupational scale held out against relief
longer after loss of employment than did those at the bottom. The
averages expressing the time interval between loss of last job at the
usual occupation and accession to relief ranged from 1 year for professional workers down to 3 months for servants.
Within each occupational class there were wide differences among
jobless heads of cases with respect to their ability to remain off relief
rolls. .Considering all workers combined, nearly one-tenth sought
relief the same month that they lost their jobs, and more than onefourth came on relief either during the same month or during the
month following loss of the last job at their usual employment. At
the other extreme were 10 percent who remained off relief for more
than 4 years, 6 percent remaining economically independent for more
than 5 years. While the average interval between loss of usual
employment and accession to relief was very low for some groups,
particularly for fann laborers and for other unskilled workers, every
group contained some individuals who had remained unemployed
for more than 5 years before seeking relief. Farm owners by usual
occupation had the largest proportion of members in that class (17
percent), and farm croppers had the smallest proportion (2 percent)
(appendix table 37).
No statistical information is available concerning the history of
households during the interval between the end of their usual employment and their appearance on relief rolls. There was a considerable
amount of migration. In the search for work farmers moved to towns
and cities. There, many found only intermittent employment at odd
jobs or established unprofitable small trades of their own in fields so
overcrowded that only failure could result. Many later returned to
their place of legal residence to receive relief. While dispossessed
farmers were moving to villages and towns, unemployed villagers
and townsmen were moving to the country to seek a living on the same
land that had starved off their predecessors. Many resourceful
workers sought livelihoods through the establishment of small businesses of their own-hot-dog stands, gasoline stations, small storesand did a thousnnd and one other things in an effort to earn a living
before they finally asked for public assistance.

Dg,

zedby•Google

Chapter X

MIGRATION

THE TYPICAL rural community, like the typical urban center, is a
reservoir into which, and out of which, flows annually a great volume
of migrating population. This migration of rural persons is well
illustrated in the movement to and from farms. Since 1920 the
Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department
of Agriculture has estimated annually the drift of persons from
farms to cities, towns, and villages, and from cities, towns, and
villages to farms. These estimates show that more than 20 million
persons arrived at farms and nearly 28 million persons departed from
farms during the 16 years 1920-1935 inclusive. 1 Since the total farm
population in any one year was less than 32 million, the importance
of this movement may be readily appreciated.
Migrant persons who moved from farms to nonfarm areas during
the depression did not remain there permanently. Neither did
migrants from nonfarm areas move to farms to remain there permanently. During the 5 years 1930-1934, according to Bureau of
Agricultural Economics estimates, 6,578,000 persons arrived at farms
from nonfarm areas but less than 2,000,000 of them were still on
farms at the beginning of 1935. Similarly, 7,176,000 persons left
farms during the same period and only 2,593,000 of these failed to
·
return. 2
The exchange between farm and nonfarm areas is not the whole
story of migration involving rural peoples. Annual movement from
farm to farm and from one nonfarm area to another is probably
just as great.
1 Farm Population Estimates, mimeographed report, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D. C., released
October 27, 1936. These estimates do not refer to different individuals but
rather to arrivals at and departures from farms.
I ]bid.

111

Dg1

z.eob,-Google

112 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
MOBILITY OF THE RELIEF POPULATION

In order to determine the extent to which relief clients were immigrants to the survey counties, and in order to determine the time
of their migration, heads of cases were classified according to length
of last continuous residence in the county. Residence was considered broken only by an absence from the county which lasted at
least 1 year.
Only 36 percent of all clients receiving relief in June 1935 were
lifelong residents of the counties in which they were living. Many
of the household heads, while not lifelong inhabitants, were longtime residents of their counties. More than one-third of all household heads consisted of clients who had moved to the county prior
to 1926. These long-time residents together with the lifelong inhabitants comprised almost three-fourths of all clients 8 (table 60
and fig. 32).
TafJfe 60.-Year of Migration to County by Heads of Rural Relief Cases, June 1935,
by Region and Residence
(300 counties]
All States sampled JI Northern States 13 Southern States II Western States
Year or mignltlon

Open VII- Total Open VII- Total Open VIIOpen VII•
Total counTotal OOUD•
OOUD·
rural try !age rural country Jage rural try Jage rural try Jage

-- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - --- - - - - -- - -

Number ___________ 116,972 n,m 45,674 4n,soo 211, 2JR 19, 6i8 57,292 38, 116 19, 176 13, 784 e,964 6,820
Percent _______ ·-·-- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 )00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Ne'\'er moved ____________
36. 3 38. 7 32.6 29. 2 29.3 28.9 47. 9 61. I 41.6 12.3
8. 7 J8. 1
Prior to 1926 _____________
36. 2 33.8 40.0 44. 3 43.6 4.'1.5 28. I 25.4 33.4 42. 7 42.4 42. 8

-

11126-1929 _______ • _•• __ .•..
rn:lll-193a ______ --·-····- __
Aft.er 1933 ________________

11.1
12.8
3. 6

10. 5
13. 2
3.8

12. 0
12. 1
3.3

II. 6
12. 2
2. 7

II. I
13.0
3.0

12. I
II. 1
2.4

9.0
11. I
3.9

8.3
JI.I
4. I

10.4
11.0
3.6

18. 2
21.3
11. 5

llO. 8
24.4
6. 7

J5. 7
!8.0

6..

A sizable proportion of rural relief clients represented fairly recent
arrivals in the localities where they were receiving assistance in June
1935. Eleven percent of the total consisted of household heads
who moved during the 4 years immediately preceding the depression,
thirteen percent arrived during the first 4 depression years, and fow
percent arrived in 1934 or the early part of 1935 (table 60).
1 The analysis of the significance of the mobility data is limited by the fact
that comparable information is not available for the nonrelief population. However, other studies of the relief population indicate that it is more mobile than the
nonrelief population. See McCormick, T. C., Comparative Study of Rural Relief
and Non-Relief Households, Research Monograph II, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935, pp. 17-20; and Asch,
Berta and Mangus, A. R., Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation, Research Monograph VIII, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 42-47.

og,

zed bi

Google

MIGRATION •
•

111 Moved 1926-1929

Niver moved

~ Moved before 1926

C)

113

~ Moved att• 1933

Moved 1930· 1933

Percent
75

50

25

0

25

50

75

100

TSoulh Carolina
Kentucky

North Carolina
VwQinia.
GearQia

W..t Vi,vln
Louisiana

Utah

Alabama

,_

Ohio

Arkonsas
AU STATES sompted
Florida

Texas
Mluowl

Ntw York
Wisconsin

Kansos
South Dakota
North Dakota
Michi9an
Minnesota

Nebraska
Oklahoma
Colifornia

Orep
WashinQton
Colorado
Montana

FIG. 32 - YEAR OF MIGRATION TO COUNTY BY HEADS
OF RURAL RELIEF CASES, BY STATE

June 1935
Af•24U,W. ,.._

Dig llzed by

Google

114 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Ufelon1 Ralclenh

The percentage of lifelong residents among rural relief clients was
greater in the South than in other sections of the country. In 13
Southern States 48 percent of all heads of cases were persons who
had never lived so long as 1 year outside the bounds of their native
county. At the opposite extreme were the more recently settled
Western States where only 12 percent of all recipients were lifelong
residents of the county where they were receiving relief (table 60).
While regional averages reveal large sectional differences with
respect to the mobility of relief clients, they cover equally wide
differences among individual States. In the Southern States the
percentage of lifelong residents ranged from 17 in Oklahoma to 72
in South Carolina and Tennessee. In five of the six Wes tern States
studied less than 10 percent of all clients were lifelong residents. In
Utah, however, with a stable Mormon population, 45 percent of all
clients had never moved (appendix table 38).
The percentage of clients on relief who had never moved across a
county line was greater for open country (51 percent) than for village
(42 percent) residents of the South, either because the open country
received fewer migrants from other counties or because it received
migrants who became more secure economically than those who
settled in villages (table 60). The opposite situation was found
in the Western States where the percentage of lifelong residents on
relief was nearly three times greater in the villages than in the open
country. This difference suggests the comparatively recent migration
of large numbers of farm laborers to western counties. In the
Northern States the percentage of nonmobile clients was about equal
in the open country and in villages.
Recent Migrants

Among the more recent arrivals in their county of residence in
June 1935 were many persons whose movements were directly associated with their accession to relief rolls. Many of these moved to
escape distress caused by prolonged unemployment and drought in
their former location. Others moved to seek work, a more economical
living, or the aid of relatives in a new environment.' Still others
moved to their places of legal settlement in order to be eligible for
relief.
'See Landis, Paul H., Rural Immigrants to Washington State, 198$-1986,
Rural Sociology Series in Population #2, Agricultural Experiment Station, State
College of Washington, Pullman, Wash., July 1936; and Breithaupt, L. R.,
Preliminary Data Concerning an Immigrant Family Survey in Oregon, January
1930 to November 1986, Station Circular of Information No. 164, Agricultural
Experiment Station, Oregon State Agricultural College, Corvallis, Oreg., January
1937.

D91

zeabyGooglc

MIGRATION • 11 5

With respect to the proportion of recent migrants among heads of

rural relief cases, the older and more stable South is in sharp contrast
to the West. In the southern counties only 24 percent of all clients
had moved to their locality since 1925 in comparison with 45 percent
of all clients in the western counties. The North was only slightly
less stable than the South, 27 percent of the persons who became
relief clients having become residents since 1925 (table 60).
Considering individual States with respect to the proportion of
persons receiving relief in June 1935 who had come within the jurisdiction of the agency assisting them during or just prior to the
depression, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and Virginia showed the greatest, and California, Oregon, and Washington showed the least stability of residence. In the counties of
each of the five Southern States less than 16 percent of all clients
had changed residence across a. county line since 1925 and less than
36 percent had ever changed their residence from one county to
another. In the counties of the three Pacific Coast States from
54 to 59 percent of all clients had moved in since 1925 and less than
10 percent were lifelong residents (appendix table 38).
Migration to the county of residence by households receiving
relief in the open country in June 1935 was to some extent a. depres•
sion phenomenon, for the percentage which arrived during the 4
years following the onset of the depression was slightly greater than
during the preceding 4 years. This situation was not found in the
villages where the proportion moving in was the same for both
periods. In the Southern States, in particular, proportionately more
open country cases had moved in during the depression than during
the same number of predepression years (table 60).
Although for all States combined the rate of migration to villages
of persons on relief in June 1935 was about the same during the
depression as in the predepression period, there was considerably
more movement into villages in the West during the depression than
prior to the depression. In the Southern States the depression
migrants only slightly overbalanced the earlier arrivals. In the
northern villages, on the other hand, a larger percentage of the
immigra.nt relief clients had arrived during the 4 predepression years
than during the following 4 years (table 60).
Interstate Migranh

That many heads of relief cases moved considerable distances to
their final destination in the localities where they were receiving
assistance is indicated by the fact that 29 percent of all relief clients
who had moved during the depression moved from another State.
These interstate depression migrants comprised nearly 5 out of
every 100 household heads who were on relief in June 1935 (appendix

Dig t1zed by

Google

116 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
table 38). The largest interstate movement during the depression
yea.rs terminated in the Western States where 9 percent of all household heads had moved to the county from another State since 1929.
The percentage of newcomers from other States during the depression
was nearly three times larger in the western counties than in the
southern counties and nearly twice as large as in the northern counties
studied. It is likely that a large proportion of the interstate migration was intraregional in character, hard-pressed families moving
from one Western State to another in search of a livelihood. Many
were drought victims, however, who had left the Great Plains States
to seek a living farther West.
There were more immigrant clients among relief cases in Oregon than
in any other State surveyed. More than two-fiftbs of all household
heads in that State had moved into the counties studied after 1929 and
more than one-fifth of all clients had moved across State boundaries
to reach their destination. The State of Washington was also outstanding in this regard. One-third of all relief clients in that State had
migrated during the depression yea.rs to the counties assisitng them,
almost one-sixth having moved from outside the State. Nearly oneeighth of the June 1935 case load in Colorado counties consisted of
households headed by persons who had moved in from other States
during the post-1929 period. There was a relatively small movement
from without the State into California and Montana. There was
relatively little movement either intrastate or interstate into the
Utah counties surveyed (appendix table 38).
The proportion of interstate depression migrants was low in all
Southern States as compared to the Western States. Florida and
Arkansas had received the largest percentages of out-of-State immigrants into their relief populations while Kentucky, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and West Virginia had received the smallest percentages. Among the Northern States Missouri had the largest proportion
of migrants in its relief population. Nearly 23 percent of the total
number of relief case heads in that State had moved from outside the
counties where they were receiving assistance and 11 percent had come
from outside the State. The percentage of interstate depression
migrants among all relief clients was less than 7 in all other Northern
States sampled.
EMPLOYABILITY AND OCCUPATIONS OF RURAL MIGRANTS

Migration to or within rural areas is from two general sources.
One stream of migrants consists of agricultural workers from other
communities seeking improvement of their lot on different farms or in
village industries; the other stream consists of nonagricultural workers
seeking work in line with their previous experience or seeking a livelihood on the land.

Dg1tzedbyGoogle

MIGRATION • 117
Employability

Those clients who had moved after 1925 to the counties in which
they were receiving assistance in June 1935 were mostly able-bodied
persons who were seeking work. Among the older residents 17 percent
of all heads of cases were neither working nor seeking work because of
old age or other disabilities. In comparison, 12 percent of those clients
who had moved to their present location in the predepression period
1926-1929 and 9 percent of those who had moved during the depression
period were not working or seeking work. This difference in employability between older and newer residents was characteristic of both
open country and village clients (table 61).
To&le 61.-Employability of Heads of Rural Relief Cases, June 1935, by Residence and
Year of Migration to County
[300 counties)

Year or migration
Residence and employability

All beada

All other

1926-1929

1930--Iune
1935

12,842
100.0

18,872
100.0

83, 77/J

91. 1

TOTAL BUBAL

Number ___________ .----------------------------Pllrcent____________________________________ ______

115,490
100. o

- - -85.1
- , - -88.3
Working or seeking work_______________________________

100.0

14. 9

11. 7

8.ll

83.i
16.8

Number_________________________________________

70, 2116

Percent__________________________________________

100. o

7,448
100.0

11,888
100.0

60,920
100.0

87. 3
12. 7

89.2
10.8

92. 1

7.11

86.11
H.1

Number
__________ -------------------------------_
Percent _________________________________________

45,234
100.0

6,394
100.0

6,984
100.0

32,SM
100.0

Working or -king work ______________________________ _
Not working or seeking work __________________________ _

81.6
18.4

86.9
13. 1

89. 5
10.5

79.0

Not working or seeking work ________________ .__________
OPEN COUNTRY

Working or seeking work_______________________________
Not working or seeking work___________________________

-------

21.0

Usual Occupations

Among the employable household heads migrating to rural areas
during the post-1925 period, who were eventually to become relief
clients, were disproportionately large numbers of farm laborers and
nonagricultural workers. The recent migrants to the open country
included a considerably smaller proportion of farm operators than did
the older residents. Nearly three-fifths (57 percent) of all open
country clients who had maintained continuous residence since 1925
were farmers by usual occupation. Only 47 percent of the predepression migrants and only 41 percent of the depression migrants to the
open country were farm operators by usual occupation. A disproportionately large number of recent migrants were farm laborers, white-

Dig llzed by

Google

118 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

collar workers, and skilled and semiskilled workers who had moved to
the country to eke out a living on the land or to villages to seek work
and cheaper living (table 62).
Ta&le 6!.-Usual Occupation of Heads of Rural Relief Cases 16 Through 64 Years of
Age Working or Seeking Work, June 1935, by Residence and Year of Migration to
County

(300 counties)

Usual occupation or head
All
heads

Total rural

Open country

Village

Year of
migration

Year of
migration

YeAr of
migration

All
All
All
All
All
other heads
1930- other heads 1926- lll30- other
1926- 1930192&June
1929 June
111211 June
111211 19Cl5
11135
1936

- - - - -- - - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - --

Number ____________
36,800 4, ll88 8,248 25.1154
98,250 JI, 334 17,198 69,718 61,300 6,846 10,950
Percent________ .---- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 43,
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Agriculture. ______________ 53. 6 49. 4 48.2 55.5 68.0 M.6 6U.4 70.11 29. 3 27. j 28. 6 29. 7
Farm operator ________ 37. 9 32. 3 30. 3 40.6 52.8 47. 3 41.0 56. 6 13.0 10. 9 11. 6 13.0
Owner ____________ )3. 9
4. 4
2. 6
2. 7
6.2
9. 7
7.0 16. 2 19. 6 14. 7
U.4 22.8
Tenant ___________ 17.
6.5
6. 3
6.11
11 17.3 16. 9 18. 3 25.0 25.4 23.0 25. 5
6.0
6. 4
8.3
2.6
6.1
6. 3
6. I
8.2
7.2
8.6
2.6
2.8
:l.6
F~rl~~~r ::::::::: 15. 7 17. 1 17. 9 14. 9 15. 2 17. 2 18. 4 14. 3 16. 3 16.8 17.0 16.1
Non"l!ficulture. __________ 43.S 48. 7 IIO. o 41. 6 30.1 M.0 311. 4 27.0 66.U 011. 7 68.8 66.1
J>rofessionaL ....... _.......
0.11
0. 7
0.8
1. 4
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.2
1.1
1.2
2. 2
Proprietary ___________
1.6
1. 6
1. 2
o. 7 1.1 2.0 0.6 2.3 2.3 2. 7 2.3
1. 3
3.11
2.
2
2.3
3.3
2.0
1.3
1.
6
2.6
0.8
4.
0
3.
5
4.
7
Clerical. ____
---------SkillP<L_
.. ___________
8. 6 10.0
8.0
4. 7
6. 7
8.5
3.6 10. 8 11. 0 12.6 10. 3
8.9
Semiskilled._. ________
9.0
6.11
8. 5
9.2
6.1
4.11
6.9
7. 7
4.1 10. 3 12.1 12.0
Unskilled _____________ 25.8 27.0 24.6 25.8 18. 2 18. 2 17. 8 17. 8 38.4 311. 6 34.6 311.1
Servant ___________
6. 3
4. 1
3.4
3. 7
4. 3
2.2
1.9
2.4
2.2
7.1
5. 6
7. 7
Other _____________ 21. 7 23.6 20.8 21. 5 16. 0 16.3 15.4 16.6 81.3 M.0 28.3 31.4
No usual occupation ______
2.6
1.11
1.8
2.9
1. 9
1.6
1.2
:u 8. 8 2.6 2.6 4. 2

™

-------------- ----------

Ta&le 63.-Current Occupation of Heads of Rural Relief Cases 16 Through 64 Years of
A'3e Workin'3 or Seeking Work, June 1935, by Residence and Year of Migration to

County

Current occupation or
head

(300 counties)
Total rural

Open country

Village

Year or
migration

Year or
migration

Year or
migration

All
All
other heads

All
heads
l9'.?6- 11930June
19211 1935

All
All
All
other heads
1930- other
1926- lll30192619211 June
111211 June
1935
1935

- i - -- -- ---- -- ------ --

Num])('r ____________ 98,326 11,334 17,228 69, 764 61,406 6,646 10, 9i4 43, 786 35,920 4, ll88 6,254 25,978
Percent _____________ JUU.0 JOO. 0 JOO. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Agriculture._ ... _. ________
}"arm operator. _____ ..
Owner ____________
Tenant ___________
Cropper ___________
Farm lnhon•r .. _______
NonaJ,?:rkult:nre ___________
White collar __________
Skill,•<! and semiskilled ______________
Unsk illt><L. ___________
Bt·rvant ___________
Other............ _
Unemployed
and """king
work ____________________

---415
- -34.-4 -35.-2 -44.-3 -60.0
53. 2
37. 5
15. 5
17, 4
4. 6
4. 0
8. 3
1. 1

30. 7
II. 2
16.0
3. 5
3. 7
8.2
1.1

30. 8
9.1
17.0
4. 7
4. 4
7. 7
1. 3

40. 2

1. 5
6. 7
1. 9
3.8

1. 5
5.6
!. 4
4. 2

1. 3
5.1
1.3
3.8

1. 6
5.9
2.0
3.9

60. 2

57.4

57.1

47. 2

17. 8
17. 7
4. 7
4. l
8.5
1.0

49.1
17. 7
25.9
6. 5
4.1
4. 4
0. 7

45. 8
13. 2
25. 7
6.9
6. 3
4. 7
o. 7

63.3
68.8
25. 6
26. 4
6. 9
4. 5
4. 5
0.5

10.6
7. 6
3. 9
2.6
I.I
8.0
14.6
l. 8

7. 7
4.8
2.0
1. 9
0.9
2.9
13. 5
1. 8

0. 7
3. 4
1.0
2. 4

o. 7

3.0
0. 7
2.3

0.8
3.2
0.8
2. 4

0.6
3. 4
1.0
2.4

2.9
11.9
3. 3
6.6

35. 4

42.4

44.2

32. 2

74.8

55. 4
22. 5
26. l
6.8
4. 6
4.6

0. 5

51.1

Dig l1zed by

---7. 4

1.8
2.0
0.8
2.8
12. 8
2.3

12.0
8.11
4. 7
2.11
1. 3
3.1
16.2
1.8

2. 7
11.0
2. 3
6. 7

2.2
8.3
2. 5
6.8

8.2
10. 2
3. 7
11,6

78.8

79.8

72. 8

4.6

Goog IC

MIGRATION • 119
CulNllt EmploylNllt

Recent migrants to rural areas were totally unemployed and seeking
work to a much greater extent than were older residents. These persons moved in search of employment which did not exist or which did
not last. In the open country only 32 percent of the older resident
heads of cases were unemployed, the majority being employed as
farm operators. Of the recent migrants to the county, however, more
than 40 percent were without any job at the time employment information was gathered. Recent migrants fared no better in villages
where such jobs as were available were held in disproportionately large
numbers by older residents. About 80 percent of all recent migrants
to villages were unemployed and seeking work while about 73 percent
of the older village residents were without jobs and seeking work
(table 63).

Dig ll,ed by

Google

Dig lized by

Google

Appendixes
121

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

DgltzectbyGoogle

Appendix A
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Ta&leJ.-Rural Relief Cases in 138 Sample Counties, February, June, and October
1935, by Area Sampled

Area

February

June

October

Total
OPffll
rural country VlllSill

Total Open
rnral country VlllSill

Total Open Village
rural oountry

--- --- ,__ --- --- --- --- --A.II areas.. ............. 84,136 IIG,783 27,373 68,616 36,802 22, 714 43, 1132 211, «o 17,492
----- ---

Eastern Cotton •••..••••••••
White•••••••••.••••••••
Negro ..................
Western Cotton ••••••••••••
White .••••••••••••••••.
Negro .•••.••..•••..••..
Appalachle.n-Ozark ..•••.•..
Lake States Cut•Over ••••..
Corn Belt .••••••••••••••••.
Bay and Dairy•••••••••••••
W Inter Wheat ••••••••••••••
Spring Wheat .••••••••.••••
Ranchlnc••••••••••••••.••••

JI, 558

8, 737

7,6.18

6,877
2,SOO
12,843
8,861
3,982
12,051
3,619
6,639
7,896
1,309
a, 729
IHO

8,920
16,523
JI, 397
6,126
17,133
4,685
11,636
13,082
2,036
4,951
2,532

--- --2,821
1,761
1,060
3,680
2,536
1, 144
6, 1)12
1,066
6,997
6, 186
727
1,222
1,692

7,732
6,084
2,648
7,268
6,432
1,836
17,016
3,814
7,512
8,626
l,28ll
3,374
1,886

6,002
3,366
1,636
4,686
3,510
1, 176
12,066
2,512
2,802
6,028
670
2, 3116
650

4,468
3,296
1,172
6,576
4, 31S
1,258
17,108
3,168
3,134
11,448
842
2,098
1,090

2,730
1,718
1,012
2,582
1,922
660
4,960
1,302
4, 710
3,598
618
988
1,236

3,030
2,354
676
3,852
3,010
842
10,662
2, :om
1,052
3,464
492
1,350
334

1,438
942
496
1,724
1,308
416

11,446
964
2,082
2,984
350
748
756

Ta&le !.-Rural Relief Persons in 138 Sample Counties, February, June, and October
1935, by Area Sampled

Area

February

June

October

Total Open Village
rural country

Total Open Village
rural country

Totlll Open Village
rural country

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --88,862
66,628
--- --- --- --- - - - - - - --Eaatern Cotton ••••••••••••.
4,896
All areaa .............. 382,405 271,007 110,498 253,1144 164,982
53,786
36,258
17,528
74,023
48, 0!!5
25, 9'18
82, 722
19,5 70
50,280
58,981
8,816

White.••••..•••••••••..
Negro .•••.••••••.••.•..
Wes tern Cotton •.••••••••••
White.••••••••..•••••..
Negro ..................
Appalachiao-Otark .•...•••.
Lake States Cut-Over ••....
Corn Belt. •.•....•..•.••...
Bay and Dairy .••....••....
Winter Wheat •.•.•.•.••.•..
Spring Wheat ••.•.•.....•.. 23,803
Ranching .•••••..•......•... 10,424

42, 156
28, 6.14
13,522
59,884
38,310
21,574
62,430
15,261
25,847
37,643
6,911
18,563
4,212

11,630
7,6U
4,006
14,139
9,785
4,3M
20,292
4,309
24,433
21, 3:!8
2,005
6, 2•0
6,212

31,692
21,688
10,004
30,566
23,352
7,214
79,518
14, 702
31,134
37,010
6,388
16, 41l2
7,322

21,410
14,876
6,534
20,636
15, 700
4,936
60, 176
9,862
12, 4.52
22, 6~0
3,020
12. 2!<~
2,520

186,892 120,364

10,282
6,812
3,470
9,930
7,652
2,278
19,342
4,840
18,682
14,410
2,368
4,206
4,802

18,692
13,912
4,780
22, 728
18, 104
4,624
77,198
11, 732
12,476
25,374
3,634
10,620
4,438

13,796
10,530
3,266
16,462
13, 136
3,326
61,726
8,285
4,7r>O
14,338
2,276
7,218
1,612

3,382
1,614
6,266
4,968
1,298
25,472
3,446
7,726
11,036
1,358
3,402
2,926

123

Dg1

mlbyGoogle

124 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Tol,le 3.-Estimated Number of Rural Relief Cases in 9 Sample Areas, February, June
and Odober 1935, by Residence
[Flgma In tboalanda]

February
Area

October

lune

Total Open Vlllap Total
rural COUDtrJ'
rural

Open
OOUDtz'y

Vlllap Total
rural

Open
OOUDtz'y

.

All----····--··-··

IIU8

1174

83&

11118

m

771

612

~!~~:::::::::::::

UIII
111

127
811

41
:Ill
16
811

112
74
18
78
158
IO
187
67
107
112
IO

72
411
28
111
18
13
133

40
21
111
27
IO
7
114
111
117

4115

14
188
47
46

II
117

10
II
7

1a
Ill
8

8

Negro __ -----····-····-Wlltem Cotton __ •.•. ····-White..._··---·-·--·--·Negro_ - -----------·-· -~ - O u r l t •••••••••
e States Cut-Over_-·--·
Corn Belt. - -··-----·--··-··
Bay and Dalr:V-•-··-··--··Winter Wheat •.•• - ·-- - • - -- •

~~--.~=:::::::::::

157
178

123
1511

188

'IO
UMI

1311
31
-44
14

0

1311
1111

43
132
114

80

84
IO

113
6

'II

12
IMI
111
1111
1511

11
11
II

as

40
114
10
21
3

ao

10

as

'8
17

eo

48

•

Vlllllp

aoe

D
21

M
10
41

H
7
111
H

12

II

n

II

14

ao

16

r,

12

I

12

7
4

2

Tol,le 4.-Estimated Number of Rural Relief Penons in 9 Sample Areas, February, June,
and Odober 1935, by Residence
[Figures In tbouaands]
February
Area

Total Open Village
rural count.ry

All--..... -....... 4,627
ButauCotwn•••• _••••••••
White...----··- ••••• - -.•
Negro_----··-···--···-·
Western OoUon- -·- •••••.••
White.._ - ·-·····-··· ·- ..
Negro_ - -·····-·-·······
~ - 0 1 1 0 .••.•.•..
e States Cut-Over_ .•••.
Corn Belt.--------·······-·
Ba:, and Dair:,---·····-···Winter Wheat •••••••.••••••

~~--.~=:::::::::::

780
QI

2154
7911
617
2711
gog
2112
718
827
138
213
158

Total
rural

----S,218

1, 30II

2,990

811
416
11111
844
412
232

11111
111
158
162
11115
47
228
84
8411

4611
314
146
3211
2111
78
874
2111
4411
8114
82
148
40

888

DI
3811
400
111
IM
23

October

lune

rrr

46
47
33

Open
countey

Village Total
rural

Open
OOUDtey

Vl1lap

- - - - - - -- -1, 11211

1,081

2,181

1, 3118

7111

810
216

1411
1111

271

1111

llO

200
11511
47
177
141

411
21
117
61

222
UIII
68
Ml
147
178
341
48
IJ0
14

107
82
21

213

72
2117
168
38

as
z

IO'J

•
'"

UM
llO

848
176
178
2'IO

68
116
34

ao

1588
Di
88
Uill
ll6
4115

8

Dg1tzeobyGoogle

n

H
280
61
110
117
21
IIO

18

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 125
Ta•t. 5.-Rural Relief Cases in 300 Sample Counties and 83 New En9land Townthlps,
June and October 1935, by State Sampled
June
State

All Sta~ l&IDpled •••••••••••.••••••

Total
rural
120, !!05

October

Open
country

Vlllap

71,298

46,674

Total
rural
90,708

-"5,896
- - - ~218
- - = 19,678 = S4,410
-690- - - I,~
--Iowa_ .................................
2,156
1,466

11 Northern Statee •••••••.•••••••••••••••

K8.0S8S .• ••••·•••••••••••·•·•••••••••·
Michigan
. .••.•....•.. • . •....••••.• •••
Minnesota.•...•.•.•..•.•.•••.•.• .•• •.
M issourt. •• •.•.•• •••••••• •••••••••••••
Nebraska ..•••.•.•••.••••••.•••..•.•. •
New York . •••• ••.••••.•.••.•••.•• ••• •
North Dakota ••••••••••••.•••.••• •• .•
Ohio ..••. ___ ..•••.••••••••••••••••••••
South Dakota ••••••.•••.•..••••••••• •
Wisconsin ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
lll Southern States........................

2,796
6,602
7,304
a, 780
2, 1Jl6
1,954
6,230
6, 1146
a, uo
8,702

1,098
3,762
4,374
2,622
698
1,()118
4,634
3,386
1,684
2,212

Open
country

886

1,606
3,660
1,456
1,490

1511,034

82,l!M

111,1178

H,433

384
820

87'
1,U&

---=

2,246
4,724
6,342
t, 610
1,636
1,816
8,696
4,380
1,660
8,242

1,698
l,!lro
2,930
1, 1(>8
1,588

Village

3,308
8,314
8,376

1,416
2,028

1,234

430
924

1,106

2,306

IIS4
2,0'1'
1,~
1,~

2, 762

aa.

2,020

m

=
=38,=
=
=44,=
=
=lt,67, 292
116
111, 176
708
30, ~
J.M.

-- - -804- ----------1---Alabema .••••.•••••••••••••.••.••••••
1,662
1,550
858
476
1,074

Arkansa.1 .•••••••••.••..•.••••••••••••
Florida ...••••••••••••••••..•••.•••••.
Oeor~la ___ ••••••••••.••... •.•• .•••••••
Kentucky .••..•..••.•.•.•.••••••••••.
Louisiana •.....•••••••••••••••••••••••
North Carolina .•.•..••••.•..••.•••••.
Oklahoma_.. _--······················
South Carolina .•••.••••••••••.••••• ••
Tenoassee ••....•..•..••••••••••.••••.
Te1as ...•••••••..•.••••• ••• •••••••••••
Virginia .. _.....•••••••••••••••.••••••
West Virginia ••••••••••••••••••••••••

I Western States ••••••.••••.••••••••.•••••
California. ••.•..••.••••••••••••••• ••••
Colorado •••.••••••••••••••••.••••••••
Mcntana. ••...•.•••••••.•.•••••••••••
Oregon••••.....•••.•••••.••.•••••••.••
Utah_ ........••••••••••••••••••••••••
W ashln11:ton ••••••••••••••••••••• •••••

2 New En11land Statee....................
Connecticut•••••••••••••••.••••••••••
Massachusetta ..••••••••••••••••••••••

3,308
2,564
2,042
7, 71>~
1,156
a, 138
11, 430
6,246
2, 1182
10,126
3,492
4,478

2,074
1,400
1,:m
6,338
762
2,146
7,318
8,41i4
l , 770
6,244

2,662
2,870

1,234
1,164

768

1,430
404
992
2, 112
1,782
1, 112
t,882
830
1,608

1,800

8,302

984
1,024
376
10
1,208

2,360
1, 1-M
670
416
1,642
688

1,724

6, 728

6,162
2, 2114
1, 714
6,222
1,444
1,722
t,506
2,062
2, 1124

2,800
2,306
6,926
2, 156
2, 194
8,066

- - -= 13,784 - =
6,964
6,820
6,662
2, 128
1,694
792
I, 712

2, 110
2,732
1, 114

2,674
8,936

1, 146

686

88G-

l,Oll&
62S
1,666
642

~

1, 70f

712

•n

3, 6t,()
6~

1,312

8,fflj()

8,860
1,180
892
262
1,438
1,058

3,633

2,810

2,644

1,986

2,296

6118
678

™
68

740

1,664
682
314
128

1,370
· 318

- -889
- - - - - - - ----1----1--82'

Dig IIZed by

Google

126 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Ta•le 6.-Rural Relief Penons in 300 Sample Counties and 83 New England Townships,
June and October 1935, by State Sampled
June
State

AU States sampled _________________ _

Total
rural

Open
country

October

VlJlage

-----320,736

Total
rural

---

Open
country

Village

--- ---

379,9e8
243,974
124. 376
----- --- --------11 Northern States ______________________ _ -1111,
768
115,684
139,486
76,084
86,556
62,930

Iowa __________________ . ______________ _
Kansas. _____ .. ________________ . _____ _
Michi~an. _______________ . ________ ....
Minnesota___________________________ _
Missouri.. ______ . ___________ .•. ______ _
Nebraska. ___ .. __ .... ________________ _
New York ______________________ . ____ _
North Dakota_______________________ _
Oblo _________________________________ _
South Dakota-----------------------Wisoonsin _________ . ------ -----------l3 Southern Statal------------------------Alabama ____________________________ _

Artl\llsss __ _____________ .. __ .. _. _____ _
Florida. _________________________ . __ ._
Georgia. __ . _________________ . _______ .•
Kentucky __ . ________________________ _
Louisiana .. __________________________ _
North Carolina ______________________ _
Oklahoma. __________________________ _
South Carolina ______________________ _
Tenn____________________________ _
Texas. ______ ---------- ______________ _
V!r~n!a_. __________________________ ..
West V!rgin!B _______________________ _

514,477

179,454

---------------a, 162
6,470
6,902
9,632
1, 1138
3,964
4,666
14,528
18,700
11,950

10,548
21,054
30,280
16,194
9,098
7, 1148
30,508
29, 2.',0
12,478
15,078

6,982
6,526
11,"80

3,000

,&,244
6,008

4,286
23, 740
16,276
7. 112
9,274

2!'i3. 812

177, 152

7,098
12. 944
11,444
9,172
36,600
6,000
15,926
44,21'6
20,974
14,246
38,694
17,830
19. s.02

3,388
8,/\118
6,640
6,978
31,248
3,444
Ii, 326
35,092
14,298
8,846
20.818
13, 1142
13,544

3,362
6,768
13,9i4
6. 3(6
6,804

3,296
13,138
13, AA/I
15,606
I, 774
3,452
14. 626
fl,8.'i2
I, 270
8,118

3,710
4,3.511
4,804
3, 1114
6,448
1,586
4,600
9, 114
6,676
6,400
17,876
3,888
6,008

6,4116
8,390
8,862
4,356
31,100
12,496
II, 716
31,924
9,476
JO, 388
29,8.'lO
13,240
16, 700

2,0i4
6,940
5,018
2,580
24. 616
10,242
8, 1148
24. 954
6,632
8,488
17,452
JO, 476
II, 972

4,422
1,450
3,844
I, 776
6,490
2. 254
2. 768
6,970
2. 844
1,900
12,378
2, 764
4,728

17,0'J6

16,858

2,658
2,688
602
282

2.2M

=

3, 764!
3, ISO

4,328
7,528
4,604

4. Ille

------ ------

27,800
26, 710
33,884
- - ---- - - - - - Caliromia____ . ___ . __ . ________ .. ______ _ - 21,756
12,518
II, 238
13, 9116
Colorado __________________ . ______ . __ .
8,006
4,030
4.918
4. 036
Montana.
________ -------- -- . ---------_
6,736
4,514
3, 1196
2. 222
g:v,on
______________________________

Washington _____ . __ ... __ ._. ________ ..

4,590
7,412

4. 5S8

===
=
=
=
76, 660
1114, 980
140, 392
64,588

-ti Western Staf.ell _________________________ _ - 54,600

2New England States.------------------Connect!cut. ________________________ _
M&'l88chusetts-. _.. ____ . ___ . _________ _

4,808

8,102
17,728
20,ll\lR
20,164
6,540
6,632
18, 8.'i4
17,378
6,874
12,314

2,926
7,236
7,880

1,402
272
6,148

1,524
6,964
2. 732

948
6,846
4, ISO

-- - -6,022
7,974
2,922

l,3<l!
446
6,564
1,258

--------- --- -----14,297

11,618

3,M9
10,6118

3,448
8, 170

0 g1. zed by'

------

Goog Ie

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 1 27

Tol»le 7.-Estimated Number of Cases Receiving Relief in Rural Areas, June and Ociober
1935, by State and Residence
(Figures In thousands)
June

State

Total
rural

October

Ooen
country

Village

Total
rural

Open
country

Village

--- ------ --- --t;nited Statrs totaL ..•..••....•....

1,427

862

1165

1,025

6.'l6

3i9

213

166

291

168

123

21
25
52

7
10
35
26

'.al
44
31

33

26
33
II
'.al

34
10
13

16
23
21
43
10
29

7
31
19
32
4
12
18
23
2

13
13
12

14

14
15
17
17
11
15
11

63Y

361

178

4'.al

Alab&ma .•.•••••••.•.........•.•..•..•
Arkan."88 .•.••....•......•.•.....•••..
Florida ..•••....••.•..•..••...••••••••
Oeorcta •••••....••.....•.•..••••.•••.•

17
29
22
21

~it~~~r::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
North Carolina •.........•...•...•.•..

88

8
18
12
13
72
6
21
67
27
17

II
II
10
8
16

16
18
19
12
76
18
23

All Sta tee sampled ••................
ll Northern States.•••............••..•.•.

---------------=
1,040
628
394
789
489
------ =
------ =

Iowa..•.••••••...••.........••••..••..
Kansas ..•••••..•........••...•.....•.

MichiJZ&n ..••..••.•..•.•••...•••......
MinnPsota •.•.....................•.••
Missouri.. ••••.•••.......•••......••••
Nebraska .•.••••..........•..•........
New York .•....••..........••..•.••..
North Dakota ....................... .
Ohio.•.........•.•........•..••.•.•...
South Dakota ...•.......••...••..•...
W is<-onsin .•.•••••.•.•.•••••..•.•.•..•
13 Southern States .•••.•.•...•........••..

43
35
2'l
25

35
fi7
21

7

7
31
87
41
28
78
29
61

40
22
39

286

------ - -8
12
4
43

9

------ --- =

Oklahoma ........................... .
South Carolina .••.................•..
Tcnne-8900 ••••••......................
Texas ....•.••••••.....................
Vi~inia .•....••...•..................
West Virginia .•••....•.......•........

I

24

38V

2
10
'.al
14
11
38
7
22

M
17
21
62
22

18

11
11
11
6
'.al
8
11

288

132

6
16
10

11
B
9
8
18
3
8
18
8

---=

8

118

13

17
48
11
17

86

4
27

64

17
36

18

16

24

14

10

11

12
7
3

6
6
2

6

6

------------ --- =
104
64
60
64
Western States......................... .
33
31
--- --------- --- --Caurornla •••••••••.•.•••....••••.••••.
Colorado ••••.•••••••••.••.......••••..
Montana •••.•••..•........•.•••.•••••

i~t
Washington •••.•...•...•......•••••.••

0
.~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

2 New England State~ .....•..•......•••..
Connectlru t ....•.....................

Massachuaetts ....................... .

=

36
21
12
8
10
17
18

21
10
8

.
4

11

4
4

9
9

10

6

.
II

--- --------- =

2
I
II
3

14

- - -3 - - - - - - - - -3 - - - - - II

15

•Fewer than 1,000 rasea.

Dg1

zerJbyGooglc

128 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Tol»le 8.--Estlmated Number of Persons Receiving Relief in Rural Areas, June and

October 1935, by State and Residence
[Fienres In thousands)

June
State

Total
rural

Open

oountry

October
Village

Total
rural

Open

oountry

Village

--------------1--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - United States total. •.•..•.....•....

6,136

All States sampled ..••.••••••••••.••

4,473

11 Northern States •••.•. -................

Iowa .•.•••••....•.•.••.•••.•••••.•••..

Kansas .•.......••••••.•••••••••.•••••
Mlchiimr, ....•••..•••.•••••.••.••.••••
Minnesota .....•••••.•••••••••••••••••
Missouri.. ...•..••••••••••••••••••••••
Nehraska .....•.••••...••.••.•••••••.•
New York ...•••••••.•••••••••••••••.•
North Dakota .•••••••••••••.•••••••••
Ohio .•.......•.••..•••••.•••••••••••..
South Dakota •.••..•••••••••••.••••.•
Wisconsin ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•

2,843

2,231

4,315

2,840

1.475

1,567

3,319

2,176

I, lll5

=
=
=
=
=
~
1,576
U27
6411
I, 171
717
4M

- - 115
-------------39
31
64
68
Ill
96

195
178
151
89

117
171

284
84
136

42
135
110
112
30

64
133
148
48
84

64

60
68

311
611
43
38
136
36
62

74
164
124
188
64
84
106
169
39
Ill

80

122
80
146
17

"

82

116
f
73

"
"

42
42

37

40
24
73
31
38

-=
---- - -710- - = 2,410 - I, 700
13 Southern States .••.•••.••....•••••.•...
1,840
1,328
612
--- --Alabama ..••••.••.•..••..•.•••••..•.•
72
34
38
66
21
45
Arkansas .••.•....•.••••.•.•.•.••..•.•
Florida .•.•..•..••...••..••..•.•......
Oeorvia ......•...•..•..•..•.....•....•
Kentucky ••••...••••.••••.•..••...••••
Louisiana ........••...........••..••.•
North Carolina ..•...•..••.•.•........
Oklahoma ......••.•••••••..••••••.•.•
Bou th Carolina ••.•...••.•...••....•..
Tennessee ••••.....••......•..•.....•.•

Texas ..••.••..•••....•.•.••..••.••••..

Virginia .........••.•.•.......•....•.•
West Virginia ••...•••.....•...••.•....
6 Western States.........................

38

63
355

42

72
77

97
417
29

34

46
353

27
279

~

158

72

112
322
113

9
46

112

JOO

406
165
138
298
150
268

74
68

~

84

116
293
75
101

160
117
186

62
62
138
33
82

229

86

(IO

12

"

33

,.

69
811
229

64

19

IS
27
22

115

229

52
82
134
88
164

811

51

38

111

19
23

65

=414= =
=198= :
= 131
::=
216
250
119

Callfomla.••.•.••••••••••••.••••••••..
Colorado ..••..•••••..••.•••.•••.•.•••
Montana ..•.....•..•••...••.•••..••..
Orel(on ••••.•..••..•......•••.••.•...•
Utah ..................•..••.........•
W ashlnyton ••••.•.•.....••••.••••••.•

138
81

79
41

69
40

63

35
13
2
46

18
15
42
24

2 New England States .•••••••••••••••••..

73

68

Conntttlcut ..••.•.•••.•...•••••......
Massachusetts •..•.•....•.••...•.•.•..

12
61

11
47

28

"

70

411
31
D
35

37

26
21
5
2
26

DgltzectbyGoogle

23
10

4

83
11

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 129
Ta•le 9.-Ruial Relief and Wom Prog,am Casct, January 1932 Through December 1935
(E1tlma&edJ
11113
MUDth

Total

I

0 -Olll7
1
relief

I worn

}>roeram I

Fllw'el In tboaand1
••••••••••
1UIIN'J"
J'ebruRY••••••••••••
........••••••.......

Mueh. ...................... .

=-··············-····-····
June. •••• ••• • •• - •••••• ••••• - --

1111,-. ················-····-- ••
AtllfflA .. .. -•...•.•. •·•··· ····
Sept.ember••••••••• ··-·······-

October•.•••.••• -••••• -. •.•.••
November •••••••••.••...••..•
December ••• ········ ········-

104
122
132
1211
118
122
123
118
127
261

828

81M

800

1,101
1,268
1,123

980
980

1,270
1,282
1,010
1,113
1,333
1,007

1,195
1, 2:.17
1,414
1,821
1,463
1,623
1,810
1,786
1,726
1, fl87
1,763
1,863

1,IMD
1, II07
1,868
1,7114
1,MD
1,427
1,2811
1,171
1,101
1,127
1,180
1, 0117

1,IMD
1, II07
1,8118
1,7M
1,6411

0.8
9. 8
11. 3
10.6
11. 0
12. 2
12.8
14. l
13.8

15. 8
~-2
14. 8
14.1
13. 2
11.4
10. 8
0. 3
8.8
D. O

15.8
15. 2
14. 8
14.1
13.2

14. 0
14. 8

8.8

l,ffl
1, 2811
1,1411
1,039

11111

86D
401

JID
DO

821

M

Percent of all fllmillea, 1"30

1UIUlll'J' •••• ••••••••••••••·•••

0.8

8.4

).(I

lhreh......... -.. -· . . . ...... .

1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
O.D
1. 0
2.0
6.0
6.6

8.8
10. l
D. O
7.8
7.8
10. 1
10. 2
8. 1
8.D
10.0
8. 0

Pebroar,-.••..... •••••........

tl:':..::::::::::::::::::::::::

JUDe....... ........•.. -...... .

11117 •••••••••••••••••••••.••••

AtllfflA .• •........••.•....•...
Bepiember•••..•.••••••••.••••
October••• •• ••.••••• • •• •••.•••

November...... .. . ... . . . . ... .

o-mber .. ······· ······· ····

13. 3

D. 4

11.,
10.3
0.1
8. 8
7.D
0. 8
a2

a.I
0.6
L1

:u

6.0

t Sample too ■mall for enlmatln&.
J.acludlD&- recelvinl both pneral ~lief and Woru Program earniDp.
Sourcee: EIUmatel or ,emral relier July 1033 throuch 0-ber 1036 from Bmltb, Mapbeua IIDd
Man«ua,A.R.,Ol,u~O-al&lit/lfl UrbanalldRuralAreiu,Julfl93$-Dtumber IIISI (Eltlmoldl,
I

~ BuJleUD Beriell III, No. 1, Dlvlalon or Boclal RMMreb, Worn Procrem AdmlnlstraUon Wlllhtn,the basil of
reponatoine DITlalOnof8oclal R.-rch from DI rural and townareuln 24 States. Worlr:s Program ..,_ eaUmated on the ham or tnnarera from general relief to the Woru Prognmi (eJ:clnslve of OCC)
nportedfrom800ooanUea and 83 New England townships. 0891!11 'ININl considered transferred from pnsal
rellel to the Worll:I Proenm 01117 upon receipt or the Initial pefD1ent ror a full period or work perfaaned on
a pro~ I& - - - ' &bat all CUM reoelnd botjl 1--1 rellet and Worb Proenm eernlnp durlnc
the month ot traadlr,

ton, D. 0:\_ August 22, 11188. The general l'l'llef aeries ,na enended hack to January 11132 on

Dig1t1zed by

Google

-•

Tcrlt,. 70.-Type ol Assistance Received by Rural Relief Casa,1 Febtuary,June, and October 1935, by Area

l\lonth und

J. 11

areas

Appa-

W estern Cot ton

Easte rn Cott-0n

tn)t, of n.'i.Sl.st:uare

I_Whi t e

I N"81! ro

T otal

I While

IO, l21
100. 0

I

:--:ei:ro

Bay
a nrl

Ozark

15, qw
100.0

4, 042
100.0

10, 803
100. 0

ll,5S4
IUIJ. 0

1,739
100.0

4, 483
100. 0

2, 237
100.0

42. 6
21. 6
1.3

4S. 3
IB. 8
H. 4

26. 3
17. 2
9. 0

57. 8
12. O
9. 0

6. 2
12. O
58. 1

18. 0
18. O
8.5

52. 5
14. O
7. 0

rn, 084

3, 5.18
100. 0

6,044
100.0

8,106
100.0

I, 212
100. 0

3,180
100. 0

1, 686

26. 6
62. 8
10. 6

62.9
18. 6
18. 5

20.1
31. I

M. 3
12. 7

7H

900

100. 0

I, 728
100. 0

100. 0

47. 3
3. 9

84. 3
6.6

85. 8
3. 8

Com

Belt

_ __

Wi n ter / Sprlni / R anchIng
Wheat Wheat
D ai ry __ _ _, _ _ _ , _ __

"

::c
►

~

z

G')

fEJ\H \T.\Rl"

. . . •• . • • •• .. ••..
... ... . .... ..

;n,1z;
11)1.ll

10. ~o
100.0

r.,;32
IIIO. ll

3,S.'>-1
l lltl. O

15,133
100. 0

•
Wnrk l\'lie( "n lr .
. . . . . . . ••. . .....
D ll"l'ct r,,liol nnly . .. .
. . . .. . . . .•... . •
fl oth wnrk nnd direct n,110(
Drou gh trclie!J . . . . .• . . ... . . . . • ..... . .

37. I
17. 2
10. ~

3 1. 2
25. 2
-

21. 3
27. 2
-

49. 9
21. 7
-

3 1. 3
I 1. O
25. 4

.'i4.MS

7,026
HXJ. 0

4, MS
100. 0

2,468
100.0

6,802
100.0

?'sumtwr • . ... . ..
Pcrcout . ... ... .

I I

Lake
States
C utO\'er

J- --.-----,-- - - I - - - -- - -- -- -I Isch1snTotal

w
0

(138 CX>Wltlea)

- - - --- - - -- - - - --31. ◄
28. 4
51. 5
43.6
34. VI
. •.. . •. .. . .

I

4, 71 '.l.
100.0

- - - - -33.0
Z7 . 5
H. O
25.5

Z7 . 8
39. 0
7. I
25. 2

5, 152
100. 0

I, 740
100. 0

JtJSE

Xun1 00r ___ __ . . . .... . . . ... .. . . . . ____ __
J'ercout ___ __ ___ __.. ____. ____ _. _. _. _. . _

100. 0

- - - --- --- - - - --62. 5
35. 2
44.0
4~. 6
48. S
Wnrk relier only . . . . . . . ... . . . ...•. . . ... . . . ....
Direct relie r only .•. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . .
..... . . . .
Both work Rn d ,lirl'<'t relie r

- - - --

39. 7
14. 7

35. 9
20. I

28. 3
22. 9

50. I
14. 7

34. 9
12. 0

57. 1
29.3
13. 6

37, 01S
111(). 0

3, 486
100. 0

2, 698
100. 0

788
100. 0

5,052
100. 0

3, 920
100. 0

I, 132
100. 0

77. 1
5. 2

40. 7

41 . 5
4. 3

37. 8
5. 3

23. 9
70. 0
6. 1

2-~. 0
67. S
7. 2

77. 4

38. 7
61. 6
9. 7

- -23.-7 - -55,5- ----------26. 5
21. 2
47.5
20.5
34.5

100. 0

- -18.-5 --68. I

48. 2

- - - --- -

30. 1
11. 8

69. 8
21. 7

39. 9
11.9

14,258
100. 0

2, 1148
100. 0

2. 638

100. 0

5,294
100. 0

77. 3
6. G

99. 8
0. I

86. 6
6.0

90. 5
3. 2

100. 0

-48.-8 --23. 0

!
0
.,,
,0

C

,0

r►
,0

OCTOBER

~un1he.r __ __ ___ . . . . ··· ·· - - ~-- - -- -Jle~nt . ___ _______ ____ . .. . ... . .. . . . . .
0

i6
i'i

---------5R. 9
17. 7
.\.I . 2
54 . S

W ork relie r only ....... . . . . • .. . . . • . . • . •• .. •
Dil"l'ct mli•ronlY . .. . · · · · · · · · ·•·• - ··· . . .
ll otJ-1 work and d irect relle l. . . . . . . . ... ..... · j

4. 5

- - - - - - --

20. 1
2. 5

ID
0.

a

'<"

C""J
0

~

;;;-

1 lru:JU11lve of CUM opened or reopened during tbe momh.
• Droucht CUM that recelV9d -1atance ID &he am of feed 1111d -S or In the form of work or direct relief.

- -10.-4
--- -48.-8 - -- -If>.-! ----9. I
6. 3
7.4
0. 1

'"
.,,'"
C:

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES •

1 31

Tal,le 11.-Type of Assistance Received by Rural Relief Cases,1 June and Odober
1935, by State
(300 counties and 83 New England town!hlps)

October

June
State

Total

Number

Per•
cent

Total
Both
Work DIJ'@Ct work
relief relief and
only only direct Num- Perrelief
ber
cent

-- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - --

All States sampled ••.. 112,313

100.0

51. 7

11 Northern States •..••••.•• 43,244

100.0

43.0

2, 712
5,244
7,0M
3.378
2,170
I, 852
5,&~0
6,510
3,056
3,484

100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0

80.3
19. 7
54.8
59. l
70.1
23. 7
37. 4
15. 2
98. 0
22. 7

1,558
3,076
2,230
1,854
7, 39-1
716
2.6m
8,862
4. 976
2. 750
11,558
3,182
4,272

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0

87.9
12.3
53.0
93.3
67. 7
71.8
55.9
85.1
16.8
31!.9
38.3
95.3
75.0

--- - -

Iowa ..••.•••••...•......
KanS88 ...•••••••.••.•...
Michigan .•••...•.••••.•
Minnesota .••••••••••••.
Mis.sour! ...••••••..•....
Nebraska .••.•••••..••..
New York ...•.•.•••.••.
North Dakota .•••.••••..
Ohio ..•....•.•.••..•.•••
S'?uth D_akota.•••••.•..•

--- - -30. 5
1,934 100.0

32.1

16. 2 78,M2

43.2
14.6
68.8
31.6
33.0
20. 7
64.1
28.0
66.8
2.0
53.8

26. 3
5.1
11. 5
13.6
7.11

100.0

18. 5

75. 8

15.6
0.2
0.3
0.1
3.6
5. 7
22.0
8.5
4. 7
12. 7

61. 4
99.8
99.3
99.5
93.6
91. 2
69.0
85.4
85.6
84.2
911. 6

5. 7

- - - - - - --- - - - - - 41. 0
16.0 211,3M 100.0
4.5
91.5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.0

9.:1

12.2
34. 6
18.0

-

1,100
2,0-~2
4,192
4,480
3,986
1,230
1,600
2,836
3,952
1,180
2,746

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
--- --38,956 100.0

-23.0
0.4
0.4

2.8

23.5
- - - --- - -- - - --- - - =
58.5
24.2
17.3
Stales •••••••••• 53,084 100.0
28. I
64.5
--- --- - -- - - - - - - - -

\\ lSCOC.Slll •••••••••••••••

13 Southern

Both
Work Direct work
relief relier and
only only direct
relief

Alabama ....•.••.•••••••
Arkan.sas .••••••••••••..•
Florida .•.••.•••••......
Georgia ...•....•...••.•.
Kentucky ...•.•.•••...•.
Louisiana .........•.••.•
North Carolina •.••.••..
Oklahoma ...............
South Carolina.••....•.•
Tenne.ssee ...•..•••..•...
Texas
.....••....•••.••..
Virginia
_________________
West Virginia .••••••..•.

30. 7
13. 5
0.6
26.4
26. 5
24.3
2.1
51.6
13.0
48.0
1.8
22. 7

5.6
57.0
33.5
6.1
5.9
1. 7
19.8
12.8
31.6
47.1
13. 7
3.1
2.3

7.4
--

MS
I, 792
1,914
788
6,330
2,628
2,114
5. 920
1. 436
2,076
7, 1118
2,414
3,788

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

18.3
10. 7
0.6
92. 4
I. 4
31. 4
23.9
77. 1
77. 8
32.9
0.9
82.3
1.8

81. 7
87.4
119. 4
4.3
97.4
68. J
36. 4
6.6
11.8
66. 2
98.6
3.8
93.6

35.8
2.9
8.0
10.5
20.6

3,524
1,044
752
138
1,320
860

100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0

0. 2
10.3
2. I
4.3
8.6
0.5

97. I
81. 5
97. 4
95. 7
84. 7
911. 3

2. 7
8.2
0.5

6. 1

1, 1186

100.0

77.1

20.1

2.8

I.II

-

3.3
1.:1
0.5
39. 7
16.3
10.4
JO.II
0.5
13.11
4.6

- - - -- -- --- --- --- - - - - - - - - - - - 100.0
48.2
36.8
15.0 7,638 100.0
3. 4
93.0
3.6
--- -----

8 Western States .•••••••••.• 12,826

California .••••••••••••..
Colorado •..•••••••••••••
Montana .•••••••.••••..•

-6.5

3. 1
9.0
6.1
9. 7
3. 1
0.4

8'c:t~~::::::::::::::::::
Washington •••..•••••.••

5,364
1,990
1,466
678
1,600
I, 728

100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0

Massachusetts •••••.....

2, 3i8

100.0

-87.0
26.9
5. 7
24. 8
32. 6
12. 6

2.1
37. 3
91.4
67. 2
66.9
6/1.8

73.8

20.1

-10.9

--- - - --- - -- - --- - - -·- - - - 2 New England States •••••. 3,159 100.0 69. 7 23. I
7.2 2,694 100.0
73.5
22.0
4.5
---27.-7 - 9.0
- - ---Connecticut •.•.•••••••••
781 100.0
57.2
32.3
10.5
63.3
708 100.0
6. 7
0.2

• Exclusive of cases opened or reopened during the month.

Dg1

zerJbyGooglc

132 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Tcr•te fJ.-Average Monthly General Relief BeneAt per Case 1 in Rural Areas, February
June, and Odober 1935, by Area and Type of Assistance
1138 countllls]
February I
I>,

Ara

g

October

J'IJDll

.,,
i ."'-.,

I>,

g

i

.,,
"'".!I

I>,

I>,

g

g

lir;

A

.,,
51

I dIii I I j! I I 1-~
s
5J
j
i 1 5J
ii':
!
12
!
12
I
I
I
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- - ';i

::,

fl

.w

!S

~

All areas ..•••.•••.•.
Eastern Cotton ..••.•••.•.
White •.......•••..•.•
Negro •.•....•.•.•.•.••
Western Cotton •.••....••.
White .•..•.•.•••.•••.
Negro ..••.......••••••
Appalachlan•Ozark .....•.
Lake St.ates Cut•Over .•..
Com Belt ..••...•••...••••
Hay and Dairy .••••..•••.
Winter Wbeat ....•.....•.
Spring Wheat•••••..•••••.
Ranching ••••••••.•.•••••.

A

$16

$17

$12

$22

$16

$16

$18

- 10- - 12- - - 13- - 12- - 14- =
6
12
7
10
10
8
12
22
20
26
17
23
20

13
10
10
10
II
13
26
21
80
17
22
21

7
6
7
8
7
8
16
18
20
11

16
16

14
10
14

16
12
18
36
28
87
20
31
81

14
8
10
11
8
12
23
18
23
16
22
18

16
10
11
11
10
12
24
111
211
16
Ill
111

7
8
6
7
7
8
10
18

14

111
18

14
16

$14
$12
$24
$14
m
- 16- = II - 13- - -II
17
16
18

14

16
12
111
36
80
36
24
80
81

12
10
D
D
D
14
22
18
14

13
10
8
8
8
10

J38

11

24
20

7

28
111

10
8
10
10
II
14
22
16
12
14
23
20

111

11
10
1i

J43

alt

fAversge not computed for fewer than 60 cases.
Exclusive of cases opene<I or reopened durinJ the month.
• Exclusive of drought relief cases.

1

Tcr•le 13.-Average Monthly General Relief Benefit per Case in Urban Areas,
1934-1936
Month

193l

January •••............•.•......•.•...•••...••.•.....••.•.•...•.....
February •...•......•..........•.......•.....•...•....••..•.••.....
March .•..•.....................•.••.....•..••..••..••.•..••.....••.

$19.90
21.10
22.00
26. 10
28.90
28.20
28.80
81.00
28.60
30.80
32. 40
32. 80

~::·.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Juue .•••••........•...•.•••...•.•.•.....••...•••...•...••••••••.••.•
July ...••••.•....•....•••••.....••....•.•.••..•••.•••.••••••••••....
Au~ust ..•.•••.....•.....••.....••...•.•••••.•.•.•.••.•••••••••.....
September•..•...•.••..•..•.•.•...•..•••..•.••••...•.•••••••••••••..
October .......••••..•..•....•.••.•..••••.••.•••••••••••••••.••.•....
Novemher ...•.•.•..•...................•.......•..•...••.••••••...•
December ••••.•.••...•.............•..............•.••.•..••••••...

1935

$36. &I
32.30
33. 10
33. 10
33.20
31.90
34. 10
32. 70

P,.IIO

28.90
30.80
26. IIO
26. 60

27.00
28.00

27.20
27. IIO
27.80

21U0
26.80
~10

26.80
28. 70
30.40

Source: Chanqe, in Diff,rmt Tvpe, of Public and Prioate Relief In Urban Area,, monthly bulletbll, U. 8.
Department of Labor, Children's Bureau, Washington, D. C.

og,

zed bi

Google

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 133

To•le 14.-Avera,e Monthly General Relief BeneAt per Case 1 in Rural Areas, June and
October 1935, by State and Type of Assistance
(300 counties and 83 New England townships)

June
State
Total

October

Direct

Work
relief
only

relief
only

--All States sampled .....
11 Northern States.. .........

13 Southern States .... ......

Alabama ..........•.....
Arkansas •••••.•.• .... _._
Florida .•••••.•..• • ..• .••
Georgia ..••..•.••••...•••
Kentu~ky ...••••• • ...•••
Louisiana •.•.•..• •... ...•
North Carolina••.•...••.
Oldahoma .•...••••.••.•.
South Carolina •••••...•.
Tenn- .• ••••• ••••.•••

S23

14

31

=

=

II
16
12
g
11
10
13
15
II
II
II
10
12
13

28

Colorado .••••••••••.•.••
Montana ...••••••••••••.

41
23
17
16
17

2 New England States..••••.

Connectlrut .•...•.••..•.
Masaachusetts••••.......

=

14

28
82

8

= 12
- - 17- =

7
11

t

11

II
II
8
II
0
0

14

11

3.5
39
20

=

25

20

18
23

17
16
11
16
17

36

41

21

36

44
40

24
22

------ =

--=
39

=

23
20

$16

25

17

=

22

=

j

21

13

26
3'
14

36

13

JO

JO

7
12
10
10
13

t

18
13
16
11
16
16
15

6
16

21
19
18

$17

--- =

II

11
13

7

=

18

II

13
14

------=

=

3a

60

31

t

25
27
27

=

31

45
23

25
14
16
20

=

l

16

t

21

Ill

=

=

1t
7
7
II
1

44

t

=
=

24
25
12
15

20

--------- =
=
39
42
65
24
-==
---=
=
63
51

41

38

44
41

25

23

-f
Jt
II
J1

6

32

l
16

16
13

10
6

=
=
t
21

20

t

13

14

-32

32

22

II
II
II

28

'6

22

JO

$21

J

8

t

8

=

21
20

18

10
11

17
19
18

=

20

31
16

12
18
Iii
17
8
11
6
42
13
18

Both
worlt
and
direct
relief

Direct
relief
only

19
24
-40
22
- - 13- - - 10- = 11 =
- - Ii- = JO --=
14

II

11
16
16
10
111
12
13
12

$16

Work
relief
only

20

40

8

16
10

=

26

18

=

28
21:
36
9

17
18
1,

26
16
32

Total

- -27- =

'

20

=

13
12
16

H

II
20
34

21
19
16

26

18
19

23
24

7

States •••••••••••.

g:to.~::::::::::::::::::
W ashlna:ton •••••••••••••

=

20
3'

=
=
California ••••••.••.•.•...

e W•tem

Sl2

20

23

Tems ...•.....•.• ••.••.•.

Virginia ......•••••••••••
West Virginia .•...••••••

$18

111

18
Iii
18

Kansas .. ······ ······ ....

Michigan ..•••••.••••••••
Minnesota ...... . ........
Misl!ourl. ••••.•••••••••••
Nebraska .•.•..••••••••••
New York ......•••••••••
North Dakota •• .•.••••••
Ohio .••......••••••••••••
South Dakota ...........
W i5collllln .•..•••••••••••

Sl7

---

Iowa .....................

Both
work
and
direct
relief

15
21

38
61

26

-24t
t

63

68
68

t A.Ylnl9 not computed for fewer than 50 cases.
I Bnlmln of -

opened or reopened during the month.

Digitized by

Google

-.•

Ta&le 15.-Reason for Separation of Rural Relief Cases, July Through Odober 1935, by Slate

w

(300 counties and 83 New England townships)

"
>

Reason for aepara tton

:::c:

All reasons
Private Industry
State

Works Pro::ram

Other public assistance

Em-

Number

Perrent

Total

Inployment creased
earnobings
tai.ned

Crops
marketed

Total

WP
wage

CCC
allotment

--- --- - - - --- - - All States sampled. 80. 897

100. 0

43. 0

11 Northern Stat-OS ...•.. 31.530

100.0

65.5

100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
10()_ 0
l()(l.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0

68. 6
48. 5
63. 5
68. 1
60.9
51. 2
52. 4
78. 6
59. 4
17. 5
48. 2

Iowa ...........•....
Kansas. ___ . _________
Michi~an .........•..
l\.1mnesot.a __ . _______
~M is.souri. _.•... _. __ .

N ehraska ..••....•..

0

<Q
N

N,•w York ........•..
N ortb Dakota.......
Ohio ................
South Dakota.......
Wist,,msin ...........

u

"<:

C"')
0

~

n

1,416
I, 3.16
3,2r,()
•• 6:32
3. 138
1.sn

l, Oi6
4, 5\1()

4. 730

3.380
2. If,()

Alabama ...•...•....
Arkansas ...••.......
Florida....•..•......
Georgia ..••...••....
Kentucky ••..•••....
Louisiana_ .. ________
N ortb Carolina.... ..
Oklahoma .......••..
South Car0llna .••...
Tennessee ..•.•.•.•..
Texas ....••..•••....
Vlndnla ......•.••...
West Virginia ••••••.

100.0
1000
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0

22. 4
13.6
18. 7
15. 6
40. 7
26.1
58. 7
22. s
24. 6
20.3
49.0

34. 3
64. 2

--10.6

21.1

14. 7

6.4

4.6

2. 5

28. 7

7. 9

18.9

13. 3

0.3

<l.0

6.9

4.4

1. 5

6.1

42. 3
34.6
40.6
22.8
17. I
32. 2
37. 9
12.0
51.9
9. 7
36. 4

21. 3
11. 4
6.0
6.9
20.5
10.9
10. 6

4.9
2. 5
1;. 0
29. 4
13. 3
8. l
3.9
61.6
3. 2
6.3
7.6

3. 5
12.9
14. 3
13.3
17. 4
15.6
9.1
3.2
:M. I
1.0
29. 4

0.4
3. 9
9.8
11. 3
3. 6
12.2
7. 4
0.2
21. 7
0.3
26. 2

3.1
9.0
4. 5
2.0
13.8

6.2
8.1
2. 0
3.3
2.0
3.0
1.1
4. 4
0.8
29. 6
3. 9

2. 0
8.0

4.2

3.8
6. 8
6. 8
5. 5
6.1
3. 3
12. 3
4. 3
6. 7
4. I
3. 5

6.3

30. 4

20.5

9.9

0.1
3. 6
2. 6
2. 3
13. 9
1.9
10.1
10. 9
3.6
6. 3
2. 3
4. l
2. 5

67. 3
49. 6
G2. 7
58. 3
43. 2
31.6
14. 5
19. 6
8.1
64.0
10. 7
28.8
18.8

M.9
41. 3
58. 7
ro.5
19. 2
19.3
2. 7
11.0
2. 0

4.9
4. 3

2. 5
4. 2

--- --------100.0
30.9
20.1
5.6
- - - - - - --- - - - --I. 78-1
3. f\46
I. 924
2. l~
2. 57t
I. 2fo6
2. 018
6.88~
4, i88
2. 2-12
6. 082
2,212
1.806

Total

6.1

27. 2

13 Southern States ..•.... 38.4H

ti)

0.

- - - ---

Total

Resettlement
Loeal
Ad- agency
ministratlon

Other assistance

6.6
9.0
16.1
JO. 5
22.6
22.8
37. 4
8.4

9. 2
9.8
44.G

27. 4
35. 8

16. 7
1.0
l. 0
2. 7
4.2
l. 4
11. 2
3. 2
11.8
6. 2
2. I
2.R
IS. 9

=====

32. 8

2. 9
15. 8
9.0

3. 4
l. 7
3.0
2. 4
0. 7
3. 2

2. 4
8.3
4. 0

7.8
:M. 0
12. 3
11. S
8.G
G. I

21. 2
7.8
13.0
9.8

====:=

2.1

2. 8
1.0
2. 7

0.1
2.0
0.5
1.0
0.3
I.I

0. 4
28. 2
3. 8

0. 4
1.4
0. l

0.3
0.3
27.0

0.1
0.2

-

--

4. 4

6.0

Client
mo,·ed
Ador
mini"" Other I
failed trative
policy
to

From
relaFrom
tives
other
and sources report
friends

--- --- --- --- --2.9
3.1
8.3
8.0
8. 1
----= 2.8 --2. 3
7.2
10.0
3.0
--1.8
2.0
7.5
G.8
a. 1
2. 4
3. 3
3.1

3. 4
2. 5

~

0.9
1.0
10.4
2. 7
4. I
2.6
2 3

4.

2.3
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.5
l. 2

2.4

I.I
3.3
6. 7
G. 5

10. 6
4. 3
7. 0
1.1
19. 2
7.8
7. 9
6. 4
37. 9
3. I

8.5

11. 2

4.0
3. 2
10.8
12. 3
3.6
16.3
11. 0

4.0
3.8
G.5
2. 4

11 4
3.6
11.0
21.2
3.8
11.4

2. 7

G.5

1.8
2.3
8.9
6.9
0.G

1.3
3.2
6 4

- - - --- --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - --3.8
3.G
8. I
G.8
13. 5
2. 9
1.3
l. 6 • 7. 4
- - - --- --- --- - - - --1.0
o. 7
1.9
1.2
0. 7
1.9
3.8
1. 7
0.3
7.
4.3
11. 3
2. 0
7.1
<l.9
- 11.1.63 9.1
0.3
2. 7
o. 7
0.5
0.2
7. 4
7 5
1.2
~

0.4

0. 6
28.4
3.4

0.9
l. 7
0.2
0.3
l. 4

-

0.3
1. 4

\. 4
a. 4
0.G

l. 3
G.5

3.3
l. 4
R. I
12. 0
2.8
13. 9
3.G
g_ 4

0.5
3.2
0. 3
0.6
0. 4
9. 2
2.2

0.8
3.3
3.0
0.8
7. 7
2. 8
0.6
4. 5
1. 2
3.1

4.8

1.1
3.6
4. i
34. 2
32. 2
2. 7
g6

17. 8
0. 2
3. 7
- 0.3
0.1
0.2
2.
G. I
4 8
0.4
G. 3
8. 3
4.1
===============-=
0.4

o. 2
l. 2

9.4
4

6.4

6.G

20.4

~

z
Q
>

!

@
0
..,

"'C
"',->
"',-m
;;;
..,

Cl Western Statell ••••••••

Ca.llromla •••••••.•.•
Colorado.....••••••.
Montana. ••.....••••.
Oregon ••••••••.•....
Utah ...•....••......

Washington •••••••••

2 New England States•.•

ConnE'CtleuL ....••..
M11ssachUStltts .......

9,152

100.0

54.3

48.3

1.9

3,296

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1000
100.0

68. 7
41.8
41. 3
52. 7
53.1
69. 4

55.3
33.6
22.8
44. 9
42.6
60.0

1.0
3. 7
1. 5
4.0
3. 4
0.3

--1,478
1,162
800
874
1,446

Cl. I

12. 0

10. 7

J. 3

7. 7

1. 2

II. 6

4. 4

1. 7

1.8
0.11
0. 7
6. 7
1.8

8.5
23. I
16. 9
1.8
8.4
0.3

1.2
2. 7
1. 2
o. 4
1.8
0. 3

2. 3
20.4

4.11
6.4
'- 3
4. 3
3.8
2. 6

3. 2
0.1
0.11
1.8
I.I
0.8

3.8

1. 4

--------2. 4
8.1
0.2
6. 9
4. 3
17.0
3.8
7.1
8. 2

14. 7
17. 7
15.6
19.9
II.I

13. 1
18.8
14.11
14. 2
9.3

15. 7
1. 4
1.8

- - - - - - --- --- - - - - - - =
- - - - - - - - - --- =
!, 771
100.0
66.0
55.2
2.0
7.2
6. 7
8. 8
0.5
0.6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- --- --- --- --483

1,288

100.0
100.0

61.9
87. 4

44. 5

59. 2

12. 6
7.3

4. 8
0.9

9. 7
8.2

II. 7
5.8

-

0.8

0.8
0.5

--

-

-

0.8

0.8
0.5

13. 6

a.a

2.8

6. 3
3.4
2. 5
2. 7
1.8

15. 7
II.Cl
16.0
8. 7
7.8
15. 2

8. 1
1.2
1.4
14.8
6.6
0.3

3.0
2.4
2. 4
2. 8
Cl. 5
1.1

2. 2

5. 0

10.8

8. 7

2. 7
--1. 7

--- --- =
--= 11.8 - -5.-7
3.5
6.4
1.5
2. 0
- - - --- --- --- --- --3. 4
1. 7
I. 7
6.6
14. 5
3.1

• Decreased needs and miscellaneous reasons.

VI

C:

:ar'"
~

g
'§

'"-4z
>

,,,N

"'-<

'"<

>
a:,

a.
cr

CJ
0

~

-n

-4

r

~

....w•
UI

Tallle 16.-Rate of Accessions and Separatior,s of Rural Relief Cases, July Through Odober 1935, Because of Private Industry and Other Reasons, by
Usual Occupation of the Head
{300 countle.sJ

I

R ea.son fur :'H:c~,;;sion

Re11SOn ror separatio n

Xet change

I~"
I~

z

l' :,1rn l un-11 p .,t1 0 11 of hti,a ,I

I

T ot, d

I

Lost
priv~ato

em plo y-

mcnt
T nt tl J __

·-.

ALtr ieu ll ure .. .. ___
Far ni i"lp~•r , 1•1r

nn-.-rll'r
T t•,!)_j l fll

Cropp~·r
F n.r n 1 IJL11o rr-r
~ ('I UH~r 1cu l t llI('

\\'h 1tt.: l-'O il rtr •.

H, ;,()()
. - - ... -- --· - - .......... . I- --

·--·- -- ---- -----··-·

..

-· ......................
-- -- - ---- -----·
--•-··

----··
-···------------ .........

1•ru(f.l.,;;,l,,unl
P ropri1!t.ar y _ - - --- - C ler lc.~d

-----

--

- ---- . --- -···

0

~
,::;-

"'

0.
CJ"

'<

C")
0
0

-

00
('i)

Sk llle,L . .•...•. --•· •• -- - - - - - --• - - - -•-.~ mis k ilkid _ . _ ...... . . .. . . . . . . -·
l.lnsk11led __ . - - - - -· - . - - - -- - - - - Se.rYt\Tlt • .. • . • ____ ____ ___ __ _. •• • • •••

--

...

--

Otller. • . __.
•, ·o tlSUal t)CCUpoti on - . _: : ~:: :: : : ~: : : :: . : •• .
ll e.ud nots workt\.r .. . . . . .• ..•••• •• • . • ••

13, 2V6
4, 214

tmn

354
4, SS4
8, li-10
731)
130
216

Usual occupation or bear!
Total. .. . ___ .. ___ . . . • . - - -. . - - - - - - Agriculture .. . . ___ _______. • _... . ·- ·· - - _
Farm operator
Owner .. . . . ::::::: ::: :: : : :: :: : •.•
Tenant ... .•...•.•.. •• . • ... . •.... .. •

f"~~~:~r:.:.:::::: ::: :::::::: :::::: '

I- - W,--z:~;- ·

3'.I~

'2. tl{)2
7,700
17. ~\S
1,-lM
3~
7H
2, 63 1
2,788
10, 350
I, 450
8, 900
1192
4,548

3\10

I, 4S2
I. MO
5, IYJ2
5118

4.4~
M

7, ;\;.1
6, -t72
2. 3110

3, :H2
8:111

79, 096

21.02';

7. Of.6
5, 3-IC,

39, 4\Yl
25,!H8

I, f,\6

9, 170
13,012

i. ,546
2, 6Y8
980
1,216

2,442

I. Ht2

6, Ob:.!

21 ~
44

532
148
1·12
242
804

62

112
378
30~
I, J1\2
2\12
I, 070
8

388

820

3.896
560
3, 336
630
3, 600

3, 71ifi

13, .SH
30, 40fl
2,700
526

796
1, 378
-~- 036
4,826
17,!H4
2,102
15,742
I, 140
8, 0!>8

T otal

I ncrca...'.('d
er,rnlngs •

z

Employ• Earnings
ruent

Other

-35. 500

- 5, 112

-3. 046

-2i, 438

- 18. 400
-1 2.f.S2
- 4, Y56
-fl, 632
- 1.11\4

-1, 184

-2, 2X2

-1.5, 024
-9, 786
-3, 260
- 5, 108
- 1, 418
-5, 23.'l
-8, Mll
-912
- 158
- 286
-468
-1,648
- 1,424
- 4, 772
-706
- 4. 066
-372
- 3, 386

-.\ k3~

-13, 148
-1,214
-204
-376
- 634
- 2. 402
- 2, 038
- 7, 494
-6S2
- 6. 842
-448
-3,510

13. 6

8. ~

11.9
3. 9
2. 9
3. 8
6. 7
31. 4

14. 2
17. I
16.5
18. 3
14. 4
7.

67. 7

18. 0

11. 4

38.3

13. 2
14. I
11.0
13. 4
23.9
11. I

74.0
68. 5
66. 2
71. 3
66. 2
87. 2

14. I

41. 4
40. 0
34. 5
41. 3
48. 6
H .8

7. 1

18. 5
21. 4

7. 1

24. 6

6. 7
8. 7
31. 2

23. 3
7. y
II. 2

-1, t\.lij

-582
-520
-1 18
+3!1
-3, 770
-252

-1. 114
- 904
+an
- 636
- 722
-50

-50

+4

- f,I;
+ 14
-i4
- 66
- 532
+36
- 568

-2'.l
- 180
- 711(1
-548
-2. 100
+ 18
- 2, 2(18
- 70
-88

-6

- 36

Peroont change •

H.8

----

- l,2'l0

=

-30.6
- 34.6
-33. 4
-35. 8
-35. 8
- 20.2
-37. 6

=

- 4. 4
-2.2
- 3.2
-4. 2
- 2.9
-2. 0
+o.2

=

- 2.6 1
-4.3

- 4.3
-8. 0
- 5.0
-HJ. 4

-4.1

Cl

►

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Separation rate •

1

39. 3
35. I

35. 5
45. 0
49. 6

Other•

44. ;sr,
13, '.!ls2
- -- - --2'l,OOO
9. 866
15, 1:12
8, !I S
3,4 14
4. 776
7, ,%0
4, 2-lff
2, 80f>
502
458
I, 738
6, n.s~
4, !\-18
2,\JljS
14,708
12,7 10
1,4H
268
98S
30G
40
ISO
130
42.'i
238
710
570
98
2,352
2,212
452
2,244
2,208
374
8, (if,8
I, 894
i, 2.'i2
I, 266
580
256
6,702
1, 638
7,402
1,002
124
14
6, IJ86
648
424

Ii. 3-18

2, 2(16

37. 2

30. 4

Obtnined
privute
employ•

- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- -

1. :iss
1, 72fl

5(,0

Acce.o;;sion ra te

---- ·

Total

ment'

o, :M:?
t , 4;~

ti, 4,lo.O

420

I earu
Decrcns,•• I
lncs z

Other '

1

j
15, Ul6
- -- -

2 1,0U2

Cl

Prlrnte Industr y

P r ivate lndustr)•

- 23.5

-=
- 28. 1
- 26.9
-23. 6
- 2i.9
- 24.6

-33. 7

~

@
0
.,,
;;o

C

~

►
r

;;o

'"

r

;;;
.,,

::::::::::::::::
N~:r:::::::::::::
Profeealonal •••.•...... .•• . ... .•.... .

Proprietary • . .. ....... .. . ... . ...•. .
Clerical. . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .
Skilled ..... . ... . . . . ... . . . .. . .. . ... . .. . .
Bemlaltllled •.. . . .. .. . ..... . .. . . . . . ... .. .
Umkllled ... .• .. .. . ... . . . . .. . ... . .... . .
Servant. . . .. .... ... .. . . ..... . ... . .. .
Other . .. ... . . . . ..... . . . . . .. ... . . .. . .
No umal occupaltnn . . . ..... ..... . .. ..... .
Head not a work r r. •.. • . •..... .. . .... .... ...

•1

111.1
47.8
32. 1
33. 0
38. 1
40. 7
40. 7
35. 7
41.6
1111.8
1111.0

,o.e
17.4
19.1
18. 6
17.8
21.0
:H.2
20. 0
14. 7
21.0
2. 1
a. 2

Lt
1.1

1111

4. 7
6. 0
6. 6
4. 6
6. 4

10. II
10. 7
11. 6
12. 0
16. 3
1&8

e. 6

7.2

6. 0

0.3
2. 2

12.e

210

1a. e

24.4
20. e

70.0

ea. 7
78. 0
eo.11

GI.I

72.11

70. a
70. 2
61. 8
73. 7
'4-2
48. I

ti.I

21.8
1111. 7
18. 2
26.1
32.3

32. 2

211. e

14. a
11.4
4. 8
a,7

e. 0
e. 8
6.9

11.11

4. 3

au

-lo.I

411. 4
32.8
31.5

-an.a

34.1

7. 7

34. 1
32. 8
34. 2
81.2
34. 6

0.6
2. 4

38.11
40.0

11.5
6. 5
7. 4
11.3

-1.7

-10.0

-7.4
-1. 7
-8.0
-11. 3
-8.0
-8.8

+o.e
-6.2
+o.e

-2&6

-10.3
-2. 7
-0. 5

-2. 7
-0.2
-0.2

-1.7
-6.11

-28.7

-28.7
-211.1
-34.8
-211. 8
-211. 6
-18.1
-32.0
-17.4
-20. 1

+-0.4

-1. 2

-21.e

-I.I

-214

-1.0
-2.1

+o.11

-21.~
-20. 7

-20. 8
-18.8
-17.4

-111.0
-14.6
-19.4

Prl vate or regular Oovemment emplo:rment for -.ages OC' employment on "own &C00UDt," lncludlnir fllrmiDI In the cue of opuw.tors who Ion their land.
• From current private or regular Government employment, IDdudln« fanning In the Cll8ll or crop failure or !OSI of llvmtock.
• Loss of Works Program employment, loss or Resettlement status, loss or 8Sllets, lncreued ~ . admlnlstntlve ruling, Joas or primary..,... earner.
• Private or n,gular Government employment ror wages or employment on "own IIC00Ullt," Including farmlnc In the Cll8ll or operators wbo o b ~ land.
• From current private or n,gular Government employment, Including farming In the cue or crope marketed.
• Obtained Works Program employment; client moved or failed to report; admlnlatntlve policy; ualstanm from ReNttlement Admtnhtntlon, f'rlench, relatives, lofal 111911ctee,
landlord, miscellaneous 90urcES; compensations and pensions; IOIIDS 98Cllred ; reru-1 to work.
' Acresslons per 100 cases on n,llel In June.
• Separations per 100 cases on n,lier In June.
• Net change per 100 cases on n,ltel ID June .
1

CJ
~
N

~

,Sl"

0

0

a(v

;.

i
r-

~
m

z

>
-<
,0

....)>,

m
rm
V,

....w•
.....

138 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

Ta•t. 77.-Accessions to Rural Relief per 100 Separations, July Through October
1935, Because of Private lndustry 1 and Other Reasons,

by Slate and Residence

(300 oountles]
Total rural

State

All Statea aamplecL
11 Northern States______
Iowa _________________
Kansas ______________
Michigan ____________
Minnesota. __________
Missouri _____________
Neb1'1'1!ka. ___________
North Dakota _______
New York ___________
Ohio _________________
South Dakota. _____ •
Wisconsin_. _________

Private

OpenllOIIDtry

-

Other

Private

Other
reasons

Private

Total

Indus-

M

76

39

55

79

37

M

'12

M

83

43

63

62

42

M

114

39
50
68
60
93
66
43
61
46
33
59

34
114
611

51
38
114
74
52
33
36
41
36
12
M

38
46
59
63
91
62
44
M
48
19

29
66
61
47
141
611
44
72
11
132
62

try

50

131
77
46
79
61
130
114

Total

lndu.try

Village

--=

M

Total

- -67- =

40

35

66

73

57
62
96
68
41
69
42
68
83

91
42
33
46
36
34
6
61

lndu.try

Virginia_
- ----------West
Virginia.
•• ____
6 Western Statea..._______
California. ••• ____ •••.
Colorado ••__________
Montana ____________
O~on ______________
_________
uWashington
----------------

61
67
127
66
66
38
22
611
62
83

=
-46
48
40
40
46
68
41

=

231
96
3117
61
97
84
47
87
78
67
67
69
70
71
46
72
35

18
31
32
62
il

2t
16
33

=

M

60

U8
89

113
116
77

64

et

34

44

19
18
47
62
63

243
103
690

M
39
22

64
68

==-==
32

I

47
68
142

60

61
40
37
44

t

39

16
32
31
68
il

"

14

36
63
64

69
67
89

=

-==== =

-- -112-- -36- 611
13 Southern States _____ .
104
37
68
58
- - -t = 47 -116
-=
AJatJama _____________ - - - - - - - - =
91
63
38
106
168
75
191
25
58
40
M
Arkansas_----------Florida ______________
l()G
82
376
16
16
116
3211
Georgia_. ___________ •
Kentucky. __________
Louisiana .. __________
North Carolina ______
Oklahoma ___________
Sou th Carolina __ • ___
Tennessee.
- _____ ---Texas ________________

Other
reasons

37
83
83
68
108
86

62
IIO
46
128
67
112
23
110
ill
213
84
169

=

M

30

44

47
43
47
47
82
33
29
46
38
37
69

=

40

IM
14
15
23
31
311

46

44

65
36
26
M
611
Cl6

96
72
33
78
81

411

68

38

46
41
44
48
69

67
62
69
48
74
36

29
21
25
48
64
71

- - -- - - - - - -611- =
68

•U

46

41
23
22
31
67
64

===s,=

ft1
85
72
40

36

36

46

t

16
14
47

t

46

t Percent not oomputed on a base of fewer than 100 cases.
cases opened or reopened
or Job secured or lncrea.sed eaminK•·
1 Including

because or IOIIS or Job or decnaaed eamlnp and -

Dig lized by

cloeed bec:aual

Google

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 139
Taltle 18.--Private Industries Responsible for Closing Rural Relief Cases,1 July Through
Oeoober 1935, by Region and Residence
(300 counties)
All States
11&IDpled

t

lndmtr)'

l3 I
~

'

11 Northern
States

l3 i
8

-- -- -- -- I
!.
0

C

E-4

!.
0

13 Southern
States

l3' i
8

!.
0

C

e-

II Western Staiel

t'

I
>

l I

I

'ie- 08.
-- --

-

Number •••••••.••••••.••••••.. 111,166 7,114 8,052 6,662 2,832 3,830 5,660 3,076 2,584 2,844 1,206 1,838
Percent-••••••••••••••••••••••. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Agriculture •• _•••••• _._._ •••••••• _._.

OUler--··------··-·--·········-····-

--

31. 4 36.9 26. 4 25,g 30. 5 24.2 35.6 42. 9 26.8 33.~ 35.8 31.2
29.11 10.6 II. 7 15.2 11.2 2.g 8. 7
16.9 13.3 16. 2 10.9 13.8 0.1 17.1
7. 5 6.5 4.0 7.4 7.3 II. 7 7.8
0.9 4.11 11.6 2. 2 8.fl 10.1 7.6
4.6 4.6 3.6 6. 6 6.3 6.8 4.'
1. 6 6.2 6.9 4.2 7. 3 12. 3 a.a
3_g 4.4 3.9 6.0 3.8 2. 7 4.6
4.0 1.11 1. 7 1.6 8.1 7.4 8.6
2. 7 4.0 3.0 6.1 2. 7 3.1 2..
0.2 4.6 2.1 7. 7
1. 2 o. 7 0.5 I.I 0.9 1.0 0.0
4.2 3.8 4.6 3. 7 a,g 3. 7 6.6 4.0 7.4 2.8 3.1 2.11

Extraction of minerals.-········· •••. 16. 7 12.3 20. 7 26.8 22.8
Transfr::rtation and commUDlcatlon •• 14.9 16. 3 14.11 16.8 18. l
6.6 6. 3 7.6 6.9 11.0
Build ng and construction._··-···-·.
4. 7 11.8 2. 7 3.0 6.8
Forestry and ftahUII- -·-····-········
Trade .•.•••..•... __ ...••••••••••••••.
4.1 3.2 6.0 3.3 1.6
Lumber and furnlture __ ••.•••••••••.
4.1 6. 5 2.9 1.8 2.2
3_g 3.3 4.4 3.5 2.8
Domestic an~nal aervloe __ ••••.
3.3 2. 4 4.2 2.7 1. 0
Food and alll ···-·············----Public and professional aervioe ___ ·-·.
3.2 2. 9 3. 4 2. 7 2. 7
TutiJe __ -·· __ • __ ••• __ • ____ . _. _·- _••• _ 1. 8 1.0 2.5 0.2 0. 2
1. 2 1.3 1. I 1. 7 2. 4
Auto factories and repair abopa. ·----

- - -

• For which Information was available.

[)91.zedbyGooglc

140 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Tcr61e 19.-Type of Households on Relief in Rural Areas, June and October 1935,
by Residence
[300 countiesI

Type ol household
June

Per•
c,,nt
Octo- change, Juno
lune
her

Per•

cent
Octo- change,
Juno
June
bee

cases-

Cll8eS-

- - --Fam~,~~~oiliers : : :: : : ::: ::: : :
W Ith others••.•••. • ••. . • •• • ••
Normal families ...••••••••• ••
Without others •••. • ••• ..
W Ith otbera•••••••••• ••••

-

-24. 7

- - ----8.1. 1
82. 9 -:z..~. O

Per08D1

Octo- change,
lune
her

cases-

100.0

100.0
Kum her . ... . . .. .... . .•. . •. 117. 877 88. 714
Percent ••• •• . •• • .• •• ••••• •• 100. 0 1()(). 0

vm..~e

Open country

Total rural

~

100.0

- - - ·- - - - - ---

- 073 33. 240 -27.-tl
-22. 7 100. 0
---711.-8 ----85. 6 -22.3
-211. 3
85. 3
78. 2

71. 754 M, 474
100. ii 100. 0

48.

lllO. O

~

74. 7
10. 6

76. 11
8. 7

-20. 4
-36. 1

71.5
8. 3

71.4
6.8

-77. D
-41.0

-25. 7
-24.1
-311.6

76. 8
117.4
8. 4

76. 7
88.D
6. 8

-22. 8
-21.0
-37. 2

67. 3
Ill.I
11.2

64.4
611.6
4.8

-30. D
-29. 6
-44.3

73. 4
II. 7

74. 8
8. 1

-23. 3
-37.8

72. 6
64. 9
7.6

71.6
65. 4
6.1

13. 8

Husband and wife •••••••
Without others • •• •••
With others•••• •.•• • •
Husband, wife, and chUdren ... ... ••.. .• .. •• •• •
Without others ••• • ••
With others . •••••• •• •

2. 0

14. 5
12. 6
1. D

-21.0
-19.2
-31.2

13. 2
11. 1
2.1

13. D
12. 0
1.11

-18.11
-Ul. 4
-31.11

14. 7
12. 8
1.11

1&.6
13. 7
1. 8

-24. 0
-23. l
-30. 1

68. 7
53. I
5. 6

57. 0
52. 8
4. 2

-26. 8
-25. 2
-42.6

62. 6
56. 3
6.3

61.8
56. 11
4.11

-28. 11
-21 . 11
-39. 0

52. 6
48. 3
4. 3

48. 9
45. 9
3.0

-32. 11
-31.3

Broten lamlllea.. •••• •• ••• • .• .
Without others • • • ••• •• •.
W Ith others. •••••• • ••••• •

10. 6
8. 5
2.1

11 . 4
9. 4
2. 0

-19.8
-16. 7
-31.7

D.6
7. 3
2. 2

D. tl
8. 0
l.D

-18. 11
-15. 0
-31 . 11

12. 6
10. 4
2. I

13. 8
11.8
2. 0

-2>. 8
-18. 11
-31. 3

FathM' Rnd children •••• •
Wi thout others • • • .• .
With othen •••• ••••.

2. 6
2. 0
0. 6

2. 6
2. 0
0.5

-29. 5
-21i.!I
-40. 6

o. 7

2. 7
2. 0

2. 5
2. 0
0. 6

-25.0
-19. 7
-311. 6

2. 11
2. 1
0. 6

2.3
1. 9
0.4

-36. 6
-35. 0
-42.D

1.6
1. 3
0 3

1. 6
1. 2
0. 3

-31.9
-28.2
-46.0

1. 7
1.3
0.4

1. 5
1.2
0. 3

-28. 7
-24. 3
-42.6

1. 7
I. 4
0. 3

1.6
1. 3
0.2

-36.7
-33. 11
-00.8

1. 0
0. 7
0. 3

1.0
0. 8
0.2

-25.3
-21.4
-35. 0

o. 7

1. 0

0.3

1. 0
0. 8
0. 2

-18. 8
-11.3
-36. 8

0. D
0. 7
0. 2

0.8
0.6
0.2

-36.3
-37.4
-33.3

8. 0
6. 5
I.II

8. 9
7. 4
I. 5

-16.6
-14. 0
-77. 9

6. 8
6. 3
1. 6

7. 4
6. 0
I. 4

-16.6
-13. 3
-28.2

II. II
8. 3
1. 6

11. 5
9. 9
1. 11

-lft. 7
-14. 11
-27. 6

4. 6
3. 6
0.9

4. 4
3. 6
0. 8

-25. 8
-23. 9
-33. 1

3. 8
2. 11
0. 9

3. 7
2. D
0. 8

-26. 4
-24. 2
-34. 2

6. 4
4.11
0.11

6. 7
4.8
0. 11

-25. 0
-23. 7
-31.6

3. 5
2. 9
0.6

4. 5
3. 8
0. 7

-5. 1
-1.8
-20.5

3. 0
2. 4
0.6

3. 7
3. 1
0. 6

-3. 7
+o.2
-19. 3

o. 7

4. 5
3. 8

11. 8
6. I
0. 7

-6. 6
-3. 8
-22.2

Nonfamily types. •••••••.••• •• • ••

Ill. II

17. 1

-23.4

14. 7

14. 4

-24. 7

:a'.1.2

21.8

-22.1

Nonlamlly irroups ..• • ••••• ••
l\Iaieh,,ad .............. .
HHi4years . •• . . . . ••• .
6.~ years and O\'er . • • •
Female head .•• •••••.• • . •
ltHW years . . ..... . . . .
65 years and o,·er •. . •

7.0
6. 2
b. O

-26. 7
-29.0
-30. 4
+12. 4
-19. 9
-18. 0
-28. 6

6. 7
5. 2
5. 0
0. 2
1.5
1. 2
0. 3

6. 4
4. 7
4. 5
{I, 2
1. 7
1.4
0. 3

-26. 9
-30. 1
-31.5
+14. 8
-16. 3
-11.7
-34. 5

7. 6
5. 3
b. 1
0. 2
2. 2
1.8
0. 4

7. 7
5.3
5.0
0.3
2. 4
2. 0
0. 4

-26.2
-77.3
-28. 7

1.8
1. 5
0. 3

6. 8
4. 9
4.6
0. 3
1.9
1.ff
0. 3

l·flt'rn>n households .• . . . . . . . .
Male
IIHl4 yea rs .•• . ...• • •.
115 years and over . . • .
Female . . . . ........ . .. ...
16-64yea rs. ... ... .. . .
65 years and o ver . ...

9. g
6. 8
4. 2
2. 6
3. I
I. 6
I. 5

10 3
6. 5
3. 6
2. 9
3. 8
I. 9
I. 9

-21.1
-27. 1
-34. 3
-I~. ~
-8. ~
-9. 4
-i. 2

8. 0
6. 0
3. 7
2. 3
2.0
I.I

80
5. g
3. 3
2. 6
2. 1
1.1
1. 0

-22. 7
-24. 1
- 30. I
-14. 5
-1 8. 8
-21. 7
-15. 6

12. 7
7. 9
5. 0
2. 0
4. 8
2. 3
2.6

14. I
7. 6
4. 2
8. 4
6. 5
3. 2
3. 3

Fathl'I' with children
16and over . .•.••••
Without others .•
Withothcr,i . •.• . .
Father with children
under 16 only ..• .• •
Without othen . •
With others. ••• .•
Mother an<l chfl<lren ••• ••
Wi thout othen .• •• ••
With others•••••• •• ••
Motl>er with chil•
drrn 16 and over . ••
W ithout others . .
With o thers .. . . ..
Mother w ith chtldren under 16 onl)' .
Without others . .
With others. ••• .•

II. 8

0. 2

o.u

t Perct'nt not computed on a base of fewer than 100 cases.

Dg1

zedbyGoogle

-oo.,

t

-23. 7
-24. 2
-2>. 7
-111.11
-30. 7

-39. 2
-16. 3
-1.,
-0. 7
-2.0

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 141

Toftle JO.-Type of Families on Relief in Rural Areas, June and October 1935, by
Residence
(aoo oountlesJ
October

June
Residence and type of lam.Dy
All

wnWes

Without
others

With
otbera

All
lam.Wee

Without
Otllers

With

othen

--- - - - - - - - - - - - -

'IOTil BUB.t.L

Penlent •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

87, 1187
100-0

88,1131
88.3

11,.ae
11. 7

78,1110
100-0

II\,~

Normal famlllell •••••••••••••••••••••• --··Husband and wife---··-···-------·--Husband, wife, and ch1Jdren•• -- -··---

87.2
lfl.11
70.11

78.1
H.2·

113-11

II.I
2. 4
11-7

88.3
17. 6
118.8

79.0
16.3
113.7

Broken famillell.. •••••••••••••••••••• _····:r..ther and children •••••••••••••• _. __
Children lfland over·-······--·-·Children under lfl only •••••• ·---··
Mother and ohlldren•••••••• -···---··Children lfland over_ ••••.••••••.
Children under lfl only······-····

12. 8
3.1
2. 0
1.1
11. 7
6.4

10.2
2. 3
1.6
0.8
7.9
4.8
1.6

2. fl
0.8
0.11
0.1
1.8
1.1
0. 7

11. 7

11.ll

Number •••••••••••••••••• ·-·····-··

PeroenL ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• _

Ill, 187
100.0

611. 601

87.11

7,688
12.4

47,612
100.0

42,flllll

\t,

Normal famlUell..·-····················--Husband and wife •• ·····---·---····-HUlband, wife, and children .•••••• - ••

88.9
16. 11
73.4

79.1
13.0
811.1

11.8
2. 11
7.3

88. 4

80.4

lfl. 2
72. 2

1111-4

8.0
2. 2

Broken families.. ••••••••••••••••••••••••• _
:rather and oblldran •• ···············Children llland over_ ••••••••••••
Children under lllonly •••••••• _._
Mother and children.•••••••••••••••• _
Children llland over-••••••••••••
Children under 111 only •••••••••••

11.1
1.1
1.9
1. 2
8.0
4.6
8. 6

8. 5
2.3
1.6
0.8
11.2
3.4
2.8

2. fl
0.8
0.4
0.4
1.8
1.1
0. 7

11.fl
8.0
1.8
1. 2
8. fl
4. 8

'-1

2.4
I.II
0.0
7.0
1.4
3. fl

lfl, 780
100.0

32,930
89.5

1,860
10. 11

215, 91111
100.0

23,728
111. 3

2,270

18.4
116.11

7fl.6
16.1
60.4

7.8
2.8
6.11

82.4
111.8
112.fl

711-1
17.6

8.1

16. 7
3.2
2.1
1.1
12. 6
fl.9
6.6

13.0
2.6
1.8
0.8
10. 4
6.6
4.8

2. 7
0.6
0.3
0.3
2.1
1. 3
0.8

17.11
2.11
1.11
1.0
14. 7
7.3
7.4

Number .••••••••••••••.•• ____ • ___ ._

4.1

ll.0

1.8
1.2
10. 7
6.8
6.4

2. 4
I.II
0.0
8.0

"-4.8a

7,118

9.7
--7.1
2.2

11.1

2.4
o.8

o.a

0.ll
1.8
1.0

o.a

OPU COUlffllY

88.8

14.0

0.4

6.8

2.2
o.8
0.1

o.a

1.8

0.9
0. 7

TILL.lo•

Number ............................

PerwDL •• •••••••••••••••.•..•...••.

Normal famllleL_ •.••••••••••••••••••••••
Husband and wife ....•...•.••........
Huaband, wUe, and children. ••••••.••
Broken families.. •••••••••••••••••••••.••••
Father and cblldreD ••••••••••••••••••
Children UI and over-••••••••••••
Children under lllonly •••••••••••
Mother and children. •••.••••••••.••••
Children 111 and over._ ••• ···-····Children under 111 only •.••••.••••

--84.3

Dig llzed by

as

16.0
2. 4
1. 7
o. 7
12.11
11.2

11.4

8. 7
2.1

a.a
2.8
0.6
0.2
0.1
2.1
1.1
1.0

Google

1i42 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
To61e 21.-A!Je and Sex of the Rural Relief Population, June 1935, and of the
General Rural Population, 1930, Under 65 Years of Age

·

[138 OOUDtles)
Percent

General rural population,

Rural relief population,
1UDII 11136

Age

Total
All ages_____________________________

Male

100. 0

19301

Total

Female

10-14 years________________________________
l&-19 years.. _____ ------------------________
Z...24 years ______ -------------------------26-29 year,_ _____ -------------------------_
a>,.,'U years________________________________
36-39 years________________________________
~ years________________________________
46-49 yeers________________________________
ro-64 years________________________________
65-69 years________________________________
6IHl4

Yeer&----------------·····--·--------

. 1

28. 2
H. 7
11.11
8. 4

7. 0
6. 8

6. 5
4. 7
4. 6

3. 9
3. o
2.

7

Female

60.6

49.6

100.0

61.8

48.2

H.b
7.6
6.8
4.0
3. 6
2.8
2. ft
2. 3
2. 3
2.1
1.6
L6

13. 7
7.2
6.8
4.4
8.6
3.0
2.11
2. t
2. 2
1.8
1. 4
I. 2

24.1
11.11
10.9
8.8
7.2
6.6
6.8
6. 0
6.6
4.11
4.0

12. 2
6.1
6. 7
4.6
8.6
3.3
3.5
3.1
3.0
2. 7
2. 2
1.8

11.11
5.8
6. 2
4. 2
3.6
3.3
3.3
2.11
2.6
2. 2
1.8
1. 4

----1----i--UndN' 10 years.--------------------------

Male

8.2

F(/luntA Cnuu, G{IM Unlud Statu: lfJtJJ, Population Vol. ll.

Tal,le 22.-Age of the Rural Relief Population, June 1935, by Slate
(300 OOUDtles and 83 New England townahlps)
.Alleges
State

Number

Peroen&

All States sampled_ ____ 614,477

100.0

611
Under 1(>-16 Ul-24 ~ 36-44 45-64 ~ years
10
years years years years years years and
years

Median
age

over

- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- -26. 3 16. 7 16.1 12.0
9.8
6. 7
8. 2
6. 2
111. 4
---- =
16.9 12. 0 10. l
ll).0
8. 7
6. II
6. 4

- = 26. 7 =16. 3
11 Northern states_________ =1111, 768 100.0
Iowe. ______ -··· ________
9,632
Kansas
__ -----------·
-- 10,648
Michigan
______________
21,0M
Minnesota_____________
30,280
Missouri__ ____ ••• ··-·. - 16,194
Nebraska ______________
11,098
New York _____________
7,648
North Dakota _________ 30,508
Ohio ___________________ 29,260
South Dakota- ________ 12,478
WlscoWJin __ . ---··· •••• 15,078
---13 Southern States_________ 263,812
Alabama _______________
7,098
Arkausa., ______________
12,944
11,444
Florida
__
-···-···---__
Georgia. _______________
9,172
36,696
Kentucky.···-·--···-··
Louisiana
______________
5,030
North Carolina ________ 15,926
Oklahoma _____________ 44,206
South Carolina ________ 20,974
Tenn~ssoo .. ___________ 14,246
Texas
__ ·-·-·-·-·------_
Virginia
_______________ 38,694
17,830
West Virginia.. _________ 19,652
• Western States___________
Calitornia____________ ..
Colorado ______ ••. _____
Montana ______________
Oregon .• -·-·····-·-·-Utah_.-----·····-·-···
WasWngton
___________

=M,600
21,756
8,066
6,736
2,926
7,236
7,880

--2 New England States _____
14, 2117

Connecticut_ __________
Massachusetts _________

3,599
10,698

14.9
16. 3
16. 4
16. 0
16. 6
16. 6
12.11
16. 9
17.0
16. fl
14.11

14.1
1a11
10. 7
1L8

26.4
27.0
28. 7
26. 2
Zl.fl
27.11

16.6
14.8
Ul.3
16. 6
17.1
16.1
17. 0
17.0
16. 6
14. 8
16. 9

27.2

16.11

16.4

12. 3

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

28. 2
27.0
27.3
27. 7
28. 4
27.3
29. 6
28.4
25.0
28.9
25. 6
26.8
25.8

16.0
15. 6
17.11
17. 2
17.4
14. 6
18. 7
16.0
17.1
17. 6
16. l
18. 2
17.0

14. 2
16. 7
15. 2
16. 4
16. l
15.9
15. 6
18. 3
16. 3
16.1
15.3
17. 9
17. 0

13.9
13. 7
12. 2
12.6
12. 3
16.4
11.4
13. 9
II. 6
12. 3
12. 3
10.1
11. 7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

24.9
22. 2
26. 6
27.8
28.•
26.4

16.6
16.0
16.3
17. 3
15. 7
16. 7
17.1

14. 8
14. 9
14. 7
14.0
14. 0
16.6
13.8

11.6
10.8
11.9
10. 4
12.1
12.9
13. 6

11.0
11. 6
9.9
11.2
11. 6
9.3
11. 3

100.0
100.0
100.0

21. 2
21. 5
21.0

16. 7
16. 6
16. 7

16.8
16. 2
17.0

9. 6
10.6
9. 2

11. 4
10. 6
II. 7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0

27.8
24.0
23. 3
24. 6

:111.0

11.3
11. 6
8.8
12. fl
12. 3
13. 6
11.4

10. 7
10.0
10.0
10.4
II. 7
11.4
11.0
9.fl
10. 8
10. II
II. 7

8
9.0
II. 7
8.1
8. 6
11.0
8. 2

fl. 1
6. 3
7.2
6. 9
6.8
6. 3
7.3
4. I
6. 2
6. 4
6.4

2. 7
7.3
8. 2
6.9
6. 0
6. 8
6. 3
8. 0
8. II
6.4
7.0

111.8
2,2.1
21.8
2D.6
111. 5
ll), 4
111. 7
17.8
19.8
21.9

7.8
7.fl
8.11
7.9
6. 6
7.9
6. 7
7.4
8.1
6.6
7. 4
8.3
8.0

6. 4
6.0
4. 8
6.4
4.9
4. 5
4. 7
4.4
6. 7
4.8
6. 8
6. 7
6.8

6.1
6. 3
3. 2
2.11
6.3
2. 3
4. I
2. 4
8. 8
8.11
8. 0
4.0
6.5

111.2
19.8
18. 3
18. 3
17.8
2D.l
16. 5

V.6

7.0
8.6
6. 3
6. 3
7. 7
4.6
6.11

4. 6
4. 6
6. 6
4.1
6. 0
6. 8
2.11

8. 3
8. 4
8. 9

11.2

a.

9.4
8.2
10. 6
10.0
II. I
11.1
9. 3
9.2
8. 6
11.9
II.fl
9.0

II. 2

--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24. 2

111.3

-6.-6.1- -18.7
=11.3 -7.6
3

11.•
8. 8
8. 9
V.8
6. 8
11.1
10. 9

To:s
11.0

Dig llzed by

7. 6
7. 4
7.6

18.3

111.11
17. 6
ll).4
18.0
19.8

-20.-7
22.8
111.11
18. 7
22.0
18. 2
19. 7

-6.-22.-0
0

a:a
2ii
22. 0
6. 9

Google

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 143
Tal,le J3.-A9e of the General Rural Population, 1930, by State
[300 counties]

All ages
State

Num•
ber

66
Under 10-15 16-24 2(,-,'14 311--44 4~54 M-M years
10
years
years
years
years
years
years
and
Per• years
over
oent
23.2

13.8

16. 9

12. 8

11. 7

6. 6

6.4

11 Northern States •••.••••. 1,668,990 100.0

20.9

13.0

15. 4

12. 6

12. 6

10.6

7.8

7.2

12. 3
12.4
13. 2
14.0
13.1
12.8
11.3
14.7
12. 4
13. 6
13. 6

15.3
16. 2
14. 2
16. 2
16. 0
16. 6
12.9
17. 7
14.1
16. 9
15. 6

13. 4
13.4
II. 6
12.5
12. 6
14. 1
12.8
12. 8
11.8
14. 1
12. 2

12. 6
12. 6
12. 7
11.8
12. 7
13. 6
11.4
11. 9
12. II
12.8

10. 7
10.4
11.4
10.4
10.4
It 7
11.8
II.II
11. 2
11.1
10. 4

7.8
7.6
8. 5
7.2
7. 7
e. 7
Q. 7
6. II

7.5
6. 7
8. 0
6. 1
7.0
6. 1
Q. 6
4. 1

15.0

18. 8
18.2
17.8
19.0
16.11

12. 0
12. 7
14.1
12.2
12. 2
13.0
12. 4
13.0
10.9
II.II
13.8
11. 7
13. 3

8. 7
II.I

6.1
6.1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -

Iowa..•••••••••••.•••••
Kansas .••.••••••••....
Michigan •••••••.••••..
Minnesota. •••••••••.•.
Missouri •.••••••••••••.
Nebraska ..••••.•••.•..
New York .•..•••••••.•
North Dakota •.•••....
Ohio .•.••....•.••••••..
South Dakota.••••....
Wisconsin .•••••••••••.

---149, 777 100.0
126,162
165,533
224,027
1111, 245
00, 240
161,316
102,955
216,171
84,307
167,267

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

20.2
20. 7
20.6
20.9
21. 6
21.4
18. 4
23. 6
19. 8
22.9
21. 2

Alabama ••••••.•.••••. 186, 773

Arkansas .............. 172,202
Florida ••••.•••.••••••. 81,746
Georgia ..••••.•....•••• 193,255
Kentucky .•••••••••••. 154,832
Louisiana ... --········- 219,946
North Carolina.••••..• 239,377
Ol<laboma ..•.•••..•••• 168,699
South Carolina •••. _._. 170, 712
Tennessee ..••••••..••• 179,256
Texas •.•.•••••••••...•. 446,869
Virginia.··-···-···---· 197,643
West VlrginJ.a. ••••••••. 89,447

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

26. 7
25.2
23. 6
25. 7
25.0
25.9
27.4
25. 0
27. 1
25.6
24.1
25. 7
27.4

8 Western States .••••••.••• 283, 771

100.0

49, 2.'i8

100.0
100.0
100.0
l00.0
100.0

ace

-- - - - - -g_'7- - - - - - -

100. 0

All States sampled ••. 4,453,518

MediaD

-12.8-

11.4
4.11

11.4
6. 7
7.6

2111

=25. 8

-26. 8
25.6
26. 7
:Ho 4
24. 7

24.8
30.8
22.0
27.8

6.11

23.3
24.11

4.1

--

- - - - - -25.-7 -14.-7 -18.-2 -12.11- -10.-7 -8.6--6.-3 -4.2- =30.. 7
13 Southern States ••••••••• 2,li00,757 100.0
14.11
13.6
15. 6
13.8
H.9
15. 3

18.4

16. 6
14.4
14. 0
15. I
14.2

18. 6
17. 8
19.0
18. 2
18. 7
17.6
16. 2

19.9

11. 7

16. 3

21.7
20.6
17. 6
27. 3
19. 6

12. 6
13.2
11.4
15. 4
12. 2

14.8
15.8
15. 1
14. 9
17. 7
16.6

14.4

--- - -- ---=

--- ----California••.••••••••••• 24,571 100.0
18. 8 10. 4
Colorado .••.•••••••••.•
Montana .•••••••..••.•

fil!t°n·.: ::::::::::::::
Washington.--··-··-··

43,530
48, 663
41,160
76, 589

G.8

11.0
11.9
10. 2
11.1
10.8
9.8
11.0
10.2
10.3
11. 3
10.3
11. 3

11.3
8. 6
G.2

8.11

-14.-4 =14. 2
15. 6
13. 7
12.1
13.8
12.3
14.0

6. II
6. 0

3. Q
4. 2
3.Q

6.6

6.11

4. Q

3.6

3.11
4.6

7.G
8. 6
8.1
G.O
8. 7
8. 9
8.3

4.8

11. 6

7.4

6. 6

12. 0
10. 6
11. 8
12. 7
7.8

7.6
7.0
7.0
8. 8

5.3
6. 1
7.0

11.4

7.8

6.8
4. 7
6. 9
6. 3
6.8
6.1

3.6

4.8
4.1
4.G

4. 2

------

15. 2
13. 4
15. 1
13. 9
10. G
13. 4

4.9

6.6

4.0
8.1

20.0
:11.0
22. 6
20.2

22.1
20. 5
111.8
21.4
19.0
21.0
21. 7
20. 7
20. 7

=27.2
28. 8
24.11
25.11
211.6
19. 7
26.11

Souroe: Flfkmlll C,mw of lh• Unilul Stalu: 19'0, Population Vol. III.

Dlgtized by

Google

144 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Tol,le .H.--Percent of All Rural Relief Cases and of 2 or More Person Cases, June

1935, Contain!n9 Children Under 16 Years of Age and Average Number of Children per Case With Children, by State and Residence
(300 counties and 83 New England towmhips]

Percent of cases with children

State

.

AIIC811t111
Total
rural

Open
COUD·

A~numberof
children per C88t1
with children

2 or more peraon cases

Village

try

Total
rural

Open

coun•

Village

try

Total
rural

Open

coun-

Village

try

--- --- - - - - - - --- --- - - - --69. 2
2.R
75. I
2.11
69.1
60.4
72.9
2. fl
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --~7. 7
73. 4
66.8
61.9
65. 1
70. fl
2.8
3.0
11 Northern States..•.•.••••
2. G
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - --68.11
73.1
76. 7
71.8
2. 8
2.8
73.0
Iowa .••..••••...•••.••••
70. 2
2. 7
All Stabls sampled •..•

65. 7

Kansas ...•.••..•.•••••.
Michigan ..••....••••••.
Minnesota•....••.••••..
Missouri.. ••.•..•.......
Nebraska ..••••••..••...
New York ........•.....
North Dakota .••..•.•..
Ohio ...........•..•••...
South Dakota ..•.••••. _
W isoonsln ••..•••••.•.. I

67.6
53. 2
60. I
66.5
60.5
57.4
71.3
63.1
69.2
60. 1

13 Southern States ....•••.••
Alabama.•.•.•..••••.•••
Arkansas •••....••••••••
Florida ........••••••••.
Georgia ..•..•••.•••••.••
Kentucky •.•••.••••••..
Louisiana .... _..•...•.•.
North Carolina .••••....
Oklahoma .. _._ .•••••••.
South Carolina ..•••.•..
Tennessee .. _.....••.•..
Texas ........•••••••••..
Vir~inla .......•••••.•..
West Virginia ..••••••••.
fl Western States.•..••••••.•
Callrornla ..•.•••.••••.•.
Colorado ..•••••••.••••..
Montana ..•...•.•••....

--70.0

=

69.9
65.3
71.4
73.9
74. 3
69.9
77.6
76. 9
62.8
78. 3
60.3
74. I
61i. 2

65. 2
54. 7
61.5
71.3
67.3
69.4
73. 9
117. 3
62. 6
62. 3

62. 7
49.9
58. I
66.4
67. 6
66. I
63. 7
59.2
66. 2
66.9

65.2
67.0
70.8
72. I
811. 3
117.9
77. 6
&9.8
66.4
71. 2

70.3
67. 7
72. 4
75.3
74.6
70.0
79.3
74.0
611.0
72.9

fll.6
61i.4
68.4
63.11
66.11
65.4
72. 6
65.8
63.3
68.6

----= 77. 6 --=
62.8
7.~. 2
70. 3
73.6
------= 70. 4 --611.6
72.6
71.6
73.6
70.2
73.6
78. 5
77. 8
72. I
80.9
79. 2
64. 6
80.0
63. 2
75. 3
70. 6

67. I
68. 7
66.4
69.2
65.8
70.6
68.8
69.4
75. 5
67. 2
70.4
66.11

72.0
74.9
77. 3
77.11
71. 5
80. I
78.0
72.6
79.6
70.1
77. 3
72.9

76. 7
75.8
81.4
80. I
72. 7
82. 7
80.1
74.0
80. 7
71.fl
78. I
75. 4

64.0
73.8
70.2
66.8
&9.3
74. 6
70.9
69.8
77. 6
(18.5
74. 6
67. 7

64. 9
63. 8
68.6
66.3

60.1
66.8

64.5
74. 0
76. l
66. 4
77. 9
74. 6

61.3
73.9
76. 8
66.2

69. 2
74 0
74. 7
66.5
78. l
73.ll

=
--- =
--= 72.9
70.4
68.1
61. 2
60. 7
81.8
- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -

g~~~~ ::::::::::::::::

Washington .••.........

67. 1
60.1
65.9
65.8
67. 4
67. 7

t

69.4

61.1

56. 3
68.2
64. 8

t

75.)

=
=

2.5
2.8
2.8
2. 8
2. 7
3. 0
3.1
2.8
2.11
3.0

2. 8
2. 7
2. 6
2.8
2. 7
2.11
2. fl
3.1
2. 7
2. 7
2. 9
2. 6
3.1
2. 9

=
=

2.6
2.11
3.0
2.11
3.0
3. 1
3.2
3.0
2. 6
3.0

2. 5
2. 7
2. G
2.f
2. G
2.11
2.11
2.G
2.11
2.11

2.9

===2. G

2. 8
2. 6
3.0
2. 8
3.0
2.7
3.3
2. 7
2. 8
3.0
2. 7
3. 2
3.0

2. 7
2. 3
2.G
2.fl
2. fl
2. 4
2.8
2. II
2. 6
2. 9
2. fl
2. 9
2. Cl

=

2. 7

2. 7

2.7

2.6
2. 7
2.9
2. 6
2.8
2. 7

2.5
2.8
2.ll
2. 6

2. 7
2. fl
2.11
2. 7

t

2. 7

- - - --- - - - - - - --- - - - =
= 2 New England States .•.•..
67. 1
66.6
2. 7
--- --- ------ ·--- - - - ---=
Connecticut ...•..•.•.•.
66.4
M.5
2. 7
--Massachusetts .•..••••..
57.3
2. 7
- 65.6

-

t Percent not computed on a

base of !ewer than 100 cases.

-

2.8

2. G

-

-

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 145
Tollle !5.--Percent of All Rural Relief Cases, June 1935,.Jontalnlng Aged Persons I
and Average Number of Aged Persons per Case with Aged, by State and
Residence

1300 counties and 83 New England townships)
Percent or cases with aged

Average oum ber or aged per
case with aged

State
Total
rural

Open
country

Village

Total
rural

Open
country

Village

--- --- ------ --17.1
19. 5
1. 2
I. 2
1.2
- - -16.-i = 20.6 = I. 2 - -I.-2 = 1.3
11 Northern States ______________________ _ - 18. 4
Iowa. _______________________________ _
= 1.2 - - -t = I. I
10. 6
II. 3
IO. 2
All States sampled ________________ _

KanSM.·----------------------------·

Michigan .•• ___ .•.• -·· •.••....• ··-·_.
Minnesota ..•.. -···_---··· ..•.....•..
Missouri.·---_·-· .• --·- .•. _. _____ .•. _
Nebraska .• --------------·-·--•·--· __
New York.·-·-------·-·-·····---····
North Dakota. ____ ---·-·---··-··-·.-·
Ohio ....... ·------··---·---··--·-··-·
South
Dakota_.
__ ._·········-··-·····
Wisconsin
________________________
._ ..

.

18.1

22. I
U.2
19. 7
20.3
21.1
20.3
11.8
13. 5
17. 5
23. 7

18.6
24. 5
19. 2
17. 5
15. 2
21.0
9.5
1), 9
14. I
22.0

24. 4
26. 7
20.6
26.8
23. 7
19.4
18. 5
15. I
21.4
26. 2

I. 3
I. 2
1.2
1.3
1. 3
1. 2
1.3
I. 2
1.2
I. 2

I. 2
I. 2
1.2
1.3
1. 2
1. 2
1. 2
1.2
1.2
I.I

1. 3
1.2
1. 2
1.2
1.3
1.3
I.I
1.2
1.3
1.3

19. 2

Ii. 2

1.2
1.2
1.2
I. 2
1.3

I. 2
1.2
1.2
1.2
I. 3

1.1
1. 2
1.2
1.3

I. 2
I. 2
1.2
1.2
I. 3
1. 2
1.2

I. 1
I. 1
I.I
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2

1. 2
I. 2
I. I

1.2
1.2

l

1. 3

--------- ------ =
18. 4
17. 8
19. 7
1.2
1. 2
------ --- ------ =
Alabama_. _________ ·-···--------·--·18. 2

13 Southern StateL--···-···---··----·-··

Arkansas_._. ___ . _____ . ·-- ...... --· .. .
Florida _______________________ . ___ ... .

Georgia.·--------------·-----·----- ..

E:i~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

North Carolina __ ------·-···------·-·
Oklahoma.. _. ____ . _____ . ____ ··-----··
South Carolina___________ -----·--·- ..
Tennessee ________ . -- -- - -. -. - - -... - ...

TexM. _.• __________ . _______ . _·- .. __ ..
VirginiR
..... -------------·-------·-··
West VirglnJa..
_____ . ____________ -· __ .
ti Western Statell------···--·-------·-·-··

Callrornla ______ . ___ . _. _. ___________ ..
Colorado___________________ .-··--·-·.
Montana___ . _______ ·----_ ........... .
g~oo_________ ·---·--·-··········••Washington_ •••• ___ • ··- __ ••. ·--- ..•..

2 New England States___ ·-··-·-·······--Connectieut.--·-·-· ·- -· ·- ···-· •..... _
M......chwetta __ -···-·-·--· ··--- ....

20. 2
12.0
11.0
19.6
8.0
17. 4
9. 7
29. 9
15.3
·24. 8
17. 2
19. 4

20.0
12.9
10. 7
17. 7
7. 7
17.6
9.2
32. 3
13. 2
24. 7
17. 4
20.1

20.6
11.0
11. 5
28.1
8. 4
16. 9
11.2
25. l
18. 7
25. 0
18.3

1.2
1.2
I. 2
I. 3
1.2
I. 2
I. 2

It. 7
18.0

14. 8
15. 9

15. 4
16. 5
13. 5
19. 7

19. 6
10.1

9.9

13. 6
19. 2
17. 2
12. 5
20. I
10. S

1. 2
I. 2
I. 2
1.2
1.3
1.2

!ti. g

t

i

--------- =
- -I.-2 =
15. 3
11. 5
16.0
I. 2
--------- ------ =
t

I. 2

1.2

i
i

:.2

l

i

=
===
==
19. 7
1.2
20. 8

1.2

19. 4

1. 2

Percent not computed on n hase or fewer than 100 cases.
not computed for fewer than 100 ca.ses.
1Average
1

G6 years or age and over

D ~jl' zect by

Goos le

146 •

CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

Tol,le tcs.-Percent of Rural Relief Cases, June 1935, Having No Person Under 16 or
Over 64 Yean of Age, by State and Residence
(300 COUDtiel and 83 New EJll)and toWDSbfpa]

Staie

All States sampled.

Total

mra1

21.4

Open
OODD•

try

19.5

VllJap

= 23.3 = 22.0 =
= 22.1 = 10.1 =
Iowa. .•••••••••••••••

i1 Nonbern Sta&IIII •••••••

Kamas ..••••••••••••

Mlchlpn ••••••••••..
Mim->ta. ••••••••.•
Mlmourl•••••••••••••

Nebruka ••••••••••••
New York •••••••••••
N nrtb Dakota ••••••.
Ohio••.•••...•••••.•.
South Dakota •••••••
Wlaoonsln •••••••••••

24.2
26.3
23.6
18. 7
21.a
2-5. 0
10.0
27.0
27.2
:I0.4

30. 4
24.0
22. 7
Ul.2
:na
22. 3
10.8
24. 7
27.0
30.fl

24. 4
26. 2

23. 6
Z.7
:111.2
24. 0
24.4
21.8
28.2
:I0.4
211.1
27.ff
20 0

= 18. 8 = 16.2 = 23.3
13 Southern States•• · · --------Alabama... •••.•.••••••
19.0
18.4
21.2
Arkanau ••••.•••••••
Florida •••••.••••••.•

IAI.S

Kentucky •••••••••••

20.0
13. 6

Oeorsta. .•..•••.••.••

2'l.O

18.3
:I0.6
16.2
12. 2

26.0
23. 7
211.3
10. 2

Staie

1J Southern Stata-Oontd
Loulllana. ....•.•....

Total
mra1

Open
OOUD•

try

vw.
a2

lla.O

Virginia ••••••••••••.
WeetVfrllnla_•••••••

211.6
lt. 0
18. 8
10.5
11.8
Z.8
18. a
21.8

lLl
111.0
17.0
11. l
18. 7
17.4
17. 2

ao.o

8 W eetern Sta&IIII•••••••••

311.8

aa

:Ill.I

California. •••••••••••
Colondo •••••••••••.•
Montana •••••••••••••

81. 7

82.0
24.2
na
28. 7

ao. 1

North Carolina ••.••.
Oklahoma •••••••••••
South Carolina •••.••
~

...........

Tuu................

g:rn..............

Z.4

zu

w lllhlnlton- ••••••••

80.8
111. 6
211.0

2 New EJll)and States •••

27.4

Connecticut •••••••••

27.8
27.8

M..achuaetta•....••

f Pwcent not computed on a bue of fewer than l l l f l - .

,ut

m.c

M.I

ll.:1
lt.4
21.1
21.4

311.C
23.11
82.7
14.4
aa

-= ---

Tal,le 27.-Percent of Married Persons 1 in the Rural Relief Population 16 Through 64 Years of Age, Odober 1935, by Sex and Area
(138 counties)

Eastern Cotton
Age andae:i:

All ages ....•.•.•.....•...
Male ....•.••........
.Female .•.•.•••...••.

=
111-24 years ........•........•...
Male .•••••........•.......
Female .•..•...•...•.....•.
26-34 years•..•...•...•..•....•.
Male ...•.•.•..............
Female .•...•.......•.•....
86-« years .......•...•....••...
Male ...•.•.•.•...•••..•...
Female .•...•••...••.....•.
4b-54 years .•••..•••.•.••••.•.•.
l\Iale ..•••.•••.•.•.••••••••
Female ..•...•••.•.•.•.••••

6H4J:i:rs·····················
Female •••..••.•.•••.•.•••.

• Including separated persons.

a

(C

~

IT>
0.

Western Cotton
Atpa-

All

areas

88.11
67. 3
69.8
34. 3
21.11
42. 6
84. 9
82. 2
81.9
86.8
87. 6
80.0
81. 6
83.3
74.1
74. 8
78.8
64.9

lac !an-

Total

=

113. ti
68.9
69.11

33. 4
23.0
34.5
79. 4
82.5
64. 6
81. 2
89. 5
63. 3
73. 4
85.5
56. 2
66.4
82.3
43.0

White

=

M.8
72. 2
61.2
34.8
24. 2
36.0
80.2
83. 2
66. 4
82.1
00. 7
65. 2
78.8
00. 2
63.0
70.9
86.3
46. 4

Negro

=

lltl.8
511.4
65. I
29. 7
20. 2
29.9
76. 5
711.0
58. 5
78. 5
85. 2
58. 2
511.0
72. 6
39.5
53.tl
67.11
34. 7

Total
67. 11
119. 1
66.4

- -36.625.0
42.5
85.8
85.4
81. I
83.1
89. 7
68. 7
75. 3
80.0
64.1
71.1
81.0
67.0

White

Negro

Ozark

70.3
70.8
69.8

lltl.O
60. 7
62.8

119. ti

39.6
26.1
47.0
87.1
86.9
83. 7
86.5
92.1
74. 7

22. 7
19.3
23. 3
711.0
76.3
69. 3
66.11
76.3
43. 7
62.9
66. 7
53.1
64.8
78.6
'8.0

37. I
24.8
46. 4
85.4
83.9
82. 4
87. 7
88.2
82.9
81. 7
83.4
76. 2
79.2
82.8
70.6

78..
83.3
67. I
72.9
81. 7
00. l

68. 2
71.1

Lake
States
Cut.Over

=

113.8
55.8
73.6

27. 3
11.3
43.tl
81.3
71.3
84.1
86.8

80.3
87.1
81.6
76.8
81.8
61.8
57. 3
611.1

Corn
Belt

=

70. 7
69.2
72. 3
35.2
21.0
43.11
85. 7
80. 7
84.2
88. 3
89.11
80. 6
83. I
84. 7
76. 4
74.1
76. 9
611.0

Hay and

Dairy

=

71.9
68. 3
76. 7
31.9
17. 5
43.11
86.8
80.2
89.6
88. 7
85.4
86.1
86.8
83. 6
81.8
77. 4
76.8
72. 7

Wln!A'r
Wheat

Spring
Wheat

72. 3
71.6
73.1

67. 0

=

32.11
18.8

'86.°· 7I

84.0
86.5
92. 5
IK.8
85.6
92. 2
92.3
88. 0
83.1
811.0
76. 8

63.11
70.4

RanchIng

- -23.3- =
12.11
31.0
85. 7
711.0
00.4
Ill.II
87. 2
93.4
89.0
88.4
88.9
80.3
81.0
76. 2

ee.a
611.9
66.11

33.3
23.6
37.11
87.6
82. 2
00.6
86.6
87.6

so.,

72. 8
711.•
111.2
66.3
75.0
63.11

V,

C

~
""~
""

~

;10

-<

-4

)>

cr

a,

0

~

'<

0

an

r-

...•
.,:..

.....

-•

Tobie 28.-Marital Condition of the Rural Relief Population 16 Through 64 Years of A9e, Odober 1935, by Sex and Area

.,:,.

00

[138 counties)
W -,stern Cotton

Ea.stern Cotton
Sex and marital condition

All
e.rcas

Total

White

Negro

Total

White

Negro

I,ake
Appa•
lachlan•
States
Or.ark Cut-Over

Hay and
Dairy

Wlntu
Wheat

Spring
Wheat

100.0

12,48-1
100.0

1,912
100.0

.6,050
100.0

23. 5
4. 3
LS
2. 2

69.6
23. 7
3. 7
0. 7
2. a

70.11
23.3
3. 2
L2
1.4

68.0
29.8
8.1
0.3
LO

2,588
100.0

1,040
100. 0

Corn
Belt

Ranch•
Ing

---

Married .••..............•.....
Sinrle .....••..........•..•.....
Widowed ....•...••.••.....••..
Divorced .•....•..••••.........
Separated•.......•..........•..

111,374
100. 0

---·
66.3
25.0
5.8
0. 6
2. 3

9,300
100.0

8,952
100.0

2, 3-18
100.0

10, 752
100.0

8,800

25.0
11. I
0.3
S.2

:M. 3
11.6
0.3
4. 8

49. 9
27.0
15. 9
0. 3
6. II

64.8
23.5
8. 5
0.4
2.8

- -68.-4 - -61.-2

2,:1)2

1,952
100.0

37,«6
100. 0

6.956

88.0
22. 2
7.2
0.3
2. a

c.o. 9

29. 0
H.5
0. 6
6. 0

88.0
24. 5
S.4
0. 5
1. 6

61.1
31.4
4. 3
0.5
2. 7

4,920
100.0

4,132
100.0

788

18,454
100.0

3,2e8
100.0

3,054
100.0

11,372

100. 0

932
100. 0

70.4
211.1
3.0
0.1
0. 4

118. 7
33.0
6. 3
2. 0

67. 2
28.6
2.8
0.4
1. 0

M.5
41.3
2. 4
0.5
1. 3

68.4
27.5
2. 2
I.I
0.8

66.5
28.9
2.3
0.5
1.8

71.3
25.6
1.5
1.6
0. 2

113.1
33.6
2. 7
0. 2
0.6

08. S
28. 3
3.5
1.3
0. 4

3,218
100. 0

11, 112

100.0

100.0

980

2,462
100.0

1,102
100.0

19. 6
6. 2
I. 9
3.6

111.2
6.1
1.0
2. 8

21.2
4.11
0.8
2. 4

88.8
25.5
3. 6
0.5
1.6

62. 5
21.8
10.2
2. 4
3. 1

100.0

100.0

0, 272

- -08.-5

100.0
--64. 5
24. 8
7.0
1. II
LS

llALJ:

0

<Q
N
ro

0.

u

""'

C"')

0
0
00

n

~

~

BOTH SICXICS

Numher .•.........•••••.
Pcre<Jnt ....•••.••••...•..

">::c

Numher .•........•.•.••.
Pere<Jnt ......•....•.•..•.

44,522
100.0

3,898
100. 0

2,936

980

100.0

100.0

Married ••••...........•.•.....
Sinitle .....•..............•.....
Widowed .••...•.....••..•.....
Divore<Jd .•.•.......••.........
Separated..•...•••.••.•••..••..

66. 2
29. 5
2.8
0. 4
I.I

87.~
27. 2
3.9

71.0
25.1
2. 7

57.9
33.3
7.3

1.3

1. 2

LS

-

68.4
27.2
3.6
0.1
0. 7

Number ..••.•..••.•.....
Pere<Jnt ••••••...•...•....

46,852
100.0

5,404
100. 0

4,016
100.0

1,388
100.0

5,832
100.0

4,688
100. 0

l,IM
100.0

18,992
100.0

2,690
100. 0

Married •••..•••••••••••.•••...
Bln~le .....••••••••.•.••........
Widowed .••••••••.••.....•.•..
Divorced .•••••••.•.•.•...•..•.
Separated •••••••••••••••••••••.

08. 3
20. 7
8. 7
0. 8
3.5

51.0
23. 4
16. 4
0. 6
8.0

54.1
23. 7
14.5
0. 6
7.1

44.4
22. 7
21.8
0.4
10. 7

61.8
20. 3
12. 7
0.8
4. 6

65.8
18.8
10.11
0.5
4. 0

45. 8
26.3
19.9
1.0
7.0

08. II

69. 3

-

-

100. 0

-

RllALIC

20.5
7.8
0. 6
2. 2

111. 4
6. 5
0.6
4. 2

- -08.-7 - -72.-9 - -70.-7

>

§
0
..,
,a
C
,a

>
r
,a
IT'I

r
iii
...,

To•t. JP.-Marital Condition of Heads of Rural Relief Cases, October 1935, by Sex and Area
(138 eountles)
Western Cotton

Eutern Cotton
Bu and marital condition

Acpalac Ian·

All

areas

Total

White

Negro

Total

White

Necro

Ozark

Late
Rtates

CutOver

Com
Belt

Hay and

Da!ry

Winter
Wheal

Spring
wi-~

Ranch-

lnl

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - BOTH

azu:s
3,134
100. 0

8,448
100. 0

842
100.0

2,0M
100.0

1,090

01. 1
17. 3
16. 0
1.8

72. 3

7a. 2

1.8

aa

81.0
7. 0
0.2
2.0
2.0

Bl.I

10. 8
10.4
1. 0
f.O

8. 6
7.8
0. 8
2.1

07.1
7. 7
17. 0
3. ll
3. 7

H,1110
100.0

2,788
100.0

2,MII
100.0

6,11118
100. 0

780
100.0

1,ll'JII
100.0

BM
100. 0

811.7
0.8
'--7
0.6
1.8

08. 6

84.3
8.8
4. 7
1.8
0.ll

81. t
10.4
6. 1
0.8
1. 8

118.8
O.ll
2. 1
1.ll
0.3

NumbeT .•• . . . .. ••.• •... .
Percent •. ••• •..... ....•.

43,9'JO
100. 0

4, 4fl8
100. 0

3,2118
100. 0

1, 172
100.0

6,5711
100.0

4,318
100.0

1, 2158
100. 0

17, IOI
100.0

8, tM

MRrrled .•. ... •••. .• •. . . ... . . . .
Sln~I•••. .• ...•. ••••.. . ..... •• ..
Widowed ... . .. . ... •... .. . ···-Divorced . . . .. . . . . . . •. .... . . ___
SeJ)&raled •. . . ...• . •••. •........

72. 4

01. 7
ll. 5
lll. ll
0. 4
8. 6

115.0
1). 6
17. 6
0. 6
7.6

62.0

08. 2

211.8
0. 2
11.4

74. 2
8. 3
111. a
0. 8
1.0

47.2
11. 1
33.2
I. a
7. 2

77. 2

7.4
111. a
o. 7
f. 4

2, 1144

2,2!1()

II.I
13.3
1. 3
3. ll

1). 8

7. 6
1L6
O. ll
2.8

100. 0

u

ll. 3
1L3

100.0

11.U.ll

N'umber .•• • ••• •• •• • .• •. •

Percent . . •••. . •• •• . .•. •..

38,912
100. 0

Sln~le . . ... . . . ...•. •. .. . .. ... . .
Widowed ... . . ... ••••. .. . . .. . . .
Divorced . . •. . . •••.. . . . .. .....
Separated. •..... •..•. .• . . . . .. ..

8.6
6.4
0.8
1.3

- -84.1Married ..•.. .. .• .• . . .. .. ..... .

4,402
100.0

808

100.0

1194
100.0

3,&M

100. 0

100.0

100.0

8.~6
7.2
6. 7

88.4
0. 4
8.8

78. I
9. 8
11. 8

87.4

7L 2
11. ll
12.4

1.6

L4

2. 3

84.4
7. 7
0.8
0. 2
0.ll

-

-

-

a.a

6.0
0.2
0.6

-

2. 6

18.4
I). 7

LI

2. 1

811.1) ·

8.4
4.0
0.1

o.o

84.2
7.2
6. 8
1.0
1.2

Numb~r . . .......•... ... .
Percent . .. . ... .. . .. .. ... _
Cl

<f'
;::;

"'C.

!:!

0

0

~

n

i,...
i
m

HIIALF.

Marrlt'I . ..... . . . .. ...•.. .. ....
Single . .. .. ... . ... . . ... . ... .. . . .
Widowetl.•.......
. . .. . . . . ... .•.
.. . ......
Divorced
Separated . . ....... ... ..... .. . .

············1

7,008
100. 0

1,624
100.0

1,040
100.0

478
100.0

1, lH
100. 0

662
100. 0

462
100. 0

2, Ultl
100. 0

10.9
12.0
M. 8
4. 5
17.8

15. 6
14. 0
47. 4
1. 2
21.8

14. g
16. 3

17. 2
11.2
4.8. 5
0. 4
24. 7

2. ~
0.6
119. 4
2. g
18. 7

1.2
8, 6
119. 0
2. 4

4. 4
6. 2
70.4
3. 6
15. 6

12. 5
13. 3
67. 6
3. 8
12. 8

46. 8

1.5

a,.~

t Percent not computed on II ha..se or fewer than 100 cues.

~ -8

308
100.0

480
100. 0

SW

112

100. 0

t

172
JOO. 0

6. 4

4. 3
14. 8
48. 11
12. 0
r .2

15. 8
13. 4
45. 4
8. 8
18. 6

f

19. 8

8. 7

66.5
6. 4
25.0

l
t

1). 8

4-f. 2
8. 1
18. 0

224

100.0

-

o. ll
11. 8
03. 4
12. 6
13. 4

►

;io

-<

►
!!!

Cl

....•
t

1 50 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Tol,le 30.-School Grade Completed by Rural Relief Persons 10 Through 64 Yean
of Age, October 1935, by Residence

Lut crade or year
completed

... -All

10-13
years

(lll8 countl•J
14-16
years

111--17
years

8,41M1

4,MO

100.0

100.0

- - --

OP&N COUlffJIY

Number ............... 76, 11112 14,212
Percent................ 100.0 100.0

OradellObool:

None.. ....................

1-3 crad•................
Hp,ules_ ...............

llcrad•··················

7 crac:11111.. .................
8 sradea. .................

High acbool:

1 year .•••••••••••••••••••
2 years ••••••••••••.••••••
a years•••••••••••••••••••
4 years •••••••••••••••••••

II. 7
16. 8

24.,,

2.8

M.4

13,1164 11,0IIO
100.0 100.0

8,080
100.0

~

6, 6llO
100.0

e. 11118

a.4

as

12.0

12. 7
10.8
22.3

26.11
10.11
7.11
18.8

1.6
1.a
o.a
LO

LI
L7
0.6
1.8

--

100.0

2.8
12.2
18. 4
10.0
12.1
26.6

8. II
14. II
IO.II
11.8
28.0

4. 1
8. 1
111.8
11.6
11.0
a1.o

yeara

6. 6
11.a
21.0

10.0
13.8

21.7

13.2
18.2

M-M

years

-

6,3114
100.0
21.1
18. II
22. 7

ll.8
10.8
111.8

12.11
21.11
22.2

a. 6

0.2

• 1. 7
-- 0.1- -

7.7

10.8
7.7
4.8
LI

11.1
6.9
4.2
II. 2

4.11
3.8
2. 2
6. II

3. 6
2.8
1.2
2. 7

2. II
1.8
0.8
L2

0.1

o.a

o. 7

0.11

0.8

0.8

0.6

7.2

8.0

8. 0

7.11

7.0

a. 2

6.4

4.11

a, 11111 a, 71K

7,864
100.0

8,6118

100.0

100.0

6,411
100. 0

a, 11:H

a. 2
12. 2
tll.O
12.1
8.8
&4

13.6
22.2
12.2
&. 8
26.6

1L2
11.1
26.8
12.4
7.7
21.6

2.11
2.11
0.8
2.1

LIi
L2
0.4
1.4

2.4
1. 2
1.11

0. 6

Median ••••••••••••••••

II. 2

4.11

44,000
Number.··············
Percent•••••••••••••••• 100.0

7,168
100.0

Grade !IChool:
None.. •.••••••••••••••••••

21.a

'"

years

2HH
years

41.a
13.0
7.0
1.8

Higher ednmtlon:
1 year or more..•••••••••••

VJLUO•

1. 7
10. 6

86--U
yean

26-34

1&-20
yeara

=- ===-

8,41M 2,11811
100.0 .100.0

100.0
--

12.a

a.,

9.2

7.0
16. 6

100.0

8.8
11.8
22.1
12.0
II. 7
28.4

0.8
24.8
44. 7
17. 1
11.8
2.11

0.4
4.11
14.8
14.7
111.2
27.8

1. 2
8. 7
10.11
8.11
II.II
21. 1

1.2
4.6
11.4
7.6
8.4

aa

1.8
11.4
13.11
8.11
11.1
&2

2.11
&.4
17.2
10.2
11.0
82.11

1 year.•••••••••••••••••••
2 years •••••••••••••••••••
8 years .•..•••••••••••••••
4 years ••.••••••••••••••••

6.2
4.6
2.4
4. 2

0.3
0.1

14.0
3.11
0.11

14.a
18. 6
8.11
2. 7

11.8
10.1
11.6
18.8

7.a
7.11
4.a
11.4

6.4
4.4
2.0
11.2

Higher edueatton:
1 year or more..•••••••••••

0.11

-

-

0.2

0.6

1.4

I. 7

1.2

I. 1

1.4

Median ••••••••••••••••

7.0

6. 1

7.8

8. 7

8. 7

8.4

8.1

7. 1

11.6

6.8

tf
=:::::::::::::::::
II cradee ..................
7 cradee..................
8 sradea..................

High acbool:

--

-

4.0

a. 1

1.11
8.4

• 1 - than 0.06 pel'llllll&.

•

Dig lized by

Google

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 151
Tol,le 31.-School Grade Completed by Heads of Rural Relief Cases 16 Through 64
Yea11

of Age, October 1935, by Residence
[138 ooantlea]

Last grade or year completed

AJlaps

16-24
Y8Bnl

26-34
years

36-44
years

~

45-64
years

Y8Bnl

OP&N COUNTRY

Number •....•.••••.•..•••••..••....

Percent•••.•.•••••......••..••.••.•.

Grade school:
None ..•..•.•••••.•.•...••..•.•.•.•••.
1-3 grades •••.•••..•.•......•..........
4-6 grades.••.••••••..•...•...•..•...•.
II grades ••••.•••••.••••••••••••.••••...
7 grades ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
8 grades.............................. .

23,614
100.0

2,188
100.0

8,MO

100.0

6,132
100.0

6,0711
100.0

3,478
100.0

10. 7
16.1
23.2
11.1
10.0
22.0

6.1
g_ 7
21.g
11.1
10.2
311. a

6.3
12.3
21. 2
10. 8
12.6
27.11

10. 1
14. 6
23. 0
13.1
10.8
21.11

14.0
19.3
311. 7
10.4
7.2
17.11

20. 6
18. 6
23.0
11.1
7.2
Ul.2

2.8
2.0
1.0
1.6

6.6
8.8
2. 7
3.1

4.0
2. 7
1.2
1.11

1.11
0.8
0.9

1.11

1. 2
1.8
0. 4
1. 7

0.6

0. 7

0.5

0.11

6.1

7.2

16,122
100.0

1,460
100. 0

3, 8811
100.0

8,840
100.0

3,278
100.0

2, «MIS
100.0

11.6
12. 9
20. 4
11. 3
7.9
26.6

1.11
11.6
14.3
8. 7
7.6
28. 7

2. 7
g,8
17.8
11.5
8. 3
32.4

6. 7
14. 2
20.8
12.9
8.0
26. 6

Q.11
13.11
21.0
12. 3
8. 4
26. 4

11.7
16.0
211.0
11.11
6.6
20.8

4.2
3. 6
1. 6
3. 7

6.9
8.6
4. 4
11.4

11.2
4.5
1.9
6.0

4.1
2.11
1. II
8.1

2. 7
2. 7
0.8
2.0

1.1
0.4
1.11

2.0

1. 2

1. 2

1.11

8.1

6.7

6.6

6. 7

BJgh school:

1 year ••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••..

2 years•••••••...••••••••••••••••••••..

a years.••••••...••.•••.••••••••••.•••.

4 y8Bnl••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

:u

1.2

0.11
0. 7

Higher education:

1 year or more ••••••.•••.••••••••••••.

Median. ........................... .
VlLL.t.O&

Number •••••.••••••••••••••••••.•..

Percent •..•••••••••••••••.••••••.••.

Grade school:
None ......••••.••••••••••••••••••....
1-3 grades .•••••.•••.•••.••••••••••••..
4-5 grades. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••..
II grades ••••••••••••.•..•....•......•••
7 grades•••••••••••••.••.....•.....•...
8 grad8'1 --·························
High school:
l year .••••••••••.••.•••••...•.•.••••••
2 years ...••••..••••.•••.•••.•.....•.•.
3 years .•••••••.•.•.••••.•....•••••.•••
4 years.. .••••.•••••••••••••••••••••.•••

Higher edncatlon:
l year or more .•••..•..••.••...••••••.

Median. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••.

- -7.0
-=
---------=

1.4

- -6,g
-=

1.0
8.3

6. 2

=
=

0.8
6.3

=

6.0

=-

---------=

Dig ll,ed by

0.4

2.a

Google

152 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
To61e JJ.-School Grade Completed by Rural Relief Penons 10 Throu9h 64 Yean of
Ase, October 1935, by Sex
(138 counties]

Lut grade or year completed

All
ages

10--13
years

--

14-15
Y1l8l'8

l&-17
years

18-20
years

21-24
years

25---34

years

3.H4
years

~

years

56-M
Y1l8l'8

JU.Lli

10,870
Number._.··---------Percent _______________ . 69,440
100.0

Grade
school:
None
_____________________
1-3 grades ________________
4-5 grades ________________
6 grades __________________
7 grades. _________________
8 grades __________________
High1 school:
year ____________________
2 years ___________________
3 years ___________________
4 years ___________________

100.0

100.0

3,678
100.0

3,802
100.0

6.1
16. 6
24.4
11.6
10.1
20. 7

1. 7
33.0
43.0
13. 1
7.4
1. 6

1. 3
8. 7
20.9
14. 5
20.6
23.3

2. 6
11. 2
13.3
9.1
11. 7
24. 7

2. 4
8. 7
13. 8
9.3
10.0
28. 2

3.8
9.3
17. 2
10.9
10.0
211. 0

3.8
2. 7
1. 4
2. 1

0.1
0. 1

8. 9
1-6
0. 2

11.0
9.11
6. 2
1. 5

6.5
7. 7
6.9
7. 2
0.3

6.3

4. 7

7.2

8.1

4,IIM

-- Higher education:
1 year or more _____ • ___ • _
0.5
- Median ________________ - - - - - - =
~lillALJC

- - - -- - =

Number ________________
Percent ________________ 60,462 10,500
Grade
school:
_____________________
None
1-3 grades ________________
4-5 grades ________________
6 grades __________________
7 grades __________________
8 grades __________________
High1 year
school:
____________________
2 years ___________________
3 years ___________________
4 years ___________________

Higher education:
1 year or more _________ • __
Median _________ ·------··

0.2

4,742 10,338
100.0 100.0

8,742
100.0

7,164
100.0

6, 2&I
100.0

4.6
11. 6
19.8
10. 7
11.0
29. 7

9.2
14. 3
21.9
12. 7
9.9
23.11

11.8
17. 7
24.5
11.2
7.6
21.3

16. 9
18.6
24. 3
9.8
6. 8
18. 4

6.0
4.3
2. 6
7.1

4. 7
a.2
1. 3
2. 9

2.6
2. 0
0.9
1.8

1. 8
1.6
0. 7
1.0

1. 4
1.4
0.3
1. 6

0.8

0.6

0.8

0.8

0.6

- ----8.2
7.9
7.3
6.4
6. 7
---- ---- --=

100.0

100.0

4,800
100.0

3,900
100.0

6. 2
13. 3
23. 0
12. 2
10. i
21.5

1. 7
29.3
42.1
16. 6
8.6
2. 6

1. 1
8.1
17. 1
12.6
21.3
26.1

2.0
7. 4
11. 7
10. 2
10.8
23. l

2. 7
6. 8
12.2
11. 7
11.0
27.9

2. 7
6,9
14. 3
10.3
10.6
31.1

4. 4
3.6
2.0
3.3

0.3

10.9
3.2
0.6

12. 4
13. 2
7.3
1.8

6.2
7. 3
6.3
10.4

6.4
5.11
3.3

0.6

1.0

•

--

-=
--6. 7
4. 9
0.8

-

7.6

=

0.1
8.3

4,924
100.0

6. 2

8. 916

100.0

6,350
100.0

3,954
100.0

4. 5
9.1
19.6
12. 2
10. 8
28.2

7.3
12.1
22.6
12.2
9.6
26.3

10.11
148
24. 2
11. 7
9.1
21.6

17.0
15. 5
24.0
11. 6
8. 0
17, 6

3.8
3.6
1. 7
4.9

3.6
2.6
l. 3
2.3

2.0
2.1
0.6
1.9

1.8
1. 5
0. 8
1. 6

5,688 11,370
100.0 100.0

- - --- - - - - -- --

8. 6

--=
8.2
8.3

1.6
7.4

1. 2

1-1

1.0

6. 7

6.0

6.6

----=

• Leas than o.~ percent.

Dig lized by

Google

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 153
Tal,le 33.-School Grade Comyleted b_y Heads of Rural Relief Cases 16 Through 6-4
Yean o Age, October 1935, by Sex
(138 counties]

Last grade or yeer completed

All ages

16-24
years

35-«
years

U--34
years

41'>-54
years

511-M
years

------

K.t.LII

Numoor •••.....•••••••••••••••.•.• _
Percent .•••.••.••.•••...•••.••..... _

11,202
100.0

8,408
100.0

8,866

100.0

11,030
100.0

4.3
11.8
20.0
10.4
11. 1
~-11

8. 7
H.4
22.1
12.8
II. g
24.0

11.5
17. II
24.6
11. 2
7.5
21.4

16.6
18.2
24.6
11.8
6.8
18.8

6.6
2. 7
4.9

4. 6
3.2
1. 4
2. 7

2.6
2.0
0.9
1.8

o. 7

1.8
1. 7
1.0

1. 4
1. 6
0.3
1.6

0. 7

0.4

0.6

0. 7

0.6

6.4

7. 7

7. 3

5.946
100.0

454
100.0

1. 324
100.0

10.6
12. 3
22. 3
11.6
8.5
111.0

3.1
11.6
18.11
8. 4
6.2
22.0

4.8
3.1
2.1
3.4

11.7
6.6
8.4
10. 6

4.8

2.3

3.5

32,690
l(JO.O

3,184
100.0

h1 l(rades ...........••.......•......•.
4-5 grades ••.••........•...•.....•.•. ·6 grades .•••••.•••••.••...••••..••.•.. _
7 grades ..•.•......•.......•.•.....•...
8 grades •.••••.••..•.....•.•••...••... _

8. 7
14.6
22. 1
11.1
9. 2
24.8

4.0
10. I
18. 7
10.4
11.6

High school:
1 year ..•••••••••..••.•.•..••••••.... _.
2 years ..•••••••••.•..••.•..•.••••••.. _
3 years ..••..•••.•••.•...•.....••••.. __
4 years .••••••••••••.....••••..••••.• __

3.1
2. 5
1. 1
2. 1

11. 7

Grade school:

- - - --------- - - - - - -

None_·······························-

Higher education:
1 year or more •••.••......••••••.. _...
Median ...............••............

--- =

27.11

FICIULII

Number •••.••.........•..••....•.•...
Percent...••...•.•...•.....•...•..... _
None ••••..••••......•...•••..•••••...

High school:
1 year ...•••••.•.••••...•..........•.. _
2 years ..•...••..•....•.•.....•••..••..
3 years •.•.••...•.••.•••..•••..••...•. _
4

yeers ••.....•..•..................•. -

Higher education:
l year or more ••••...•..••••••••.•... _
Median.............................

=

0.8
6.4

- -5.-7 =
---=

6. 2

1,5114
100.0

1,488
100.0

1,116
100.0

II. 7
8.6
111. 7
11.8
10.1
24.0

7.2
14. 6
22. 7
14. 2
8.6
18. 2

15. 7
13.6
24. 2
10.8
8. 7

17.2

17.2
14. 2
23.0
12. 7
7.3
15.6

8.3

2. 1
II. 7

8.3
2. 3
2. 7
1.4

3.1
2. 3
0.5
2.0

2.11
2.0
0. 7
2.3

3. 2

1.8

1.11

2.1

Grade 11Chool:

1-3 grades •.•....•......•..•••••••...•.
4-5 grades ..•.•.••••.••..••••••.••..•. _
6 l(rades ..•••......•......•.•••.••.•...
7 iirades ..••••••...•••••••..•••.•..... _
8 grades ••.•••...••..••..••••.•...•....

=

---- - - - - - -

=
=
=
=
=
~
6.4
8.3
7.6
6.4
5.7
5.6

D ~jl" zect by

Goos le

1 54 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
To61e .U.-Percent of the Rural Relief Population 5 Through 24 Years of Age Attendin9 School, October 1935, by Residence and Area
(138 OOUDtleaJ

All ages

R esitlNll'C and area

6--6

7- 13

years

years

14- 15

HH7

JS-20

years

years

years

- --

- - -

--- --- ---

2 1- 2◄

years

---

OPEN CO CNTRY

All areas . .. .. ........... .
E as tern Cotton .. . •. • ..... . ... .
White •.•.. . . .. . .• ...... ...
N egro ____ ., __ _______ ___ . __ . .
Western Cotton •... . ...... . . . . .

[.6. 1

26. I

94. 3

63. 6

33. 3

7. 2

0. 6

1,-1. 0
55. 9

27. 8
29. 3
23. 4
15. 4
)5. 2
16. 9
21. 2
40. 8
49. 2
39. 4
313. 4
28. 2
17. 5

87. 4
89. I

72. 0
65. 3
87. 3
88. 0
85. 2
81. 2
89. 3
~7. 3
97. 5
95. 6
69.8
j

6. 2
6. 5
5. 3
II. 2

1.3
1.6

81. 9

26. J
29. 8
13. 8
◄3 . 2
40. I
31. 9
25 I
47. 3
41. 4
47. I
00. 7
19. 3

63 . .5

36. 2

97. 4

(i(). 0

29. I
29. :1

93. 7
94. 4
92. I
\15. 5

= =- - 48. 0
59. 6
59. 6
59 . 5
49.3
61. 0
('6. 8
66. fi
f.S. 6
,' li. 9
61. 2

White ..• • .. ...••. . .• . . . ... .

N egro . ..• . .. •..•....•. ..• . .
Appalach ian . Ozark . ... . .. . .. . •

La ke States Cut-Over. .... . . .. .
C orn Ill'lt. . . . . .. . ... . ... . . • .. . .
Ha y an d Dairy . . . .•... .. . .... .
W inter Wheat . . . . . ..... . . . .. . .
S pring Wheal .••.. •....... .•. .•
Ran ching • •. •• ........ . ..•. . .. .

93. 7
95. 4
~7. 7
03. 3
98. 6
98. 8
99. 0
99. 0
97. fl
89. 8

73. 9

II . 9
8. I
5. 6
6. 7
9. 0
6. 8
19.6
6. 2

t

t

52. 7

12. 8

0. 5
0.4
0. 5
3. 4
0. 5

VILLA GE

All areas . . ..... . ... •
E as tern Cot ton ... .. .. .. ... ... •

= ==

Wh ite .•.•..•. • ... ... .. . . . .

N egro . ... . .••.. . . ••• . •... . .
,ve.stern Cotton ____ _____ ___ __ __
White ..... . .... . . . . ...... . •
N egro . . • • . .... . . . .. ... . .. . •
A ppaltichia n•O z:a rk .. .. ... . .... •

I.ake States Cu t•Ove r ... .. . .
Com B,•11 . .... . . ... ... . ..• . . . •
fl ay and D airy . . ... . .... •..• • •
Wi nter Whea t .•... ... . . . . •. ..
1-pr iu~ Whcnt ...... . . . . .... .. . •
H and1i n g ____ __ . . . . . .... .. .

61.6
511. 1
(,3. ,\

62. 6
Iii. 1
,'l9. 2
fi4 . 7

&<. I
fi9. IJ
65. 5
&<. 3

64 . fi

t

12. 8
II. 0
j
32. 0
43. 8
52. 4

47. 6
j
39. 8
2ti. O

95. 2
1"1.G
96. 4
100.0
99. 0
99. 4
9 7. ()
9 P. 4
99. 6

92. 6

=
=
=
=
92. I
54. 5
16. 8
92. 2

58. 8

93. 8
93. 2

51. I
54 . 4

t

t

89. 5
91. 5
03. 4
97. 9

t

93. I
97. 3

t

t

42.0
50. 0
61.0
64. 4
j
M. 6

77. 6

16. 7

t

0. 9
0. 7

1. 0

15. 4
14. 2

t

8.8

1.1

II . 9
15. 3

12. 7

t

31. 9
JO. 3

t Percent not computed on a base of fewer than 100 caaes.

Dg1tzeobyGoogle

I.I

t

3. 5

155

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES•

Ta&/e 35.-Usual Industry_ of Heads of Rural Relief Cases 16 Through 64 Years of Age
Working or Seeking Work, February, June, and October 1935, by Residence
[138 counties]
February
Usual Industry or head

lune

October

Open
Open
Open
Total counVillage Total
Village Total coun- Vlllap
rnral
rnral counrnral
try
try
try

Number _______________________
72,689 li0,419 22, 2'lO 49,526 31,002 18,524 36,0M 22,IJ)()
Percent __________ •• ______ •••••• 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0

AcrJrolture .••.. ___________________ ..
Fe.rm operator ___________________
Fe.rm laborer ____________________
Forestry and fishing. ________________
Extraction or minerals_ .. ____________
Manufacturing and mechanical ______
Building and construction. __ •...
Lumber and furniture. __________
Textile. ••• __________________ ••••.
Other ____________________________
Transportation and communication..
Street
and road construction_ •.•.
Other ____________________________
Trade, public and professional service __ •••••• ____ ····--· ..•...........
Domestic and personal service •• ___ ..
No usual industry ___________________

61.4
46.6
H.8
1.4
6.9
13. 2
4.2
2. 3
0.8
6.11
7. 7
3.4
4.3

76.2
82. 1
H.l
1.'
6.0
8. 0
2. 3
1.8
0.4
8. 6
4.0
2. 0
2.0

28.2
11.9
16. 3
1.3
11.3
24.3
8.3
8. 4
1.8
10.8
16.0
6.3
9. 7

liO. 4
36.6
13.8
2. 6
11.11
14. 2
4.3
2. 4
1. 2
6.3
8.4
3. 7
4. 7

66.1
61.9
H.2
2. 11
8. 9
11.6
2. 6
2. 0
0. 7
4..3
6.4
2. 5
2. 9

24.ll
10. 9
13. 3
2.0
17. 0
21.8
7.1
8.1
1. 7
11.9
13. 4,
6.6
7.11

liO. 0
35.8
14.2
1. 7
18. 6
11. 7
8. 7
1. 6
0.8
6.6
6.9
2. 7
8.2

G7. 2
61.9
15.3
2. 3
10. 2
8.1
2.,
1.3
0.5
3. 9
4. 2
2.1
2.1

4..5
2.11
2.0

2. 5
1. 5
1.4

0.1
6. 2
8.6

5.1

2. 7
2. 2
2.3

0.1
8.1
4. 4

8.6

2. 3
2. 7
3.0

4.4
8.1

6.0
a. 6

13,854
100.0

22.'
9.11
12. 5
0.11
32.0
17. 2

6.8
2. 2
1. 2

8.0
8. 8
a. 7

6.1

6.6
8.5
4.6

Ta&/e 36.-Usual Occupation of Heads of Rural Relief Cases 16 Through 64 Yeanof
Age Working or Seeking Work, February, June, and October 1935, by Residence
[138 counties]
February
Usual occopatlon or head

Open
country

Village

100.0

liO, 419
100.0

22,270
100.0

49,526
100.0

61.4
46. 6
16. 1
22.1
9. 4
14.8
36. 7
0.5
1.2
1.6
6.2
5.8
21.4
2.0
19. 4
1.9

76. I
62. 0
:al.2
29.4
12. 4
H.I
22. 7
0.3
0.6
0. 7
3.6
3.2
H. 3
0.9
13. 4
1. 2

28. 2

liO. 4
36.6
13.0
17. 4
6.2
13.8
46. 7
0.6
1. 2
2. 2
6.6
6.8
29.3
a.8
25. 5
2. 9

Total
rnral

Number. _____________ 72, 68ll
Percent _______________
Agriculture._ .•. ___________ .
Farm
operator
•••. _. ___ .
Owner
______________
Tenant._--·· _______
Cro~--------·--J'11rm
la rer ___________
Nonai:riculture _____________
Professional _____________
Proprietary _____________
Clerical _______ •• -··· ••.•
Skilled .... ______ --···- __
Semiskilled _____________
Unskilled _______________
Servant ••••••••••• _.
Other •.•....•.•.••••
No nsnal occupation ••••.•..

June
Total
rnral

--- --11. 9
3. 7
6.5
2. 7
16. 3
68.5
1.0
2. 5
3.6
12. 3
II. 7
37.4
4.6
32.8
3.3

Open
COUllw

try

October
Total
rnral

Village

Open
country

Village

--13,854
100.0
----------66.1
24.2
liO. 0
67.
31,002
100.0

18,524
100.0

36,0M
100.0

22, lJ)()
100.0
2

224,

51.9
18. 7
24. 6
8.6
14. 2
31. 7
0.4
0.6
1. 0
4. 1
4.8
:al.8
2.0
18.8
2. 2

10. 9
3.3
5.4
2.2
13. 3
71.8
1.0
2. 3
4.3
10. 7
10. 2
43.3
7.0
36.3
4.0

35.8
12. 4
8.4
15.0
14.2
46.8
0.6
0.9
1.5
6.6
6.2
33.0
4. 2
28.8
3. 2

61.9
18.3
12.6
21.0
15.3
30.2
0.3
0.5
0.8
3.5
3.5
21.6
2. 3
19. 3
2. 6

9.11
8.1
1.6
6.2
12. 5
73. 5
1.0
1.6
2.6
11.0
7.9
51.4
7.3
44.1
4. 1

Dg1

z.eob,-Google

Tobie 37.-Length of Time Between Loss of Last Job at Usual Occupation and Accession to Relief by Heads of Rural Cases in Their First Relief
Period, June 1935, by Usual Occupation

Residence sn<I u.susl
occupation of hcud
Number

Percent

Less
than 1
month

2

H
months

IHI
months

7-12

13-24

$--.'Ml

37--48

months

months

months

months

months

months

ft!
months
or more

10.6

12. 4

7.8

11. 6

10.3

8.1

4.6

3. 6

11.4

6. 7
4. 7
5. 5
9.3
12.9
10.5
11.3
6.1
11.0
10.0
8. 1
11. 9
10.11
12.0

12. 5
9.1
12. 7
14. 1
14. 5
11. 7
6. 2
11.4
11.0
11.2
11.6
12. 2
14. 8
11. 9

11.4
6. 7

16. 7
16. 7
16. 6
16.11
7.5
10.3

8.3
8.6

2.11
4.11

7.11
13. 6
10.2
6. 7
8. 7
7. 2
6. 7
6. 6
7.8
8. 7
6.6
8. 7

16. I
14. 4
15. 6
17. 8
12.3
10.6
11.9
12. 6
11.0
12. 6
10.6
9.6
11. 1

1.11
3. 8
4. 7
4. 2

3. 7
6. 7
17. 2
6.3
1.8
2.3
7.6

11.0

12. 7

7.6

12.11
11.0
13.4
14. 2
16.0
11. 3
3. 7
10.6
5. 8
10. 4
12. 6

9.8
11.0
6.9
9.2
14. 2
9. 3
6.1
7. 4
7.4
6. 1
6. 2
7.3

26,332

100.0

9.2

17. 7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0

9.8

2,529
657
I, 126
846
5,861
17,9-12
344
6Stl
1,153
3,181
3,240
9,43H
1, 24R
8,192

6.8
4. 6
6.0
8.3
11. 3
9.3
1L6

18. 4
8. 7
7.2
9.2
9.3
2'2. 7
17. 6
12.2
9. 4
11. 7
12. 7
17. 7
20.5
23. 2
20.2

12,214

100.0

8. 4

17.3

4,793
1,456

100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.~
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

9.11
6.4

20.2
10. 6
8.3
12.3
10. 2
24. 2
16.6
14.8
11.0
11. 7
II. 7
14.0

-Agrlculture _______ •........ ___ .
8,390

Cl

<D
N

'1l

.F'arm oJ)('rator .••.•....... _
Owner __ ._ •.•........ _.
Tenant. •..•••........ _
CropJ)('r ..•.•.•....... _
Farm !shorer ............. _
Nonagriculture ________________
Prol,•ssionaf.. ...•..........
Pro1,rietary .•.••......... _.
Clerical.. ...•••.•......... Skilfed. __ ····••·•·····•····
Semiskilled ••...•...•.••...
Unskilll'd._ ............••..
S.•rvant •. _. _......... -Other •••............•..
Open country ••.••..•.. --

Q_

cr

'<.

0

0
0

-n

00

Agriculture •••. _____ ._ •..••....

.F'arm operator •.....•......
O"'·nc-r _________________
Tenant. ......•........
CropJ)('r ·······-·······
Fann laborer •.•••......•..
Nonagrlcufture ..••.•.....•••..
Professional •.••.......•.•..
Proprietary •..••••.••...•..
Clerical.. .•.•.••.••...•.•..
811:ilh~f __ ....•••.•.•••••.•. _
Semiskflled ••••.••••••••.••

--288
548

620
3,337
7,421
108
1811
359
1,395
1,373

6.4
4. 5

8.1
6. 4
1L3
8.8

4.4

5.11
8. 0
5. 3
11. 4
7. 5
1.11
8.6
2. 2
3.4
6.8

·~

1

month

------ --Total rural __ ••.••••••.• __

- - -10.0
- --- -10.3- - -4.- -11.0
- - -13.9
13. 6
6

- -16.1
--11. 6
7.6

4. 6
6.1
10. 2
13. 4
10.6
14. 8
6. 4
7.8
10. 3

8. 4

•
>
~

Length ol time between 1011:! of Job and accession to relief

Total

~

2

(300 countiesI

I

-

11.3
8.11

11.4

14. 8
14. 6
11. 1
10. 4
8.8
11.9
8. 8

6.1

7.2
6.2
3.2
2.1
6.3
6.8
6.8
6.11
7.0
6.0
4. 6
3. 3
4. 7

11. 6

10.3

11.0

13. 2
17.0
16. 7
15. 7
18. 4
11. 6
10.4
13.9
9.6
12. 3
11. 6
10. 6

9. l
14. 6
10.4
15. 4
15.8
6.8
11.0

7. 7
11. 1

20.4

14.8
10. 2
13. 4
12.0
11. 2

11.8
6.3
3.1

8.8
11.6
11.6
8.11
6. 1

4.11

2. 3
1.1

4. 2
2.11
6. 6
6.0

11.6

8.3
2. 1
3.6

10. 1
10,6
9.3
8.8
6. I
3.9
6. 4

4. 8

3. 7

8. 7

3. 7
3. 6
4. 6
8.1
I. 7

2.11

6. 6
21.6
2.3
1. 2
2. 2

6.11
4. 8

- -4.0
- - -2.-3 - -1.-6 - -3.-2
8.4
6.6
2.4
7.2
7.4
13. 8
8.9
10. 0
7.8

6.4
7.4
11.8
12. 0
8. 4
5. 7

2.1

4.6
1.9
1.0
6.0
6.6
6.4
8. 4
6.8
6. 7

8.11
8.3
8.6
13.4
10. 3
10.0

zG'I

Median
number
of
months

>

--4. 6
---4. l

8. 8
16. 7
II. l
8. 3
2. II
4. II
11. 8
11. 3
10. 3
II. 1
6. 8

a. 6

3. 4
3. 6

----3.4.

7
6

7. 0
12. 0

8. 11
6. 11
2. 6
8. 1
7

"·

11. 8
18. 0
lL 2
7. l

§
0
...,

"'
"'
>

C

"''C
ITI

...,
ITI

Jmkilled _______ •• __ •.. _..•
Servant_. ___ ... -· ... -··
Other .•••.••••..•...•••

3,998
H2
3,556

100.0
100.0
100. 0

II. 7
7.6
10.0

18. I
17. 7

Village •••• -·- •••••••••.••

H,118

100.0

11.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0

11.6
8.3
3.0
8. 2
6.8
11.0
11.9
6.5
4. 5
Ii 7
6. 2
II. 6
12. 4
10. 3
12. 7

.... __ -·--··-·······
~ llllture
farm operator
_____________
Owner._._ .• _.•••••••••
Tenant •• ·-····-· •••...
r~r1~f!:.r:: ::::::::::::
!ll(riculture_. ·------· •••.•.
ProlessionaL. •.••.••. ····-·
l'roprieta,-y .. _.••••...•.•.•
~lerical. __ . -·------ -------·
lkillP<L _____ ·-··-----·--·-lemiskilled .. ---- __________

lJnskilled __ ----------·--·-·
Servant. ___ ·----·-·---Other _________ ·---·-- __

---100. 0
3,697
1,073
269
6i8
226
2,524
10,521
236
308

7114
l, 786
I, 867
5,440
804
4,636

4.0

7. 7
6. 2
8.0

4. 3
4. 3
4. 2

a.a

6.1

2.2

4.4

--- 8

8.2
3

8. 3

18. 3

lLII
11.6
12. 2

II. 7
16. 7
11.1

6.11
7.0
11. 8

11.8
11.8
11.6

10. 4
12.0
10.2

11.8
4. 6
6. 7

11.4
6. 3
6. 2

18. 2

10. 3

12. 2

7.11

11.6

10.3

8.2

4. 2

18. 4
8.3
6. 9
6.4
6. 7
31. 7
18.9
11.0
9.5
12. 6
13. 3
20. 3
22. l
26. 3
21. 5

10. 2
11. 4
6.2
6. 0
6. 7
12. 2
10. 3
6. 8
6.0
11.6
II. 7
7.11
11. 9
11. 8
11.9

12.3

10.1
7.3
4.6
6. 7
11. 7

13.8
14. 8
11. 9
16. .2
16. 7
13.3
10. 7
11.0
14. I
JO. 5
13.6
10. 7
9. 5
10. 7
II. 3

11.8
19. 7
23. 4
17. 6
20.0
8.6
9. 7
22.11
17. 2
15.1
10. 5
11.8
7.6
8. 7
7.4

11. 4

8.8
6.6
1L2
6. 7
3.3

.,..

2. 6
4.4

1.2
3. 6
1. 7
6. 0
3.6
6.3
4. 2
2. 9
2. 2
3.0

--- - - U.8
9.3
12. l
14. 2
12. 5
12.1
Ii 9
11. 8
13. 4
11.8
10. 8
12.8
13. 8
12. 6

11. 3
7.2
11.3
7.0
8.9
6. 9
8.1
7. 2
6. 4
7. 4

IU
6.11
11.0
8.3
3.9
6. 6
10.6
10. l
8. 9
9.2
8.3
4.8
6. 1
4. 8

II. I
4.0

4.6
6.9
4. 6
3. 9
1. 6
4. 2

8.8
1.8

'- 7

1.9

a. 3

8.1
12. 3

a.

2.8

6. 7
10.2
10.8
11.3

8.6
7.11

4.11
8.1
6.2

4. 4

i-

11. 7
17. 7
11. I

a.

6
4. 3
12. 8
11. 3
7. 6
7. 9
4. II

3. 1
2. 7

a.

!
z~

0

<g'

FJ·

"'

0.
0-

'<

C")
0

ar5""

>
~
>
m

r-

Cl

....•
...,
UI

158 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
To61e .18.-Year of Migration to County by Heads of Rural Relief Cases,June 1935,
by State
(300 oountl89]
All heads

State

Year of mtantlon

After 19211
Per· Never Prior
to
cent moved 1gz

Num.

bee

~

11. 1

um11133

All States 1!8I11Pled •••. 116,972

100.0

36.3

11 Northern States •••••••••• 46. 896

100.0

:iu. 2

2,796
6, 602
7,304
8,780
2,286
1,954
6,230
6,946
3,140
3,702

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
lCXl. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

38.9
28.0
24. 3
23.9
82. 7
19. 6

13 Southern States.••••••••• 57,292

100.0

47.11

28.1

9.0

Alabama ..•••••••••••••• 1,662
Arkansas.••••••••••••••• 3,308
Florida ..•••••••..•••..•. 2,564
Georgia .•••••••••••••••• 2,042
Kentucky •...••••••••••. 7,768
Louisiana __ ·----····---- 1,156
North Carolina._ •• _•• __ 3, 138
Oklahoma _____ -· ••••• __ 9,430
South Carolina ____ • ___ ._ 6,246
Tennessee._ •• _•••• _. ____ 2,882
Texas.---·--····-·-····. 10,126
Virginia ... __ .------·---. 3,492
West Virginia •• _-···---- 4,478

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
lCXl. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0

42. 7
38. 7
34.1
50.9
69.9
45. 3
66.6
16. 9
71. 6
71. 8
33.8
64.1
50.6

:Ill. 7
a.. 7
36.3
19. 0
16. 2
31. 5
18.2
45. 2
16.3
13. 7
35.4
31.8
28.0

11.3
ll.3
12. 5
8.3
4. 7
11. 3
5. l
13. 4
4.9
2. 7
11. 7
6.1
10. 6

100.0

12. 3

42. 7

18. 2

100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

8. 5
6.5
6.2
8. 2
45. 2
7.4

38.0
65.8
61.8
33. 2
36.1
35. 5

23. 3
12. 6
15. 7
16. 7
6.9
23. 2

25.3
31.1
12. 3
29.0
9.0
26. I

---- - =

Iowa ....................
Kansas .•.••••••••••••••.
Michigan .•••••.•••••••.
Minnesota ••..••••••••.•
Missouri. .•..•••••••••••
Nebraska .••.•..••••••••
New York ...••••••••...
North Dakota .•.••••••..
Ohio .....•...••••••••••.
South Dakota ..•.••••••.
Wisconsin ••.•••••••••••.

--2, 156

25. 5
40.6
26.8
29. 7

=44. 3

36. 5
40. 7
45. 5
55. 2
82.2
45.G
38. 4
58.1
82. 1
48.6
41. 9

--- - -- -=

6 W estem States •••••••••• ·- 13, 784

Calirornla_ ••••••••• -···Colorado_ ••••• ---···---Montana_···-·····-··-·Oregon__ -··· ___ --·----·Utah _______ ---··----·-·Wa.shington ______ ·-·-·-·

30. 2

36. 2

19Z-

-

6,662
2,128
I, 594
792
1,712
1,896

-

11.6
13. 0
12.8
12. 6
8.1
12. 4
14.6
17. 9
8.8
11. 6
11.1
13. 7

After
11133

Total Intra- Inter•
state state

12.8

3. 6

16. 4

11. 7

4. 7

15. 3
14.0
11.0
111. 0
16. 6
10.1
6.3
11. 6
10. 4
13. 7

3.2
3. 6
1. 8
3. 7
3. 6
3. 4
1. 3
4. 1
3.1
1.0

1,t 5
17. 6
12.8
22. 7
~-2
13. 5
7.6
15. 7
13. 5
14. 7

12. 2
12. 5
7. 6
12. 0
13. 5
10. 7
4.8
12. 6
9.1
8. 7

6.3
6.1
5.2
10. 7
6. 7
2. 8
2. 8
3. I
4. 4
6.0

11. 1

3.9

15.0

11. 6

3.4

14.9
ll.3
14.4
15. 6
6. 0
9.1
6.4
19. 4
6. 6
7.4
13. 7
7.3
7. 5

4. 4
4.0
2. 7
6. 2
3.2
2. 8
8. 7
6.1
1.6
4. 4
5. 4
1.7
3.3

19. 3
15. 3
17.1
21.8
9. 2
11.9
10. 1
24. 5
7.2
11. 8
19.1
9.0
10. 8

16. 0
9. 6
10.0
16.9
7. 6
7.9
8. 6
19. 5
6. 6
7.8
15.4
5.4
9. 5

3. 3
5. 7
7.1
4.9
1. 6
4.0
1.5
5.0
1.6
4.0
3. 7
3.6
1.3

4.9
5.0
4.0
12. 9
3.8
7. 8

30.2
25.1
16. 3
41.9
12. 8
33.11

23. 4

- -11.11
- = 6. 0
=12. 2 = 2. 7 -14.11
- 10.4 1. 2 Jl. 6 8.1 -3.5

-21.3
- -6.=26.8 =17. 5
5

Dig lized by

-9.3

13. 3
9.6
19. 5
8.6
18. I

Google

6.8
11.8
6. 7
22. 4
4.2
15.8

Appendix 8
METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT
CHANGE STUDIES

CONTENTS
Introduction______________________________________________________
The units of study_________________________________________________
Sampling method__________________________________________________
The areas sampled_________________________________________________
Selection of sample counties to represent areas________________________
Selection of sample counties to represent States________________________
Field studies conducted in sample counties____________________________
Survey of the rural relief situation, October 1934_ _ _____ ___________
Survey of current changes in the rural relief population_____________
Reporting of public and private aBBistance in rural and town areas____
Selection of sample cases within counties_____________________________
Collection of data__________________________________________________
Field staff ____ - _- _____ - ___________ _____________________ _______
Sources of data________________________________________________
Editing schedules and tabulating results__________________________
RepresentativeneBB of sample_______________________________________
List A.-Counties in nine agricultural areas___________________________
List B.-Sample counties representing nine agricultural areas___________
List C.-Sample counties and townships representing 34 States__________
List D.-States sampled, by regions__________________________________
Schedules_________________________________________________________
State supervisors of rural research___________________________________

Page
161
162
163
164
166
171
175
175
175
176
176
178
178
178
179
179
190
199
201
203
204
217

TABLES
Table
A. Boheme for selecting controlled sample of 27 out of 363 Corn Belt
counties ______________________________________________ Facing
B. Proportion of all counties included in each area sample and proportion
of all rural families 1930, of all rural relief cases October 1933, and of
all farms January 1935 found in sample counties in 9 areas_______
C. Scheme for selecting controlled sample of 10 out of 86 Ohio counties__
D. Proportion of all counties included in each State sample and proportion of all rural families 1930, of all rural relief cases October 1933,
and of all farms January 1935 found in sample counties in 31 States_
159

168

170
172

173

160 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Table
Pagll
E." Proportion of all farm operators who worked 150 days or more ofl' their
farms during 1934 for State as a whole and for sample counties in 31
States______________________________________________________
182
F. Proportion of the total farm population January 19M that reported
a nonfarm residence 6 years earlier for State as a whole and for
aamplecountiesin 31 States___________________________________
183
G. Relationship between background factors and the peroent of the rural
relief population located In open country In 27 sample Com Belt
counties, June 1935_ _ _ _ _________ _________ _______ ___ ____ ______
186
H. Comparison of larger and smaller sample with respect to size and with
respect to specified relief items, June 1935_____ _____ ____ __________
189

RGURES
Figure
A. Areas repreaented and counties sampled___________________________
B. States represented and counties sampled__________________________
C. Relationship between background factors and the percent of the rural
relief population located in open country in 27 sample Com Belt
counties, June 1935_ _______ _____ ___ ________ ____ __ __ __ ________

Dig lized by

Google

168
174
185

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT
CHANGE STUDIES

INTRODUCTION

THE RESULTS of an investigation can be better understood when
there is an adequate understanding of the methods by which the
results were obtained. During its period of activity the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration carried through a series of surveys
dealing with the characteristics of the rural relief population. These
studies reached their greatest adequacy and reliability during the
year 1935. Many of the results of these studies have been published
in mimeographed bulletins. Other results are being published in
the form of monographic reports. It is proposed here to indicate the
kinds of broad studies that were made and to describe in detail the
methods by which results were obtained.
The administration early recognized that the relief problem in
rural areas differed in important respects from that in urban communities. It was further recognized that such rural-urban differences called for differentiation of programs and policies designed for
application to the relief situation in country and in city. In order
to formulate and operate a rural program, it was imperative that
considerable information concerning the rural relief population be
made av:ailable. The Rural Unit of the Research Section of the
Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance was charged with
responsibility for collecting that information.
From its beginning the FERA required the emergency relief
administration in each State to submit detailed monthly reports
showing the number of families and the number of persons receiving
unemployment relief and the amounts of obligations incurred for the
various types of assistance. These reports did not classify relief
cases by rural and urban residence, but tabulations by counties gave
clear evidence that the relief problem was by no means limited to
urban or to industrial centers. On the contrary, they revealed that
many counties, predominantly rural in character, had one-fifth or
more of their families on relief.
Only one complete enumeration of the unemployment relief
population by rural and urban residence has ever been made. This
161

Dig 11zed by

Goog Ie

162 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

emuneration was made as a part of the Unemployment Relief Census
of October 1933. More than 5,000,000 persons, or 40 percent of all
persons receiving relief at that time, resided in the open country and
in villages of less than 2,500 population, the rural relief population
being equal to about 9.5 percent of the total rural population in 1930.1
Following the Relief Census of October 1933, several special investigations of the numbers and characteristics of rural relief families
were undertaken at various times by the Rural Unit of the Research
Section. These studies led up to and paved the way for the initiation of a more adequate study known as the Survey of Current
Changes in the Rural Relief Population. This survey was launched
in February 1935 for the purpose of providing current information
concerning the characteristics of, and the changes taking place in,
the rural relief population.
The great bulk of material concerning the phases of rural relief to
be studied, together with limitations on time and funds available
for collecting data, made full investigation prohibitive and made
sampling necessary. Highly accurate generalizations about a whole
may be made from a small part of that whole, if the part constitutes a
properly selected sample. One of the first problems to which attention
was given in the development of the Survey of Current Changes in the
Rural Relief Population was that of sampling. The techniques and
procedures used in selecting samples, the type of information collected,
and the reliability of the data are discussed in the following pages.
THE UNITS OF STUDY

For purposes of the survey the relief case or household was taken
as the unit of study. Interest centered primarily in the composition
and characteristics of these units. If lists of all rural cases had been
available, it would have been statistically possible to select random
samples from such lists. If pertinent information had been available
for these cases, it would have been statistically possible to classify
them and to select stratified samples on the basis of such information.
However, no such lists of rural relief cases were available. Moreover,
if they had been available, it would have been administratively
impossible to study a sample selected from them because of the prohibitive amount of time and expense that would have been involved
in visiting widely scattered units.
_
It was necessary for practical purposes, then, that the units to be
studied be concentrated in a relatively small number of geographical
localities. There was no serious theoretical objection to such limitation since the rural relief cases residing in one small geographical
division might have many of the characteristics of cases residing in
the entire area to be covered by the study and might have them in
1 Unemploymenl Relief CensU8, October 1939, Report No. 2, Federal Emergency
Relief Ad:ninistration, Washington, D. C., 1034, table A.

Dig llzed by

Google

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 163

much the 88.lne proportions. A careful selection of a number of such
divisions would then provide a representative sample of the entire
universe of study. Since the country has been divided into numerous
political divisions and subdivisions, as counties, townships, etc., it
was possible to use one type of political unit as the unit of sampling.
As the county was the unit for administering relief throughout most
of the country and because much a priori information concerning
the population and factors vitally affecting the population of the
county was available from the United States Census Bureau publications, this unit was chosen for sampling.
SAMPLING METHOD

For practical purposes, then, the universe to be directly sampled
was a number of counties covering as large a proportion of the
United States as possible under the limitations imposed by administrative considerations. The aim was to select the counties in such
a manner as to insure as far as possible the inclusion of a representative sample of rural relief cases. In selecting the sample counties
two methods were available. A strictly random sample might have
been drawn from among all counties to be included in the study, the
selection being made according to one of the accepted procedures.
The random method was not workable since the counties differed
widely with respect to their availability for survey purposes, because
of their location or the accessibility of sources of information concerning aspects of rural relief within their borders. Since pertinent
information was available for counties, however, it was possible on
the basis of factors related to rural relief to classify them into relatively homogeneous groups and to select usable counties from each
group. This involved classification and subclassification of all counties on the basis of factors thought to be relevant to the purposes of
the studies to be made and the selection of similar proportions of
units from each subgroup. A sample selected in this manner may be
called a controlled sample, the classificatory factors constituting the
controls.
The procedure adopted for selecting representative counties was
'based primarily on three generally accepted propositions:
1. When, by classification of units, the variability within
classes has been reduced to such an extent that each class may
be considered sufficiently homogeneous for the purpose in view,
any one unit may be studied as representative of the other units
in the same class.
2. Hone or more variables are related to or dependent upon
a given variable, classification of units into groups homogeneous
with respect to the given variable will tend at the same time to
give groups which are relatively homogeneous with respect to
the dependent variables. Hence, if farm tenancy in the relief

[)91.zedbyGooglc

164 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

population is closely correlated with farm tenancy in the general
population, then counties which are alike with respect to the
proportion of tenants in the general population will tend to be
alike with respect to the proportion of tenants in the relief
population.
3. The units constituting a limited universe to be sampled may
be broken down into a number of relatively homogeneous subgroups and each subgroup may be sampled separately. If equal
proportions of units are selected from each subgroup, the selected
units may be combined to form a properly weighted sample of
the entire universe of units.
The attempt to sample the rural relief population was in effect an
attempt to sample an unknown population. Little recent or usable
information regarding the relief population was available. There
was, therefore, no direct approach to the problem of selecting a series
of counties containing a representative sample of rural relief cases.
An indirect approach was xnade by selecting counties on the basis
of certain background factors assumed to be correlated with various
aspects of rural relief. The selection of these background factors was
based upon a priori reasoning, ordinary logic and common sense,
and upon the considered judgment and knowledge of research scholars familiar with the sociology and economics of rural life.
THE AREAS SAMPLED

In classifying counties for the selection of a controlled sample,
the major control was introduced by grouping the units according to
the dominant type of farming engaged in by the fann population,
on the assumption that type of farming was a factor relevant to the
rural relief situation in many of its aspects. It was possible by the
use of 1930 Census data to define a number of large aggregations of
counties which possessed a high degree of homogeneity with respect to
the major agricultural source of income and which in general were
geographically contiguous areas.
Nine major type-of-fanning areas were delimited for study. The
areas and the bases of their delineation were as follows.
Eastern Cotton Area

This area consisted of 424 counties of the Old South scattered
among the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and eioutheastern Missouri. These were counties in which two-fifths or more
of the total value of products sold, traded, or used on the farm in 1929
was produced on cotton farms as defined by the United States Census
of Agriculture. 2
2 Cotton farm: A farm from which 40 percent or more of the value of its products
was derived from cotton (lint) or cottonseed.

Dg1

1.eob,.Google

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 165
Watem Cotton Area

This area consisted of 151 counties in Texas and Oklahoma distinguished by the same basic criterion as the Eastern Cotton Area
but separated from the latter on the basis of other factors, such as
a smaller proportion of sharecroppers and greater frequency of drought.
Appalachlan-Ozarlc Area

This area consisted of 265 counties in the self-sufficing farming regions of West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and southern
Illinois. These were counties in which 20 percent or more of all
farms in 1929 were classified as self-sufficing. 8
Lake Stata Cut-Over Area

This area consisted of 76 counties in Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin, in which less than 50 percent of the approximate ]and
area was in farms in 1930.
Hay and Dairy Area

This area consisted of 187 counties in Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont. These
were counties in which 25 percent or more of an farms were classified
as dairy farms in. the 1930 Census of Agriculture.'
Com Belt

This area consisted of 363 counties· in the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota, Nebra1-1ka,
and Kansas. These were counties in which 29 percent or more of
the cropland and plowable pasture was planted to corn in 1929.
Sprin9 Wheat Area

This area consisted of 64 counties in North and South Dakota
and Montana in which 30 percent or more of an cropland and
plowable pasture was land from which wheat was harvested in 1929.
Winter Wheat Area

This area consisted of 79 counties in Co]ora<lo, Kansas, Nebraska,
o.nd Texas in which 30 percent or more of all cropland and plowable
pasture was land from which wheat was harvested in 1929.
Ranchin9 Area

This area consisted of 64 counties in Colorado, Montana, Utah,
and OrP,g0n in which 40 percent or more of all farm acreage was in
• Self-8ujfici'Tl{J farm: The value of farm products used by the farm family was
liO percent or more of the total value of all products of the farm.
' Dairy farm: A farm from which 40 percent or more of the value of its products
was derived from milk, cream, butterfat, butter, and dairy cows and calves.

Dig ll,ed by

Google

166 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

farms classified by the United States Census of Agriculture as stock
ranches 6 in 1929. Only a small part of the total ranching area was
sampled because of lack of adequate field staff for carrying on studies
in the ranching States.5
The delineation of areas of homogeneity with respect to type of
agriculture constituted the first major step toward the selection of
a controlled sample. Homogeneous farming areas are not necessarily homogeneous in many other respects. It was assumed, however, that type of agriculture and agricultural resources have a
multiplicity of correlates, many of which are directly or indirectly
associated with the rural relief situation.
The 9 areas delineated for sampling included 1,673 counties, somewhat more than half (54 percent) of all such political units in the
country (see list A and fig. A). While these areas do not cover the
entire rural United States, they do comprise the largest number
of aggregations of counties that are characterized by both a high
degree of agricultural homogeneity and geographical contiguity.
The maximum sample was limited to about 140 counties because
of administrative limitations upon the amount of time allowed for
getting the initial study under way and upon the amount of funds
available for collecting data. It was not thought advisable to
attempt to represent all rural areas of the country with so small a
number of counties. Consequently, the counties lying outside the
nine areas described above were not included. Moreover, in the
States not touched by the nine areas there was no research organization or personneJ for carrying on field work at the time.
The areas not sampled consisted of general and mixed farming
areas which are often found between areas of dominant types of
agriculture; that part of the western Ranching Area lying in States
with no administrative machinery for carrying on rural research;
\'arious localized farming regions, such as fruit and truck areas; and
areas devoted to special crops, such as tobacco, beans, potatoes, rice,
sugar beets, etc. Finally, certain very thinly populated nonagricultural regions, such as the Cascade Mountains in the far West, the
Colorado-Mohave Desert, the Adirondacks and northern Maine, and
the Florida Flatwoods and Everglades (see fig. A) were also omitted.
SELECTION OF SAMPLE COUNTIES TO REPRESENT AREAS

The first major step toward the selection of a controlled sample of
counties to represent the rural relief situation was a classification of
the units into agricultural areas as described above. The second
6 Stock ranch: A farm where chief emphasis is on grazing rather tlian on production of crops and feeding of livestock, and on which 40 percent or more of the
value of all farm products is derived from meat animals.
e That part of the Ranching Area extending into other States besides the four
listed was not included.

Dlgtized by

Google

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 167

major step consisted of subgrouping the counties within each area on
the basis of certain relevant factors.
It was contemplated that the items of information to be collected
in the sample counties would be many and varied. Proposed field
studies would be designed to provide information regarding nearly
all aspects of the rural relief situation and would cover a considerable
period of time. Hence, in stratifying the counties for the selection
of the sample, indices of fundamental and fairly permanent socioeconomic conditions underlying the rural relief situation were used.
They included the following: 7
Percent of all families in the county that were rural families.
Percent of all rural families that were farm families.
Percent of all farm operators that were tenants.
Percent of all rural families whose heads were foreign born.
Percent of all gainful workers in agriculture that were wage laboren.
Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.

Each of these factors is, undoubtedly, correlated with other background variables which in tum are correlated with phases of rural
relief. For example, a fairly close relationship was found in southern counties between the percent of Negroes in the rural population
and the percent of farm tenancy. A fair degree of correlation between the proportion of Negroes in the general and in the relief
population may be assumed. Hence, by controlling farm tenancy in
selecting sample counties, it is probable that some control is exercised
over both color and tenancy in the relief population. These intercorrelations among background factors underlying the rural relief
situation eliminated the necessity of attempting to control any considerable number of variables in selecting the sample, for in selecting
a county in which certain conditions are present, closely relttted
conditions are ipso facto present.
The method of selecting counties from those grouped by agricultural areas may be shown by describing its application to the Com
Belt. The 140 counties to which the sample was limited constituted
about 8 percent of the 1,673 counties in all areas combined. There
were 363 counties in the entire Com Belt and the sampling ratio (8
percent) allowed for a selection of 29 counties. In order to facilitate the
sampling technique this number was arbitrarily reduced to 27 counties.
Three background factors considered relevant by informed research
scholars were used as the bases for classifying the 363 Com Belt
counties into 27 subgroups. These were (a) the percent of all rural
families that were farm families in 1930, (b) the percent of all agricultural workers that were wage laborers in 1930, and (c) land value
per capita of the rural-farm population, 1930.
The 363 counties were first ranked from highest to lowest on the
basis of per capita land value and broken into 3 equal groups of
7

The indices were based on 1930 Census data.

D ~jl' zect by

Goos le

....
°'co

FIG A-AREAS REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES SAMPLED

•
z>

SITUATION

n

:I

Q

z

Q

i@
0
...,
::10

C

::10

>
r
::10

r'"

m
...,

0

<Q
~

"'C'a.

'<

C')
0

&
n
AF•2151, V.A

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 169

counties representing high, low, and intermediate values. Each of
these three groups was then ranked on the basis of the rural-farm
index and was subdivided into equal groups of counties with high,
low, and intermediate percentages of rural-farm population. These
2 steps gave 9 subgroups of about 40 counties each. These nine groups
were in turn ranked on the basis of the farm labor index and divided
into three equal groups.
The final result was a classification of the 363 counties into 27
subgroups, each having from 12 to 14 counties and each representing
1 of 27 phases of joint variation of 3 background factors (see table A).
The counties within each subgroup were considered homogeneous
for practical purposes with respect to the three classificatory factors.
In some other important respects, however, the counties in a particular subgroup differed widely among themselves. The subgroups
did not, for example, form geographically contiguous subregions of
the Corn Belt but tended to scatter throughout a particular State or
among several States. In making the final selection of the sample,
one choice was made from each of the subgroups, the choice being
governed by an endeavor to obtain a fairly even geographical distribution throughout the area and to select a. county including approximately 8 percent of the total rural population of its subgroup. At
the same time a. State could be apportioned no larger number of
counties than could be surveyed with the then existing research personnel. It was considered highly important that the sample include
counties from each State overlapped by the areas sampled since
many aspects of the relief problems to be investigated were related
to administrative practices which varied from State to State. If
upon initial contact by the field staff the selected county wus found
unsuitable for survey purposes because of the lack of reliable sources
of information or the lack of cooperation on the part of local relief
officials, another county from the same subgroup was substituted in
its place, the process of substitution being continued until a usable
selection resulted.
In general, the sampling method applied to the Corn Belt counties
was followed in the other eight areas. Some variation was necessary,
however, because of differences in the total number of counties in
the areas and differences among areas with respect to the control
factors used.
Considering the advice and judgment of experts in the field of rural
sociology and economics, the background factors used in forming subgroups of counties making up the other eight areas were as follows:
Eastern Cotton Area:
1. Percent of all farm operators that were tenants.
2. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
3. Percent of all rural families that were farm families.

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

170 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Western Cotton Area:
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural families that were farm families.
Appalachian-Ozark Area:
1. Percent of all farm operators that were tenants.
2. Percent of all rural families that were farm families.
Lake States Cut-Over Area:
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural families whose heads were foreign born.
Bay and Dairy Area:
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural families that were farm families.
Spring Wheat Area:
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural families that were farm families.
Winter Wheat Area:
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural families that were farm families.
Ranching Area:
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural families that were farm families.

The final list of sample units, including 138 counties, represented
9 major type-of-farming areas overlapping 33 States (see list B and
fig. A). These 138 counties, selected as representative of certain
background factors considered relevant to the rural relief situation,
were therefore assumed to be representative of the general aspects
of the rural relief situation. The size of the samples varied from
7.4 percent of all counties in the Com Belt to 18.8 percent of the
counties in that part of the Ranching Area actually sampled (table B).
Ta&le 8.-Proportion of All Counties Included in Each Area Sample and Proportion of
All Rural Families 1930, of All Rural Relief Cases October 1933, and of All Farms
January 1935 found in Sample Counties in 9 Areas

3
s
..,.!

All areas ________ 1, 6i3

I
1

424
151
363
187
26,5
79

64
76
M

...

l

-- -

Eastern Cotton _______
Westl't'n Cotton ______
Corn B<>IL ___________
Bay and D•iry __ . ____
Appalachian-Ozark ___
Winter Whl'aL _______
Bprin~ Wheat_ _______
Lake
States
Cut-Over_
Ranching
_____________

Sample

Aamplc
counties

¼ea

C

~

~

z

p..

-

138
32
12

r,

t

s

.0

...
C

3
s
..,.!

1

Sample
counties

.
1
.8
.,
j -< z~

;;
~

p..
< -z- -p..~ - - -z- -p.. --- -- ----

~

ii

8. 216,830,298 5.54. 8i0

~

8.1 t\43, 103 49,989

------- ----7. 5i l, 98,5, 026 136,610
i. 9 il5, ~03 66, 2,'i2
7. •, 1,385, 178 9i, 102

~: i ~g: I~~:::

1,
~~:
20
6 7. 6 185. ()!,3 12, 112
7 10. g l:!2, 140 14, 76.1
6 7. 9 1711. 9~0 12,0-14
12 18.8
82,872 15,346
IR

Sample
counties

counties

3

Fsrms.
January 1935 •

Rellerreses,
October 1933 •

Families, 1930 1

Counties

~

c:>

7.8 4, 208, 625 342, 610

------

I

8.1

6. 9 216. 954 16. AA6 7. 8 l, 396, 234 95, 40
tl.8
9. 3 5:l, 4;,0 4,o.11 7. 5 4S2. ~'Ill 4.~. 0..53 v. 3
7. 0 57, g;ig 2,707 4. 7 770, Oi2 56, 150 7.3
Q. 4 75, 1.12 5,843
7. 8 500. f,\16 5i. 997 9. 8
9. 1 106. s:m 14,340 s. 6 600, Wl 63,815 9.0
6. 5 17,862 ).4.~~ 8. 2 115, 754 8, l\~9 7.0
II. 2 12, 0.53 I. 4/iO 11.6
93,371 10. 394 JI.I
6. 7 36, S46 2. n~ 6.1 118, 51t 7.912 6. 7
18.5 5,867 J,OJ6 17. 7
41,092 7,829 IV. 1

Ronrce: Fiflu-nth Crn•u• nf th, U-nitrd Sl.otr,: /9.~0, Population.
Souree: l/ntmplo'!/mtnt Rditf Cen3u&, Octabtr

19.,~.

• Bourne: Fnil<d .stalta Cwnu oj Agricu/tur,: 1936.

Dig lized by

Google

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 171

SELECTION OF SAMPLE COUNTIES TO REPRESENT STATES

Field studies were conducted in the 138 counties representing 9
agricultural areas from October 1934 to October 1935. During the
spring of 1935 administrative need for information concerning the
rural relief situation in particular States as well as in agricultural
areas became pressing. In order to meet this need it was decided
to devise a State sampling procedure and to select a list of counties
for survey in ea.ch of a number of States. As an arbitrary standard,
sample counties were to contain not less than 10 percent of the rural
population of each State sampled.
The following procedure was used for selecting sample counties
to represent separate States with respect to factors pertaining to the
rural relief situation.
1. All counties within the State 8 were classified by principal type of
farming. All counties falling within a particular typ~f-farming
area were indicated on 8: county outline map of the State.
2. The percent of all gainful workers, 10 years of age and over,
engaged in nonagricultural enterprises was computed for each county.
3. Where rural nonagricultural enterprise was of much importance
(including 25 percent or more of the gainful workers, 10 years of age
and over), the principal type of industry was determined and indicated
along with the type of farming on the county outline map of the State.
4. On the basis of two background factors judged relevant to the
purposes of the study, the counties of each State were classified into
subgroups, the number of which was fairly close to 10 percent of all
counties in the State concerned. Hence, for a State having 90 counties, the counties were classified into 9 subgroups of 10 counties each.
The two factors used in classifying the counties into subgroups were:
(1) percent of the rural population classified as rural-farm in 1930, and
(2) percent of farm tenancy (or percent of farm labor in those States
where this factor was of more importance than tenancy). In arriving
at the subclasses the following steps were taken:
a. The counties of the State were ranked on the rural-farm index
and divided into two or more equal groupings, each group having a
different range of the index used for ranking the counties. The number of subgroupings depended upon the total number of counties in
the array and therefore upon the total number of subgroups needed in
the final classification.
b. Each of the initial groups of counties was ranked on the basis of
the farm tenancy (or farm labor) index. The groups were then broken
into equal numbers of secondary groups so that the total number of
subgroups approached 10 percent of all counties being sampled.
For illustration of procedure, see table C.
·
8 Counties largely urban in character, that is, counties containing very small
rural populations in comparison with their urban populations, were excluded.

Dg1

zeooyGooglc

172 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
5. One or more counties were selected from each subgroup. Selection was made of counties that contained approximately 10 percent of
the total rural population II in the group of counties to which they
belonged. These counties were selected from the subgroups so that
counties previously selected as part of an area sample were included
as part of the larger State sample wherever possible. In making the
selection the following factors were included in their proper proportions
as far as possible:
a. Type of farming as shown on county outline map.
b. Type of nonagricultural industry in counties where important,
as shown on county outline maps.
c. Intensity of relief as shown on latest relief intensity maps.
Tal,le C-Scheme for Selecting Controlled Sample of 10 Out of 86 Ohio Counties
[Counties selected In Ualica]
Percent of all rural families that were rural•farm families In 1930

Percent tenancy

Lowest third of counties M Id die third of counties Highest third or counties
llffoll _____ --·······••··
olumblana.. ...••... _._ _
Guernsey ..•••.•..••..• _
Harrison .•...•.••.•••.. _
Lowest third of counties .• Lake-·-·················
fahonlng_ ..••.••••••.• _

l

fa•ki119um ••••• ·······-

erry ____ ··-···········Trumbull_ ....•.........
Tuscarawas.·-·········-

Ashtabula. •.•.•..•.... __
Gta1,ga_ ••••••• -····- ___ _
Jackson ..•.••••••••••. __
Knox_ ..••.••••••••.. __ _
Medina ............... __
Meigs_-··········· •.. __ _
Portage ..•••••••••••. __ _
Vinton __ ···············_
Washington.•••.•..... __
--··-····················-

Athtm .•••.••.•.•.•..•.. Allen __ ·················-

llelmont .•...•..•....•. _ Ashland ..••••••••••••••.
l<'rje_ - -················- Holmes_··············-Hocking_ .. ············- Huron_ ················Licking_ .•••••••••••••. _
Middle third of counties •• Jefferson.··············Lawrence ______________ _
Marion_···············l,orsin _________________ _ .E1'u1na,n
•••••••••••••••• Scioto ..•...••••...•.. -·- Richland ....•••••••••.• _
~tl\lk .......•••....... __ Sandusky..•••••••••••..
Wayne ...•......•.... __ _
Rrown_ • ••••••••••••• _·Butler_-············-··f'lermont ....•.••...... _
Franklin ........•...... _
Highest third or counties•. Oreene .•.•............. _
Lucas ______ ...•.•.....•.
:\fnntgomery .••.•...... _
Ottawa_ •••••••••••••••• _
Rummit_ .••.•.•.•.•.....

Champaign .••..........
Clark ..•.••......•..... _
Clinton .•••••••••••••... _
Fulton ..........•...... _
Lo~nn __ ··· .••...........
J\-T nclison .•..•.•••.......
Miami_ ..•..............
Paulding......•.•.......
V{arren ..••••.....•... __

wood ..•.. ·············- . ·•·•··• ...••.••..•.......

Coshocton
Delaware
Fairfield
Gallia
Meroel'
Monroe
Morgan
Morrow
Noble
Pike
Auglalu
Crawford
Defiance
Hardin
Highland
Ross
Union
Williams
Wyandot
Adams
Darke
Fayette
Hancock
Henry
Pickaway
Preble
&mca

t~~en

6. It was assumed that a sample drawn in the manner described
would be properly weighted for all practical purposes so that no weighting of final results would be called for in order to correct for disproportions growing out of the selection of the county units.
Following the general procedure outlined above, a total of 304
sample counties was selected to represent 31 States 10 for purposes
• In actual practice it was not always possible to select counties to meet the requirement of a 10 percent sample. Hence, some disproportions exist in the final
sample both within and among States.
1° Four sample counties in Arizona were included only in the Current Change
Survey in October 1935.

Dgi

zeclbyGoogle

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 173

of the Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population.
These counties included 117 of the 138 counties previously selected
to represent 9 agricultural areas. In addition to the counties 33
New Hampshire townships were selected, 11 largely on the bases of
size of population and geographical distribution, to represent all
townships in the State with less than 5,000 population. Forty
Connecticut townships and forty-three Massachusetts townships
selected by competent research students in those States were accepted
as satisfactory for the current change study. These sample townTal,le D.-Propoition of All Counties Included In Each State Sample and Propoition of
All Rural Families 1939' of All Rural Relief Cases Odober 1933, and of All Forms
January 1935 Found in :,ample Counties in 31 States
CountlM
Sample
counties

State

is
s
a,

All Statu
sampled•-- 2,600
Alabama __________ _ 07
Arltona ____________
14
Arkallll8s __________
75
Cauromfa _________ _ 68
Colorado___________
Florida ____________
Georgia____________
Iowa _______________
KallSBS ____________
Kentucky _________
Louisiana ___ _______
M lchlgan ________ __
Minnesota _______ __
MissourL __ _______
Montana __________

1

71

I

p..

3
s

J
z9

.!

s

Cl)

j

-(08,
- 900
-

--

7,030 10. 2
3,2118 29.0
2, S-13 9. 7
3,4i8 20.3
603 8. 7

273, 455 28,853 10.11
18,824 4,397 23.4
253,013 29, 777 11.8
150. 360 28,306 18. 8
63,644 0,3U 10.0

9.0
10. 6
10. I
12. 4
10.0

174, 2.51
428,689
373. 350
288, 48,5
401,935

19.961 11. 5
40,641 9. 5
37,671 JO. I
31,697 11.0
36,199 8.8

46, 958
35,400
10,683
19. 0-12
80,543

6,533
3,287
1,142
1.993
8,611

JI. 7
9.3
10. 7
10. 6
10.0

72. 857 II, 728 13.4
9.9
221,986 22, 123 10.0
174,689 19,719 11.8
278,298 24,543 8.8

16. 6
13. 3
14. 9
10. 5
14. 3

280, 925
380,313
298. 762
447,442
89,330

48, 702
41 ,258
60. 804
47,687
JI. 412

17. 3
10.8
17. 0
IO. 7
12. 8

37,985
48,479
9, fiH
13, 5.'i8
0,863

8,018 21.1
4,0H 8. 3
2,297 2-l. 1
792 5. 8
1,403 14. 2

170, 216
196,517
203,302
278. 454
60,564

31 , 388
2.5, 268
36. 526
32, 6.'i6
7,226

9 9. 7
6 8. 1
12 12. 0
8 16. I

217.196
629, 357
463. 589
119,076

2'l. l!l6 JO. 2
41,71 8 7. 9
46, 717 10. I
21,U9 17. 8

4,412
34,498
34, 950
8,351

619 14. 0
1,f;29 4. 4
2. 177 6. 2
2, 159 25. 11

133, 01~
177, 025
300. ll6i
84,606

12,8811 9. 6
16,084 9. 1
30, 290 JO. I
15,500 18. 4

11 . 4

II. 7
16. 7
17. 4

637,455
351. 5:!9
126. 7!10
277,056

65,392
38, 312
13. 182
36,007

10. 3
10. 9
IO. 4
12. 7

47, 081 3, 547 7. 6
74,803 8,434 11.3
4,442
211 4. 8
63. 631 IO, 700 17. 0

2..~5. 14n 28,686 11. 2
213,325 24,291 11. •
64,826 7,150 11.0
166,604 20, SM 12.6

9 13. 0
9 9. 5
28 11.0
6 20. 7

128. 261
375,391
778,601
61,951

19. 087
38,730
JOI, 24~
8,639

14. 9
10. 3
13. 0
16. 6

18,238
23. 218
31 , 147
6,653

1,006 10. 6
2.0H 8. 8
4,177 13. 4
632 11.2

83, 303 12. 399 14.11
273. 783 29,436 10. 8
6()1 , 017 66. 699 13.3
30,005 6,343 20. 7

13 13.0
6 15. 4
4
7. 3
II 12. 7

341. 848
178,853
2..57, 165
321,211

40, ,5;7 11. 9
19. 979 11. 2
18.647 7. 3
35. 749 II. I

6, 356
11,9!0
65,287
18,416

778 14. 6
266 2. 2
5,029 7. 7
1,772 9.0

197.1132 25,038 12. 7
84 . 381 9,985 11.8
IOI, 747 7,8.10 7.6
JOO, 877 21,868 10.9

10
11
13
12
8

55

.8

00, li8
II, 369
29,415
17, 112
6, 771

64

29

.

3

9 8
26. 2
11. 6
15.8
10.0

6
17
10
13
12

JOO
39

1

3
s

Sample
oountlel

40,0M
17,832
39,475
62,871
12,601

01
161
99
105
120

Bonth Dakota._ .. _ 69
Tennessee_. _____ __
96
Tel8s ______________ 254
Utah ______________

J

Sample
oountlel

ft7, 968
339,468
397,841
12.5,986

63

83

3
s
s

Farms. 1&nW11'7 1a•

304 13.2 9,650,074 1,094,259 11.4 896,344 100.:m 11. 2 5,627,073 6117,003 12. l

11.0
28.6
13. 3
20. 7
12. 7

87
114

Sample
counties

~
~
s
p..
;;;
z
z
z
"'
--- --- - - - -- - - - ~

7
4
10
12
8

56
Nebm.<ka __________
93
New York ______ __ _ 62
North Carolina ____ 100
North Dakota _____
63
Ohio _____ _____ _____
88
Oklahoma ________ _ 77
01'8Kon __ _________ _ 36
South Carolina ____
46

Virginia ___________
Washington _______
West Vlrl!'inla______
Wisconsin _________

.8

Rellefcases,
October 11133 I

Famillell, 11130 I

10
g
6
8

250,64-4 2-l,92'.l

18.4
12.11
18.0
11. 7
14. 3

Source: Fiftuntll Cem,u of the Uniltd Stnt,a: 1930, Population.
• Source: lfntmplovm,nt R tlirf Ctn.tlU, Octohrr 193$,
• Source: Uniltd St.au, Ctn•u• of A ,;ricuUure: 19$6.
• New Enll:land States e1cluded .
1

11

Included only in survey of June 1935.

Digitized by

Google

...,,.....

FIG. B - STATES REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES SAMPLED

•

2)>
~

z

G)

)>

§
0
.,,

"'
"'r-)>
!:"'
C:

.,,
"'

a

(C

~

ID
0.

~

L)
0

&
n

CONNE CTICUT, M ASSA CHUSETT S , AND N E W H A M PSH I RE
SAMPLED B Y TO W NSHtPS.
~E W H A M PSHIRE SA MPLED IN JUNE 1935 ONL Y.

AR IZONA SA MP L ED F ROM JULY 1135.

----

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 175

ships were selected to represent all townships having less than 5,000
population 12 (see fig. B and lists C and D).
The States sampled contained considerably more than three-fourths
of the total rural population of the United States in 1930, while the
total number of sample counties and townships contained about onetenth of the total rural population of the United States. The remaining States were not sampled because of lack of a cooperative plan for
rural research in those States and therefore lack of a research staff
for conducting field studies.
The size of the State samples averaged 12.2 percent of all counties.
This ratio ranged from 9.0 percent in Alabama and Florida to 20.7
percent in Utah and 28.6 percent in Arizona. The relative size of the
sample was necessarily large iµ the latter States because of the small
number and heterogeneous character of the counties from which the
samples were drawn (table D).
FIELD STUDIES CONDUOED IN SAMPLE COUNTIES
Survey of the Rural Relief Situation, October 1934

The first field study, Survey of the Rural Relief Situation, October
1934, was made as of October 1934. Household schedule DRS-77A
and county schedule DRS-77B were devised for this study (see
schedules A and B). Approximately 29,800 household schedules
were taken in 136 counties selected to represent the 9 areas, 2 counties
in the Ranching Area not being included. An additional 2,500 schedules were filled in 6 locally selected Pacific Coast counties and in 40
Connecticut townships. 13
Survey of Current Changes In the Rural Relief Population

In February 1935 the Survey of Current Changes in the Rural
Relief Population was inaugurated in the 138 sample counties. This
study was designed to provide periodic information concerning the
number and characteristics of rural relief and rehabilitation cases and
to provide current information regarding the number and characteristics of opened, reopened, and closed cases.
Schedule DRS-109 was devised as the main instrument for collecting data for the Current Change Study (see schedules C and D).
The schedule was used in its original form from February to June
and in a considerably revised form after June. Samples representative of cross sections of the rural and town a relief population
11 In these New England States the primary divisions of the counties are known
as towns or townships and include rural territory as well as compactly settled
areas.
11 For results of this study see Research Bulletins, Series F, Numbers 1-10,
Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Admin.
istration, Washington, D. C.
"Town: A center having from 2,500 to 4,999 inhabitants in 1930.

Dig IIZed by

Google

176 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

were taken in February, June, and October 1935. In addition to
these cross-section studies, samples were taken of cases closed during the interval March to June, inclusive, of cases opened, reopened,
and closed each month July to October, inclusive, and of cases opened
and reopened during November and December. These samples were
taken as representative of the nine agricultural areas prior to June
and as representative of both areas and States in June and succeeding
months.
At the close of the year 1935 schedule DRS-409A (see schedule E)
was devised for a study of rural families that had· received relief in
June 1935 but had been closed later. This schedule was taken in the
sample counties of seven States only.ta The study aimed to determine
the sources of livelihood of the cases in December 1935 and the
characteristics of families receiving their income from different sources,
including special forms of public assistance.
Reportlnf of Pvbllc and Private A....,_ce In Rural ad Town Areas

The Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population
was closed as of December 1935 when the FERA ceased operation.
At that time a new field study was inaugurated, namely, Reporting
of Public and Private Assistance in Rural and Town Sample Areas
(see schedule F).
This project was designed to obtain on a sampling basis current
information concerning (a) the intensity, (b) the cost, (c) the types,
and (d) the trend of public and private assistance in rural areas
including towns up to 25,000 population. 111 The State sample was
adjusted for this survey to insure representation of towns up to 25,000
population and was expanded to include the States of Illinois, Indiana,
and Mississippi.
SELECTION OF SAMPLE CASES WITHIN COUNTIES

In filling DRS-77A schedules as of October 1934 in 142 counties, 17
samples were taken from local agency files of case records. In order
to keep the total number of cases within the limits of time and expense
allowed for field work and tabulation, not more than 300 to 400 cases
were selected from any 1 county regardless of the size of the case
load in that county. The following sampling procedure was used in
each county surveyed.
15 Georgia, Iowa, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.
1° For the results and methodology of this study, eee Wynne, Waller, Jr.,
Five Yeqrs of Rural Relief, Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration, Washington, D. C., 1938.
17 Including 136 counties in the 9 agricultural areas and 6 locally selected Pacific
Coast counties.

Dgi

zeclbyGoogle

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 177

If there were-Fewer than 300 rural cases, all were enumerated.
300-399 rural cases, 2 out of every 3 cases were selected.
400-599 rural cases, every second case was selected.
600-899 rural cases, every third case was selected.
900-1,199 rural cases, every fourth case was selected.
1,200-1,499 rural cases, every fifth case was selected.
1,500-1,799 rural cases, every sixth case was selected.
1,800-2,099 rural cases, every seventh case was selected.
2,100-2,699 rural cases, every ninth case was selected.
2,700 rural cases or more, every tenth case was selected.
In combining the results of the survey by areas, it was possible to
apply proper county weights to correct for unequal sampling ratios.
In order to facilitate the selection of case samples, a complete
card file of all cases was set up in each county in February 1935
with the inauguration of the Survey of Current Changes in the Rural
Relief Population. For that file, control cards, form DRS-109B and
revised form DRS-109D, 18 were used (see schedules G and H). One
of these cards was filled for every rural and town relief or rehabilitation case in the county at the time that county began participating
in the survey. The card file was kept up to date for each case.
When a new case was extended assistance, a new card was filled.
When a case left the rolls, the card for that case was removed to a
closed case file. If the case later returned to the relief rolls, the card
was replaced in the active case file.
Samples were selected from the files of control cards. In drawing the
February sample the cards were arranged alphabetically in three
groups: (a) cases receiving unemployment relief only; (b) cases receiving rehabilitation loans only; and (c) cases receiving both relief and
rehabilitation loans. The number of cards selected was determined
according to the same procedure as that followed in October 1934.
Inordertoassureanadequatesamplefromeachcountyandinorderto
avoid weighting results by counties, sampling from control cards for the
DRS-109 schedule was done on a uniform 50 percent basis 19 after February 1935, selecting every second card from alphabetical groups. In
Octo her certain exceptions were made when in the interest of speed a few
counties with very large relief case loads were sampled on a 25 percent
basis, every fourth card being selected. The resulting disproportion was
adjusted by applying proper weights to the final results of the survey.
In taking the DR&-409A schedules, the sampling ratio ranged from
5 percent to 50 percent, depending on the size of the population sampled. In the interest of economy of time and expense, no adjustments
of these disproportions were made in the final tabulation of results.
18

18

Revised July 1935.
In Connecticut schedules were filled for all cases in the sample townships.

[)91.zedbyGooglc

178 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
COLLECTION OF DATA

AeldSlatF

Field studies were conducted in the sample counties under a joint
rural research plan by which the Division of Research, Statistics, and
Finance of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the State
Emergency Relief Administrations, and the State colleges of agriculture, or other institutions engaged in rural research in the States,
agreed to cooperate in conducting investigations of rural relief. The
rural sociologist or economist at the State college of agriculture was
appointed State supervisor of rural research in each State where
mutually satisfactory cooperative arrangements could be perfected
among the agencies interested.
The State supervisors of rural research were men exceptionally
well qualified to supervise the field work necessary in connection with
the rural studies. 20 As they were full-time workers on the staffs of
their State colleges, they did not spend any considerable amount of
time in the field in detailed supervision of field work but were responsible for its direction and for the prompt and accurate return of
schedules to the national office.
In addition to the State supervisor of rural research, the field
personnel consisted of a full-time assistant supervisor and a survey
staff, including clerical workers. The assistant supervisors of rural
research were persons experienced in social and economic research
who had graduate training equivalent at least to a master's degree.
The clerical personnel was made up of local persons who were qualified for work under the provisions of the professional and technical
works program carried on by the FERA. Most of these workers
conformed to the "needs test" as applied by the State emergency
relief administrations. However, no person was employed on the
survey staff unless he was considered well qualified to perform the work
required. Carefully written instructions were provided these workers
by the Washington Office and, in addition, personal instruction and
training was given them by the State supervisor or assistant supervisor of rural research.
Sourca ol Data

In general, duta entered on schedules taken in the sample counties
were transcribed from family case record cards on file in local relief
offices. Such records had previously been filled in connection with
the investigation and social service activities of the agencies concerned.
In some instances information for specific items on the schedules
was obtained by interviews with case workers and from local relief
or rehabilitation officials. Some of the information given by the
DR&--409 schedule was obtained through family interview.
so

See attached list of State supervisors.

DgitzeclbyGoogle

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 179

Eclltln9 Schedules and Tabulatln9 Raulb

More than 270,000 DRS-109 and DRS-109A schedules were filled
in the field during the months the survey was in progress. These
schedules were edited in the field and were carefully re-edited in the
Washington Office. Each section on every schedule submitted was
carefully examined to detect, wherever possible, erroneous, inconsistent, incomplete, or missing entries. In order to insure the greatest possible accuracy of the data, each schedule which needed revisions that could not be made by the editor from other entries was
returned to the field for completion or revision. Coding, punching, and machine tabulation were done in Washington and New
York.
REPRESENTATIVENESS OF SAMPLE

An accurate or representative sample is a miniature picture of a
larger whole. The conclusions drawn from such a sample apply,
within reasonable limits, to the entire field from which the sample
was drawn. It is of greatest importance that a sample be selected
in such a manner that its statistical values measure what they are
supposed to measure; that is, so that they measure that larger whole
predefined as constituting the population 21 to be studied. It is
possible for a sample to be representative of a larger population of
units, but through bias in selection that population may not coincide
with that which the sample was supposed to represent. Hence, the
measure may not actually apply to the field presumably under investigation. In order for a sample to measure the !urge whole it
is supposed to measure, it must include all the important phases of
the whole and must include them in their proper proportions. Such
a sample is said to be an unbiased or valid sample. If the sample
is at the same time sufficiently large to reduce accidental errors and
to produce stable measures the sample is said to be reliable.
Two major questions arise concerning the accuracy of the relief
studies here described. The first question relates to the precision
of the data themselves and the second question concerns the representativeness of the sample. The final results of the studies would
be biased if there were constant errors in recording the original
data. The accuracy of the data depends upon the correctness of the
sources used. As has been pointed out, secondary sources were used
almost exclusively in filling household schedules. Specific entries
on agency case records as well as data supplied by such informants
as ease workers, case aides, or relief officials may often have been in
error. Very few items were of such nature, however, that one would
expect a constant error in reporting. Error in one direction would
probably be cancelled by errors in opposite directions. Hence, while
11 The term population is used in its technical sense to indicate the entire number of units represented by a sample.

Dig ll,ed by

Google

180 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

inaccuracies may have been present in individual case schedules,
averages were likely to be essentially correct. It may be pointed
out that information was collected from ERA agencies only,
local poor relief being excluded. Relief standards maintained by
these ERA agencies were generally high, including the standards of maintaining complete and accurate records. Records were
particularly good in the sample counties because of cooperation of local
case workers and relief officials in the research aim to report accurate
data.
One of the most pertinent questions that can be asked concerning
any sample is whether it is representative of the whole which final
generalizations are purported to encompass. In the discussion of
this question in connection with the rural relief samples reviewed,
it is necessary to exercise caution in the claims made for their
accuracy. Samples selected from a totality for which no complete
enumeration exists can never be directly tested statistically for their
representativeness. The search for a solution must be directed largely
to the application of logic and sound judgment rather than to the
application of mathematical computations.
In undertaking the development of a procedure for selecting
samples representative of the rural relief population, three major
diflicul ties had to be recognized.
The relief situatinn in o, particular locality as of o, particul,ar month.
may be largely o, reflection of administrative policy.-Much of the
variation in phases of rural relief is not a result of natural socioeconomic conditions about which a priori knowledge is available but
is a result of unpredictable differences in programs and policies of
relief administration. Such differences arise among counties within
particular States as well as among the States themselves. Hence,
temporary shortage of funds may result in curtailment of relief or
in dropping certain classes of clients during a particular month.
Special classes of relief clients may be shifted from the general relief
rolls to special relief programs. Local relief administrators may
order all employable members of a particular occupational group
removed from relief because seasonal employment is considered available for them during a particular month. All cases may be closed
pending reinvestigation of the eligibility of each client for relief.
These and numerous other administrative differences and changes are
unpredictable and beyond the reckoning of the investigator.
The relief situation in a locality as of a particul,ar month may be
largely a reflection of temporary factors that profoundly affect the
relief program.-Temporary pick-up or shut-down of industrial
plants may remove or add certain types of clients. Every year floods
occur in some localities, producing the necessity for temporary aid
to their victims. Loss of crops and livestock bee a use of drought, insect

Dg1tzedbyGoogle

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 181

infestations, or other reasons occur in some localities yearly. In
years of widespread drought the extent of its devastation differs
widely among the localities affected.
The major purpose of the relief 8'Urveys conducted made it necessary tMI they cover many aspects of rural relief.-The relief studies
under discussion were not made for the purpose of providing scientific discoveries in the social field. Rather, these studies were made
for the purpose of providing information that would contribute to
the solution of pressing problems confronting the persons charged
with the task of administering relief. The questions which needed
answers were many, covering all phases of the rural relief situation.
Sampling for the answer to a single specific question would be relatively simple. It is known, however, that a sample representative
for one purpose will not necessarily be representative for other purposes. It was recognized from the beginning that the difficulties involved in the selection of a sample that would represent the rural
relief population in its multitudinous aspects were enormous.
The natural reaction to the above discussion is that, because of lack
of statistical controls known to be relevant to the various aspects of
rural relief, a strictly random sample should have been taken. This
should have included a large number of counties, selected in such
manner as to allow each relevant factor an equal chance of inclusion.
On purely theoretical grounds this is probably true. Practical considerations, however, made the random sample impossible. The
optimum number of counties that the field staff of each State was
equipped to survey under existing limitations on time and expense
was known. In order to assure an approach to that optimum, it
was necessary to control the sample to the extent of predetermining
the number of counties in each State and in each area.
The question may still be raised, however, as to the advisability
of selecting counties at random within each State or area. Again,
practical considerations made the random sampling method impossible. In certain counties the relief case records were found to
be in such poor condition as to render the county useless as a sample.
In other counties local relief officials declined to cooperate with the
survey staff. Hence, in the final selection of the sample it was
necessary not only that the counties be as representative as possible
but that they be counties from which trustworthy information could
be had with as great ease as possible. This necessitated the selection
of a controlled sample.
In spite of the numerous pitfalls into which a sampling method
might lead when applied to the field of rural relief, it is believed
that the samples taken are accurate enough in their general aspects
for most practical purposes. This belief is based on the following
considerations.

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

182 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

The way the sample wa8 selected had an important bearing on its
mlidity.-The factors used as controls in selecting sample counties
for relief surveys were chosen on the basis of logic, reasoning, judgment, and common sense considerations on the part of those investigators who aided or advised in the development of the sampling procedure. The controls used were those readily available from the 1930
Census and which were judged relevant to the purposes of the studies
contemplated.
The application of the sampling procedure resulted in the selection
of a series of counties that were truly representative with respect to
various background factors. They were representative not only of
the factors directly controlled in selecting them, such as type of
farming, farm tenancy, farm labor, farm and nonfarm distribution
of the population, and per capita land value, but they proved to be
representative also of other background variables. For example,
data given by the 1935 Census of Agriculture were used for testing.
Tal,le E.-Proi:,ortion of All Farm Operato11 Who Worked 150 Days or More off
Their Farms During 1934 for State as a Whole and for Sample Counties In 31 States
Sample OOUDtllll

State total

Total

rarmen

Part-time rarmen
Number

Percent

Total
farmen

Part-time rumen
Number

Percent

All States sampled• ........

6,627,073

«s. 013

8.1

081,466

S2, 100

7.8

Alabama ...............•.........
Arizona ..............•........... _
Arkansas ........•.....•••.•..••..
California..•.............•........
Colorado.•••.•.......•....••.•... _

273,465
18,824
263,013
150,380
113,1144

16,901
3,318
11,376
:16, 121
6, 126

S.8
17.11
4.S
17. 4

28,063
4,197

l,444

211, 77V

7118

6.0
17.6

28,306

8. I

:11.1

11,341

1,378
6, 1111()
'38

Florida ............. _.............
Georgia .......... _............... _
Iowa ..............................
Kansas ..... __ .. -··_ ...• -.........
Kentucky .........................

72,857
250, Ii«
221,llfl6
174,589
278,298

11,424
111,631
9,742
11,762
20,227

IS. 7
II.II
4.4
II. 7
7.3

9,728
26, 8711
~123
IV, 719
24,643

1,117'

17.2

1.028
1,215()

6.8
4.11
8.3
1.7

Louisiana ....... _........... __ .. __
Michigan_-···············--·--·-Minnesota._ ......................
Missouri.. ....•...................
Montana ... --····················
Nebraska_. __ - --·· --- ..........•..
New York.·----··--·•············
North Carolina. __ . __ ............ _
North Dakota ...........•.....•..

170,216
196,517
203,302
278,454
50,564

S. 820

s. 2

II\ 934
1\630
19,100
4,197

9.11
4. 2
11.t
8.3

31,388
26, 2118
311, S20
32,MS
7, 2211

1,676
2,238
1,811
2,072

e.a

133,616
177,025
300,967
84,606

4,497
22,369
26,977
2,637

3. 4
12.6
9.0
3.1

12,886
16,084
30,290
16, S90

48G
2, 2119

S.8
14.3

2,842

8. 7

482

2.8

Ohio.... __ ........ __ ............•..
Oklahoma............... _........
Ore~on .. ·••- -·- ____ . __ -··· ·······South Carolina ..•.. _..........•..

2.~5, 146
213,325
1;4, 826
165, 504

29,35a
11,271
10,009
14,947

11_ 5

2,3311
1.175
1,082
2,038

8.1

S. 3
15. 4
9.0

28, es&
24, 291
7,150
20,865

South Dakota. __ . __ ._ ............
Tennessee ..... __ ...... -··········
Texas ... ---·······················
Utah .•......................•....

8.1. 303
273, iSJ
501,017
30,695

3,056

3. 7
s_ 2
11.R
14.0

12,399
29,436
M,1199
11,343

483
2,303

34,209
4,289

VlrJ?infa __ ···-----------··········
Washinl(ton ........ _.............
West Virginia .....................
Wisconsin ....... _................

197,632
8~. 381
104. 747
199,877

29,807
13,300
16,095
11,339

15_ l
15. 9
15. 4
s. 7

2S, 038

8,517
1,637
1,843
I, 231

22,462

9,985
7,830
21,868

I. 4114

i.eas

liOl

3,«2

m

Data not available for townships In Connertlrut and Massachmetts.
Source: UnUtd Slatt1 Ctn.ml of Agriculture: 19$5.

1

Dgi

zeclbyGoogle

4.'

e,e

6. 0
8.'

6.0

8.8

4.8
16. I

11.8
4.0
7.8
5.2
12.2

14.0
16. 4
17.2

11.8

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 18 3

That the sample counties were highly representative of most of the
States with respect to part-time farming during 1934 and with respect to movement of population to farms during the depression is
shown in accompanying tables 22 (tables E and F).
Table f.--Proportion of the Total Farm Population January 1935 That Reported a
Nonfann Residence 5 Years Earlier for State as a Wliole and for Sample Counties in
31 States
State total
State

Sample counties

Moved from nonlann
residence
Farm populntion,
JY35
Number
Percent

Farm population,

I, 500,609

11.0

3, 146. 315

183,909

5.8

4. 6
10. I
4.4
II. 7
9. 7

146,955
21,014
J,40, 138
118,922
25,614

II, 337
2,585
6,254
12,577
2,325

4.3
12. 3
4. 5
10.6

36,469
141,744
95,657
78,488
113,368

2, Ifill
4,359
6. 572
4,956
6,334

5.11
3.1
6. 8
11.3
5.11

3. 6

All Statessampled '·······- 25,007,427

11135

Moved from nonlann
residence
Number

Percent

Alabnma_ .••....•••••••••• -•.••• -Arlwna ___ .••••• -····-···· -· __ -· _.
Arkansas_.··········-···· .•.•.. __
California.••••.•••.•. -·······- .. - Colorado••••.••••••••.••••..•.... _

), 386,074

100,083
I, 180,238
608, 8.18
276, 1!18

63,6115
10, 0,2
51,763
71,078
26,920

Florida .•.•.....•.•••••.•..•.•....
Georgia .......•••••••••.••..... _..
Iowa .... _....................... - Kansas ..•..••..•••••••.••••......
Kentucky ••••••••••••••••••.•••..

319,658

22, 2fl7

l, 40.5, 9-14
967,979
70:1, 743
1,307,816

57, 582
51,168
4S, 395
Ill, 326

7. 0
4. I
5. 3
6. 9
4. 7

Louisiana_ .•.•••..............•...
Mirhi~an_ ....••.......•......... _
Minnesota...•.•.•.....•..•.•...•.
Mis.sour!.. •........•........... -..
Montana .••••••••..•..••.•••.•...

8,59, 351

840, 514
92S. 487
I, IS.1, 499
195,262

31,186
110,413
49, 676
81,958
15,674

13.1
5. 4
6. 9
8.0

160,439
108, 12S
164,199
147,857
26,710

11,684
13,317
10,207
9,796
2,296

3.5
12. 3
6.2
6.6

NebrRSka_ ....•.•.••••••.•••.•.•..
New York---··················--North <'arolina ••.•.••...••....•..
North Dakota •••••.•••.••••.•. _._

580,694
7S4, 4S3
1,62:l,481
31>5, 614

23,299
81,514
60,Zil
11,562

4.0
JO. 4
3.1
3.0

55,959
72, f,HJ
163,341
71,245

2,200
8, 4;14
5,402
2,365

4. 1
11.6
3.3
3.3

Ohio ... _..••...•.•.....•..........
Oklahoma
••..••.•.•........•.....
Oregon. __________________________
South Carolina...................

I, 127,405
1,015, 51;2
248. 767
948,435

105,297
71, 186
45,141
32,610

9. 3
7. 0
18.1
3.4

124,040
114, 109
27,544
124,344

9,093
7, 4fl6
I!, 149
3,213

6. 5
18. 7
2. II

South Dakota.•••••.••..•••.•... _
Tennessee .•••......••.•.....•. _..
Texas ...••..•.•...••...•••••.••...
Utah ••••.•••.••.•••..•.••••••... _

358.~
I, :~l8. 420
2, :1:12. 693
)&;,242

12,950
59,400
112, 774
9, 1118

3.6
4. 5
4. 8
6. 7

53, ll55
146,076
314,465
27,625

2,266
5, 6~1
11,641
1,447

4. i
3.8
3. 7
6. 2

Vlrl!infa __ ••.•.•.•........•.•.....
W ashin~ton .•...•..•...•.•.•.•...
West Virginia •.••..•.•.....•.•...
Wisconsin ••••......•••.•••••••...

I, O.'\.l 469

40,0!i.1
47,818
47, ir.o
63,357

3. 8
14. 2
8. 4
6.8

135,545
40,575
43, 011
105, 196

4,950
6,678

3. 7
16.5
11.2
7. 1

a:15, ~4o
51H. 019
930,615

4,821)

7,419

11.1

8.11

8. l

Data not available !or town.ships in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Source: Un/ltd State, c,mm of Agrlcultur,: 11135.

1

The fact that the counties were representative of numerous background factors does not, however, assure their representativeness
with regard to the aspects of relief actually studied. Making a
sample representative in some respects only increases the possibilities
that it will be representative in other aspects. Representativeness
with respect to other aspects is assured only to the extent that the
background factors are relevant to the purposes of the study, i. e.,
relevant to those aspects in which one is interested.
12 With respect to part-time farming and movement to farms, the results shown
by States in the 1935 Census of Agriculture could have been obtained within

reasonable limits of accuracy if the study had been limited to the sample counties.

[)91.zedbyGooglc

184 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

Tests indicate that the sampling procedure followed actually gave
a fa.ir degree of control over aspects of the rural relief situation.
They indicate that the factors judged relevant on a priori reasoning
were actually pertinent to the purposes of the studies. In the tabulation of data a few classifications of the relief population of each
sample county were made. Hence, it was possible to determine the
variation among sample counties with regard to certain aspects of
rural relief and to test this variation against the variation among
the counties with respect to the control factors used in selecting the
sample. The object of such tests was to determine whether the relationships among phases of relief and background factors expected on
logical grounds were actually found in the results of the study.
For example, one of the major purposes of the rural relief studies
was to determine the distribution of the relief population between
farm and nonfarm residence. As an index of this distribution, the
percent of the rural relief cases located in the open country 28 was
determined. This index is available for each of the sample counties.
Significant and consistent relationships were found between this relief variable and the background factors used as controls. Figure
C shows this relationship in the Corn Belt, the area used for illustrative purposes.
In selecting the counties from the Corn Belt it was assumed
that the residence distribution and other aspects of the rural relief
population would depend to some extent upon the fertility of the soil,
upon the residence distribution of the general rural population, and
upon the proportion of wage laborers among agricultural workers,
and that a sample representative of these factors would also be representative of the relief variable. It appears that these assumptions
were essentially correct. There was an unmistakable tendency for
those counties having low per capita land value to have a large proportion of relief clients resident in the open country, and for those
counties having high land values to have a small proportion of their
relief clients in the open country. In other words, the relief variable
is negatively correlated with the background factor.u This negative
relationship is not disturbed by the subgrouping of the counties on
the basis of the other two background factors. Regardless of the
subgroupings, counties with high land values had low proportions of
open country relief cases. Counties with low land values had high
proportions of open country relief cases, and counties with intermediate land values had intermediate values of the relief index
(fig. C).

As was to be expected on logical grounds, a positive relationship
was found between the residence distribution of the general rural
u Outside of centers having 50 or more inhabitants.
u The rank-difference coefficient of correlation was found to be -.53.

DgltzectbyGoogle

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT 04ANGE STUDIES • 185
Led wolul per caplto ol tbl rural-farm populatlon
t..ntlhl,tl
of Counl#I

i 80
l.otHII
/111,d

of

«IUIIII••

I

1

Hlf~II 1111,tl
ol coun1t•1
of counliH
Agricultural wage 110ri.1 at a
percent of all ogrlcultural WOl'Mrl

llid(II• IN,tl

----·. i.-st third of counllll
- • - Middle lhlrd of cauntltt
- - tilglleet lhlnl a l ~

_.,.....

i

'"°

.!:

J

20

f80
Rural-fora
poj!Ulatlon

at a
percent

of letal
rural

,o,ulotloll

Middl•
lhinJ
of

~-·

&
u
C

•:

40

.!:
1:

•e

l,

20

~ 60

1:
Highnt
Ill/rd
of

"""*

,1a C •

8

.!

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BACKGROUND FACTORS ANO THE
PERCENT OF THE RURAL RELIEF POPULATION
~OCATEO IN OPEN COUNTRY IN 27 SAMPLE
CORN BELT COUNTIES
June 1935

l)g1

zeObyGooglc

186 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

population and the residence distribution of the rural relief population. Some relationship between the farm labor index and the relief
index was also found. The data do not show sufficient consistency,
however, to indicate clearly the nature or significance of this relationship (fig. C and table G).
The relationship between the background factors and the proportion of the relief population resident in the open country is not entirely consistent but is disturbed in several instances by administrative
factors and by the operation of temporary emergencies. Hence,
three counties (Hall and Johnson, Nebr., and Hutchinson, S. Dak.)
with very high land ve.lues show large proportions of agricultural
families on relief because of the very great impoverishment of the
rure.1-fann population by drought in 1934 and by adverse weather
conditions during the spring of 1935. An unduly high proportion of
open country residents was on relief in Hickory County, Mo., because of drought in 1934 and floods in 1935. An unexpectedly low
percent of the agricultural population we.s on relief in Brookings,
S. De.k., because of the administrative shift of farmers from genera.I
relief to a special program of rural rehabilitation (table G).
To6le G.-Relationship Between Background Factors and the Percent of the Rural Relief
Population Located in Open Country in 27 Sample Com Belt Counties, June 1935
Land value per capita of the rural-farm population
Rural-farm
population as
percent or
total rural
population

Low""t

third of
counties

Middle
third of
oounties

Ill~hest
third or
counties

Agricultural wage
workers as a
Jl('rrent or all
agricultural
workers

Lowest third of
counties

Middle third of
counties

Highest third of
counties

Percent In open
country

Percent In oper.
country

Percent In open
country

Lowest
third of
counties

30

25

15

Putnam

Guthrie

Woodford

Mirlrlle
thirrl of
counties

Z1

16

11

Fountain

Hitchcock

Calhoun

Hi~hest
third of
counties

52

41

11

Clinton

Scott

Ida

Lowest
third of
countie.11

40

36

36

Smith

Wabaunsee

Johnson

Middle
third of
counties

35

29

M

Hancock

Washington

Hutchinson

Hi~hest
third of
counties

M

41

23

Mol'!Zan

Whiteside

Pierce

Lowest
third or
counties

73

153

22

Illckory

Black Hawk

Marshall

M!rldle
third or
rounties

52

u

Z1

Ray

Mahaska

Page

Hi~hest
third or
counties

Bhelhy

50

I

24

411

Brookings

Hall

D91

zeabyGooglc

~--------

.

-

-

-

Randolph

Ml&oourf :

South Dakota:
Oreco17

llemy

Indwla:
CUii

Bamlltou
HSffCOdl

Y1

z.

Pulaak.l

Ohio:
Aug)alN

Ohio:

Remy
Preble

Illlllols:
Bl'OWD
Sbelb7
Iowa:

I

Iowa:
Wapello

:a::-:

Jeffenou

Nebnata:
Cedar

Brem•

z,

IDdlaoa:
Cllutou
D-itu
Olb!IOD
Boward
Xno:r

Indlaua:

Morva11

Putnam
Tippecanoe
Dllnols:
Sobu7Jer
Iowa:
Winnebago

XIUl!&'I:

Doniphan
Minnesota:
Renv111e

I

Nebraska:
Dawson
Ohio:

R<a
Mlsaoarl:

Benton

z,

Cedar
De Kalb
Hidor,
St. Clair

KaoM11:
Allen
Jactaon

Y1

z,

kli:.i

IDdlana:
Boone

Indiana:
Fayet te
Juper
Ruab

~a,,

z,

Tipton
IIUDoll:

Boone

ML'Murl :
Wartll

Kansa.• :
N-

X-:
Bourbon
l'ranklln

Iowa:

Graham
Jewell

Ohio:
Fa:,ette

Indiana :
Poltou
Wabuh

Mis9ourt :

Monroe

.Rar

i-a:

Colorado:
Yuma

Lee

Nebraska:

Jetlenon

Mlsaonrt:
Bates

,_,

Sherman

Ohio:
Van Wert

m 1nol.:

Ohio:

Xan!II!!:

MID.DMOta:
Chippewa

Atchison
Dougw

Pickaway

Mlallourl:

Andrew
Pettis

Ohio:

Banoock

X-land Yaiue per capita of the rurel-lerm population.
Y -percent of rural familie.s that nrc lnrm fam11ie, .
Z -pel'Ollnl or all gainful agricultural workers lhet a.re wage ""
Subec:rtpt 1 lndlcates the lowest third or the 363 counties with
Digitized by

Google

Digitized by

Google

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 187

It seems clear that the factors used in selecting a controllAd sample
for relief purposes were relevant. This does not mean that the sampling procedure followed was a perfect one, for administrative factors, as well as such emergency conditions as drought, flood, hail,
insect infestation, strikes, etc., were not taken into account in selecting it. However, the sampling procedure followed gave sufficient
control of the variation in the general aspects of rural relief to assure
a fairly representative sample and thereby to render the main conclusions of the studies conducted reliable for most practical purposes.
Statistical tests indicated tluu the sample CO'Unties were, in generali
representative with respect to certain aspects of the rural relief popul.a,.
lion of October 1933.-As shown above, it was found a posteriori tha1
the background factors used in stratifying counties for the selection
of samples were relevant in that they controlled a certain amount of
the variation in aspects of rural relief. Possibility of bias because of
local administrative policy and other local conditions was, however,
implicit in the sampling method used. The only complete check on
the extent of such bias would be a comparison of relief aspects found
in the sample counties with those in all counties from which the
sample was drawn. Unfortunately no such check was possible since
no complete enumeration was made during the period when studies
were being conducted in the sample counties.
Only one complete census of the rural relief population was ever
taken. 26 That enumeration was made as of October 1933, only 6
months after the organization of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. Considerable information was collected by that census.
However, the published information is not satisfactory as a means of
checking relief samples taken more than a year later. In the interim
between the time the Unemployment Relief Census was taken and the
time the sample studies were made, important changes took place in the
rural relief field. These changes are reflected in such factors as the great
drought of 1934, the extension of Federal relief to include all counties of the country, the development of a special program of rural
rehabilitation, the development of a works program, and the development of higher standards of relief administration. In view of these
changes it is not to be expected that the various aspects of rural relief
in 1935 would be entirely similar to those of October 1933.
While the rural relief samples of 1935 cannot legitimately be
checked against the rural relief universe of October 1933, it is possible
to check the extent to which the selected counties constituted a
sample representative of some phases of the rural relief population
of that month. From county data in the Unemployment Relief
Census, the representativeness of the sample counties was tested in
• Unemployment Relief Census, October 19/!Jl!J, Federal Emergency Relief Ad-

ministration, Washington, D. C.

Dig l1zed by

Goog IC

188 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

-two respects, (a) with respect to aggregate numbers of rural relief cases
and (b) with respect to average number of persons per rural relief case.
A close estimate of the aggregate number of rural cases receiving
relief in the 9 agricultural areas in October 1933 could have been
made from a count of the cases in the 138 sample counties. For example, the 138 counties contained 8.1 percent of all rural families in
the 9 areas in 1930. They contained 7.8 percent of all rural relief
cases in the same areas as reported by the Unemployment Relief
Census, a fairly close agreement. Such close agreement between
these ratios was not found in each of the nine separate areas though
in most areas a fairly satisfactory comparison was obtained (table
B). Likewise, a reasonably close estimate of the number of rural
cases receiving relief in 31 States in October 1933 could have been
made from a count of cases in the 304 sample counties selected to
represent these States. The 304 sample counties selected from 31
States contained 11.4 percent of all rural families in those States in
1930. They contained 11.2 percent of all rural relief cases reported by
the Unemployment Relief Census. The relief ratio showed considerable departures in some individual States (table D). Such discrepancies were to be expected, however, because of local administrative fac. tors contingent upon the developmental stage of relief in October 1933.
The State saxnples were representative with respect to the average
size of rural cases in October 1933. In 283 counties selected to represent 29 States• the ratio of rural relief persons to cases was the same
as in all counties from which the samples were selected, the ratio
being 4.5 persons per case. In nine of the separate States the average number of persons per case was the same for the sample as for
the State. In each of 13 States the sample average departed from
the State average by only one-tenth person per case. In no State
was the discrepancy greater than two-tenths person per case.
The fact that the sample counties were representative in these
respects increases the confidence that they were representative in
other respects, and the fact that they were representative of aspects
of rural relief in October 1933 increases confidence although it does
not prove that they were also representative in the months in which
interest centers.
Close comparison between the averages given by the area and Stak
samples indicated that the two samples were actually representative
of the same relief population.-This in itself was not so much an
argument for the validity as for the reliability of the sampling procedure; that is, the procedure produced consistent results. In other
words, it may be said that regardless of whether the samples pro"Colorado and Virginia excluded because of lack of, or small number of, cases
in sample counties. New England States excluded because of lack of information
by townships.

[)91.zedbyGooglc

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 189

vided unbiased pictures of the populations they were supposed to
represent, they did provide consistent pictures of a relief population.
Beginning with June 1935, tabulations of the data given by the
Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population were
made by States for all States sampled. In order to preserve the
continuity of the previous surveys, however, tabulations were also
made by areas, combining the infonnation collected in 138 counties
selected from 9 agricultural areas. Hence, in June and October the
results of two cross-section studies of the rural relief population
were available for comparison. Results of the one study were derived from a sample of about 29,000 schedules taken in 138 counties
selected from 9 agricultural areas. Results of the other study were
derived from a larger sample of nearly 61,000 schedules taken in 300
counties and 83 New England townships. The larger sample included 117 of the counties and about 23,000 of the schedules of the
smaller sample. The one sample was, however, in all respects at
least twice as large as the other (table H). Moreover, the larger
sample included all types of agricultural and of most rural nonagricultural enterprises in the United States.
Tcrlile H.--Comparison of Larger and Smaller Sample With Respect to Size and With
Respect to Specified Relief Items, June 1935

Smaller
Larger
sample• sample t

Item
Sill

or

BAIIPLK

Percent
Percent of
of all
all oountles
oounties sampled
in United_______
States-----------------·-··-·-----------·-·-·-------_____________________________________________ _
Percent or all rural families (1930) in areas or States sampled ________________________ _
Percent of all rural families (1930) In United States_--------------------------------·
Percent of all farm operators (IU35) in areas or States sampled _______________________ _
Percent of ell farm operators (193.5) In United States ________________________________ _
Total
number or
____and
----·-------------·--·----···-··---·------Tot&l number
or case
casesschedules
in sampletoken.
counties
townships ____________________________ _

ai:ui:r ITEMS
Percent or rural relfefca!e!I BJ11ong all rural families, 1930 ____________________________ _
Percent orrelie!ffll11lers among all !armers, 1935 _____________________________________ _
Percent ofunemployahle cases among all rural cases ________________________________ _
Percent of village cases among all rural cs..scs. _______________________________________ _
Percent orrarm operator heeds BJ11ong all heeds _____________________________________ _
Percent oflarm laborer heads among all heads ______________________________________ _
Percent of nonagricultural heeds BJ11ong all beads ___________________________________ _
Percent or normal families among ell=-------------·----------------------------·
Percent or broken ramilies among all cases. _________ ··-·----------------------·-----Percent change In number of rural ca.scs, June to October lll36 ______________________ _
Average number of persons per rural case _______ ··-··---------·-----·---------------Percent of persons under 16 years of age among all relief persons ____________________ _
Percent or persons 16-24 yellr.l of age among oil relief persons ________________________ _
Percent of persons~ years of age among ell relief persons. _______________________ _
Percent of persons 65 years end over among all relief persons________________________ _
Average number of workers per employable ease ____________________________________ _
Percent or I-person households among all rural cases. _______________________________ _

8. 2
4.6
8. I
4. 4

8. I
5.0
29,258
68,616

10. 5
6.6
12. 6

38.8

31.0
II. 7
39.5
73. 0
10.11
-24.11
4.3
43.3
16. 3
35.1
6.2
1.6
9. 5

12. l
11.8
12.1
8.8
12. l
10.0
II0,674
120,4n

10.8
6. 7
12.0
39.1
31.8
13.1
38. 0
72. 4
10.8
-24. 7
4.3
42.11
18.0
35.8
6.2
1. 6
II.II

t 138 oounties.
• 300 oounties and 83 New England townships.

Notwithstanding the great difference in size and geographical coverage of the two June samples, when the results were compared, it
was found that nearly all of the general conclusions drawn from the

D ~jl' zect by

Goos le

190 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

one were substantiated by the other. For example, the relationship
between the relief population and the general population was not
widely different in the two samples (10.5 and 10.8 percent). The
distribution of the relief population with respect to residence, etnployability, occupational characteristics, age, and household composition was not significantly different in the two samples. The percent
decrease of the case load from June to October 1935 was almost identical in the two samples (24.9 and 24.7 percent) (table H).
What significance iR to be attached to the close correspondence between the results of the area and State samples? Two probabilities
are indicated. It is probable that the rural relief population in the
nine areas originally sampled was, as a whole, not essentially different in many respects from that in the combined areas not sampled
(see discussion of areas not sampled, page 166). It is further probable that the counties and townships selected as State samples or as
parts of State samples but lying outside the original 9 areas (there
were 117 such counties and 83 New England townships) represent
fairly well that portion (or most of that portion) of the rural United
States outside the 9 areas. It appears that provisional generalizations concerning the general aspects of rural relief and embracing the
entire rural United States may be made from either sample. Such
generalizations would in all probability be sufficiently accurate for
practical purposes.
LIST A.--COUNTIES IN NINE AGRICULTURAL AREAS
Eattem Cotton Area
Alabama:
Aut,mga
Harbour
Bibb
Blount
Bullock
Butler
Calhoun
Chambers
Cherokee
Chilton
Choctaw
Clarke
Clay
Cleburne
Coffee
Colbert
Conecuh
Coosa
Covington
Crenshaw
Cullman
Dale
Dallas
De Kalb
Elmore
Escambia
Etowah
Favctte
Franklin

Alabama-Contd.
Geneva
Greene
Hale
Henry
Houston
Jackson
Lamar
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Lee
Limestone
Lowndes
Macon
Madison
Marengo
Marion
Man,hall
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Perry
Pickens
Pike
Randolph
Russell
St. Clair
Shelby
Sumter
Talladega

Alabama-Contd.
Tallapoosa
Tuscaloosa
Walker
Washington
Wilcox
Winston
Arkansas:
Ashley
Bradley
Calhoun
Chicot
Clark
Clav
Cleburne
Cleveland
Columbia
Conway
Craighead
Crittenden
Cross
Dallas
Desha
Drew
Faulkner
Garland
Grant
Greene
Hempstead
Hot Spring

D,gllzed by

Google

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 191

Arkan!l&S-Contd.
Howard
Independence
Izard
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Lawrence
Lee
Lincoln
Little River
Lop;an
Lonoke
Miller
Mississippi
Monroe
Montp;omery
Nevada
Ouachita
Perry
Phillips
Pike
Poinsett
Pope
Pulaski
Ran<lolph
St. Francis
Saline
Scott
Sharp
{;nion
Van Buren
White
Woodruff
Yell
Georp;ia:
Baker
Baldwin
Banks
Barrow
Bartow
Ben Hill
Bleckley
Bulloch
Burke
Butts
Calhoun
Campbell
Candler
Carroll
Catoosa
Chattahoochee
Chattooga
Cherokee
Clarke
Clay
Clayton
Cobb
Colquitt
Columbia
Coweta
Crawford
Crisp
Dawson
De Kalb
Dodge
Dooly
Douglas

Georgia-Contd.
Early
Elbert
Emanuel
Evans
Fayette
Floyd
Forsvth
Fran.klin
Glascock
Gordon
Greene
Gwinnett
Hall
Hancock
Haralson
Harris
Hart
Heard
Henry
Houston
Irwin
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson
Lamar
Laurens
Lee
Lincoln
McDuffie
Macon
Madison
Marion
Meriwether
Miller
Mitchell
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Murray
Newton
Oconee
Oglethorpe
Paulding
Peach
Pickens
Pike
Polk
Pulaski
Putnam
Quitman
Randolph
Richmond
Rockdale
Schley
Screven
Spalding
Stephens
Stewart
Sumter
Talbot
Talia.ferro
Taylor
Teifair
Terrell
Tift

Georgia-Contd.
Toombs
Treutlen
Troup
Turner
Twiggs
Upson
Walker
Walton
Warren
Washington
Webster
Wheeler
Whitfield
Wilcox
Wilkes
Wilkinson
Worth
Louisiana:
Avoyelles
Bienville
Bossier
Caddo
Caldwell
Catahoula
Claiburne
Concordia
De Soto
East Carroll
Evangeline
Franklin
Grant
Jackson
Lincoln
Madison
Morehouse
Natchitoches
Ouachita
Pointe Coupee
Rapides
Red River
Richland
Sabine
St. Landry
Tensas
Union
Vernon
Washington
Webster
West Carroll
Winn
Mississippi:
Ada.ms
Alcorn
Amite
Attala
Benton
Bolivar
Calhoun
Carroll
Chickasaw
Choctaw
Claiborne
Clarke
Clay
Coahoma
Covinii;ton
De Soto

01g 11,ed by

G oog Ie

192 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Mississippi--Oontd.
Franklin
George
Grenada
Hinds
Holmes
Humphreys

lBS&quena

Itawamba
Jasper
Jefferson
Jefferson Davia
Jones
Kemper
Lafayette
Lamar
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Leake
Lee
Leflore
Lincoln
Lowndes
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Monroe
Montgomery
Neshoba
Newton
Noxubee
Oktibbeha
Panola
Pike
Pontotoc
Prentiss
Quitman
Rankin
Scott
Sharkey
Simpson
Smith
Sunflower
Tallahatchie
Tate
Tippah
Tishomingo
Tunica
Union

Oklahoma:
Beckham
Brvan
Caddo
Choctaw
Comanche
Cotton
Creek
Garvin
Grady
Greer
Harmon
Haskell
Hughes
Jackson
Jefferson
Kiowa

Mississippi-Contd.
Walthall
Warren
WMhington
Wayne
Webster
Wilkinson
Winston
Yalobusha
Yazoo
Missouri:
Dunklin
New Madrid
Pemiscot
North Carolina:
Anson
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
Cumberland
Franklin
Gaston
Halifax
Harnett
Hoke
Iredell
Johnston
Lee
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Montgomery
Northampton
Polk
Richmond
Robeson
Rowan
Rutherford
Sampson
Scotland
Stanly
Union
Warren
South Carolina:
Abbeville
Aiken
Allendale
Anderson
Bamberg
Barnwell

South Carolina-Contd.
Calhoun
Cherokee
Chesterfield
Clarendon
Colleton
Darlington
Dillon
Dorchester
Edgefield
Fairfield
Greenville
Greenwood
Hampton
Kershaw
Lancaster
Laurens
Lee
Lexington
McCormick
Marlboro
Newberry
Oconee
Orangeburg
Pickens
Richland
Saluda
Spartanburg
Sumter
Union
York
Tennessee:
Carroll
Chester
Crockett
Dyer
Fayette
Gibson
Hardeman
Hardin
Haywood
Henderson
Lake
Lauderdale
Lawrence
McNairy
Madison
Shelby
Tipton

Western Cotton Area
Oklahoma-Contd.
Le Flore
Lincoln
Love
McClain
McCurtain
McIntosh
Mar8hall
Muskogee
Okfuskee
Okmulgee
Pottawatomie
Roger Mills
Seminole
Sequoyah
Stephens
Tillman

Oklahoma--Oontd.
Wagoner
WMhita
TexM:
Anderson
Angelina
Austin
Bastrop
Bee
Bell
Bosque
Bowie
Brazos
Burleson
Caldwell
Cameron
Camp

Dig t1zed by

G oog IC

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 193
Tex&B-Contd.
Cass
Cherokee
Childrees
Coleman
Collin
Collingsworth
Colorado
Coryell
Cottle
Crosby
Dallaa
Dawson
Delta
Denton
De Witt
Ellis
Erath
Falls
Fannin
Fayette
Fisher
Foard
Fort Bend
Franklin
Freestone
Gonzales
Grayson
Gregg
Grimes
Gue.dalupe
Hall
Hamilton
Hardeman
Harrison
Haskell

Texas-Contd.
Henderson
Hidalgo
Hill
Hockley
Hopkins
Houston
Howard
Hunt
Johnson
Jones
Karnes
Kaufman
Knox

Arkansas:
Boone
Carroll
Crawford
Franklin
Johnson
Madison
Marion
Newton
Searcy
Stone
Washington
Georgia:
Dade
Fannin
Gilmer
Habersham
Lumpkin
Rabun
Towns
Union
White
Illinois:
Franklin
Hamilton
Hardin
Johnson
Pope
Saline
Williamson

Kentucky:
Adair
Allen
Bell
Breathitt
Butler
Caldwell
Carter
Casey
Clay
Clinton
Crittenden
Cumberland
Edmonson
Elliott
Estill
Floyd
Grayson
Greenup
Harlan
Hopkins
Jackson
Johnson
Knott
Knox
Larue
Laurel
Lawrence

Lamar

Lamb

Lavaca
Lee
Leon .
Limestone
Live Oak
Lubbock
Lynn
McLennan
Madison
Marion
Martin
Milam
Mitchell
Montgomery
Morris
Nacogdoches
Navarro
Nolan
Nueces
Panola

Texas-Contd.
Polk
Rains
Red River
Robertson
Rockwall
Runnels
Rusk
Sabine
San Au~stine
San Jacmto
San Patricio
Scurry
Shelby
Smith
Somervell
Starr
Stonewall
Taylor
Terry
Titus
Travis
Trinity
Upshur
Van Zandt
Walker
Waller
Washington
Wharton
Wheeler
Wichita
Wilbarger
Williamson
Wilson
Wood

Appalachlan-Ozarlc Area

Lee

Leslie

Kentucky-Contd.
Letcher
Lincoln
Livingston
McCreary
Magoffin
Martin
Meade
Menifee
Metcalfe
Monroe
Morgan
Muhlenberg
Ohio
Owsley
Perry
Pike
Powell
Pulaski
Rockcastle
Rowan
Russell
Wayne
Whitley
Wolfe
Missouri:
Bollinger
Camden
Carter
Crawford

Dig llzed by

Google

194 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Missouri-Contd.
Dent
Douglas
Iron
Madison
Oregon
Reynolds
St. Francois
Ste. Genevieve
Shannon
Taney
Washington
Wayne
North Carolina:
Alexander
Alleghany
. Ashe
Avery
Buncombe
Burke
Caldwell
Chatham
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
Haywood
Henderson
Jackson
McDowell
Macon
Madison
Mitchell
Moore
Randolph
Swain
Transylvania
Watauga
Wilkes
Yancey
Oklahoma:
Adair
Cherokee
Delaware
Latimer
Pushmataha
.Tennessee:
Anderson
Benton
Bledsoe
Blount
Bradley
Campbell
Cannon
Carter
Claiborne
Clay
Cocke
Coffee
Cumberland
Decatur
De Kalb
Fentress
Franklin

Tennessee-Contd.
Grainger
Grundy
Hamblen
Hancock
Hawkins
Hickman
Houston
Humphreys
Jackson
Jefferson
Johnson
Lewis
McMinn
Macon
Marion
Marshall
Maury
Monroe
Morgan
Overton
Perry
Pickett
Polk
Putnam
Rhea
Roane
Scott
Sequatchie
Sevier
Smith
Stewart
Sullivan
Unicoi
Union
Van Buren
Warren
Washington
Wayne
White
Williamson
Virginia:
Albemarle
Alleghany
Amherst
Appomattox
Bedford
Botetourt
Buchanan
Campbell
Carroll
Craig
Culpeper
Flovd
Franklin
Giles
Gravson
Greene
Henry
Lee
Madison
Montgomery
Nelson

Virginia-Contd.
Orange
Page
Patrick
Rappahannock
Rockbridge
Russell
Scott
Smyth
Spotsylvania
Stafford
Tazewell
Wise
West Virginia:
Barbour
Boone
Braxton
Calhoun
Clay
Doddridge
Fayette
Gilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Hampshire
Hancock
Hardy
Harrison
Jackson
Kanawha
Lewis
Lincoln
Logan

McDowell
Marion
Mason
Mercer
Mineral
Mingo
Monongalia
Monroe
Morgan
Nicholas
Pendleton
Pleasants
Pocahontas
Preston
Putnam
Raleigh
Randolph
Ritchie
Roane
Summers
Taylor
Tucker
Tyler
Upshur
Wayne
Webster
Wetzel
Wirt
Wood
Wyoming

Lake States Cut-Over Area
Michigan:
Alcona
Alger

Michigan-Contd.
Alpena
Antrim

Michigan-Contd.
Baraga
Benzie

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 195
Michigan-Contd.
Charlevoix
Cheboygan
Chippewa
Clare
Crawford
Delta
Dickinson
Emmet
Gladwin
Gogebic
Grand Traveree
Houghton

Iosco

Iron
Kalkaska
Keweenaw
Lake
Leelanau
I.uce
Mackinac
Manistee
Marquette
Mason
Menominee

Michigan:
Arenac
Bay
Gene11ee
Ingham
Jackson
Kent
Lapeer
Livingston
Macomb
Mecosta
Muskegon
Oakland
Osceola
Ottawa
St. Clair
Sanilac
Washtenaw
Minnesota:
Anoka
Becker
Benton
Carver
Chisago
Dakota
Dodge
Dou1daa
Freeborn
Goodhue
Houston
Isanti
Kanabec
Kandiyohi
McLeod
Meeker
Mille Lacs
Morrison
Mower
Olmsted
Otter Tail

Michigan-Contd.
Midland
Missaukee
Montmorency
Newaygo
Ogemaw
Ontonagon
Oscoda
Otsego
Presque Isle
Roscommon
Schoolcraft
Wexford
Minnesota:
Aitkin
Beltrami
Carlton
Cass
Clearwater
Cook
Crow Wing
Hubbard
Itasca
Koochiching
Lake

Hay and Dairy Area
Minnesota-Contd.
Pennington
Pope
Red Lake
Rice
Scott
Sherburne
Sihlcy
Stearns
Steele
Todd
Wabasha
Wadena
~ 'a11eca
Washington
Winona
Wright
New York:
Alhany
Allegany
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayu11:a
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Genesee
Greene
Jp"ferson
Lewis
Livin11:~ton
Madison
Mont11:omcry
Oneida
Onondaga

Minnesota-Contd.
Lake of the Woods
Pine
Roseau
St. Louis
Wisconsin:
Ashland
Bayfield
Burnett
Douglas
Florence
Forest
Iron
Langlade
Lincoln
Marinette
Oconto
Oneida
Price
Rusk
Sawyer
Taylor
Vilas
Washburn

New York-Contd.
Orange
Oswego
Otsego
Rensselaer
St. Lawrence
Saratoga
Schoharie
Steuben
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Washington
Wyoming
Ohio:
Ashtabula
Belmont
Columbiana
Delaware
Geauga
Jefferson
Licking
Lorain
Medina
Portage
Stark
Trumbull
Tuscarawas
Union
Wavne
Penns"vlvania:
Beaver
Bedford
Bradford
Bucks
Chester
Crawford
Cumberland
Eric
Franklin

Digitized by

Google

196 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Pennsylvania--Contd.
Juniata
Lawrence
Lebanon
Mercer
Montgomery
Montour
Susquehanna
Tioga
Washington
Wayne
Wyoming
Vermont:
Addison
Caledonia
Chittenden
Franklin
Lamoille
Orange
Orleans
Rutland
Washington
Windham
Windsor
Wisconsin:
Adams
Barron
Colorado:
Yuma
Illinois:
Alexander
Boone
Brown
Bureau
Carroll
Cass
Chf\mpaign
Christian
Coles
De Kalb
De Witt
Douglas
Edgar
Ford
Fulton
Gallatin
Greene
Grundy
Hancock
Henderson
Henry
Iroquois
Jersey
Kane
Kf\nkakee
Kendall
Knox
La Salle
Lee
Livingston
Logari
McDonough
McHenry
McLean
Macon
Macoupin

Wisconsin-Contd.
Brown
Buffalo
Calumet
Chippewa
Clark
Columbia
Crawford
Dane

Dodge
Door
Dunn
Eau Claire
Fond du Lac
Grant
Green
Green Lake
Iowa
Jackson
Jefferson
Juneau
Kenosha
Kewaunee
La Crosse
Lafayette
Manitowoc
Marathon
Com Belt
Illinois-Contd.
Marshall
Mason
Menard
Mercer
Morgan
Moultrie
Ogle
Peoria
Piatt
Putnam
Rock Island
Sangamon
Schuyler
Scott
Shelby
Stark
Tazewell
Vermilion
Warren
Whiteside
Will

Winnebago
Woodford
Indiana:
Benton
Boone
Carroll
Cass
Clinton
Decatur
Delaware
Fayette
Fountain
Fulton
Gibson
Grant
Hamilton
Hancock

Wisconsin-Contd.
Marquette

Monroe

Outagami

Ozaukee e
Pepin

Pierce
Polk
Portage

Racine
Richland
Rock

St. Croix
Sauk
Shawano

Sheboygan
Trempealeau
Vernon
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Waupaca
Waushara

Winnebago
Wood

Indiana-Contd.
Hendricks
Henry
Howard
Jasper
Johnson
Knox
Madison
Miami
Montgomery
Morgan
Newton
Parke
Pike
Pulaski
Putnam
Randolph
Rush
Shelby
Tippecanoe
Tipton
Union
Vermillion
Wabash
Warren
Wayne
White
Iowa:
Adair
Adams
Audubon
Benton
Black Hawk
Boone
Bremer
Buchanan
Buena Vista
Butler
Calhoun

Dig ll,ed by

Google

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 197
Iowa-Contd.
Carroll
Cass
Cedar
Cerro Gordo
Cherokee
Chickasaw
Clarke
Clay
Clinton
Crawford
Dallas
Delaware
Des Moines
Dickinson
Emmet
Fayette
Floyd
Franklin
Fremont
Greene
Grundy
Guthrie
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Humboldt
Ida
Iowa
Jasper
Jefferson
Johnson
Jones
Keokuk
Kossuth
Lee

Linn
Louisa
Lyon
Madison
Mahaska
Marion
Marshall
Mills
Mitchell
Monona
Monroe
Montgomery
Muscatine
O'Brien
Osceola
Page
Palo Alto
Pocahontas
Pottawattamie
Poweshiek
Ringgold
Sac
Scott
Shelby
Siowi:
Story
Tama
Tavlor
Union
Wapello

Iowa-Contd.
Warren

Washington
Webster
Winnebago
Woodbury
Worth
Wright
Kansas:
Allen
Atchison
Bourbon
Brown
Chase
Cheyenne
Clay
Cloud
Coffey
Decatur
Doniphan
Douglas
Franklin
Geary
Graham
Jackson
Jefferson
Jewell
Johnson
Linn
Lyon
Marshall
Miami
Morris
Nemaha
Norton
Osage
Phillips
Pottawatomie
Republic
Riley
Shawnee
Smith
Wabaunsee
Washington
Minnesota:
Blue Earth
Brown
Chippewa
Cottonwood
Faribault
Jackson
Lac qui Parle
Le Sueur
Lyon
Martin
Murray
Nobles
Pipestone
Redwood
Renville
Rock
Watonwan
Yell ow Medicine
Missouri:
Andrew
Atchison
Bates
Benton

Missouri-Contd.
Cedar
Clinton
De Kalb
Gentry
Henry
Hickory
Holt
Nodaway
Pettis
Ray
St. Clair
Saline
Worth
Nebraska:
Adams
Antelope
Boone
Boyd
Buffalo
Burt
Butler
Cass
Cedar
Chase
Clay
Colfax
Cuming
Custer
Dakota
Dawson
Dixon
Dodge
Dundy
Fillmore
Franklin
Frontier
Furnas
Gage
Gosper
Greeley
Hall
Hamilton
Harlan
Hayes
Hitchcock
Howard
Jefferson
Johnson
Kearney
Knox
Lancaster
Lincoln
Madison
Merrick
Nance
Nemaha
Nuckolls
Otoe
Pawnee
Phelps
Pierce
Platte
Polk
Redwillow
Richardson
Saline
Sarpy

091

ierJbyGoogle

198 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Nebraska-Contd.
Saundel'II
Seward
Sherman
Stanton
Thayer
Thurston
Valley
Washington
Wayne
Webster
York
Ohio:
Auglaize
Butler
Champaign
Clark
Clinton
Darke
Fayette

Ohio-Contd.
Greene
Hancock
Henry
Logan
Madison
Marion
Miami
Montgomery
Paulding
Pickaway
Preble
Putnam
Ross
Van Wert
Warren
Wood
South Dakota:
Bon Homme
Brookings

Montana:
Cascade
Chouteau
Daniela
Dawson
Fallon
Fergus
Hill
Judith Basin
Pondera
Prairie
Richland
Rooaevelt
Sheridan
Stillwater
Teton
Valley
Wibaux
North Dakota:
Adame
Barnes
Benson
Billings

Sp,ln9 Wheat ANG
North Dakota-Contd.
Bottineau
Burke
Burleigh
Cavalier
Divide
Dunn
Eddy
Emmona
Foster
Golden Valley
Grant
Hettinger
Logan
McHenry
McIntosh
McKenzie
McLean
Mercer
Morton
Mountrail
Nelson
Oliver

Colorado:
Sedgwick
Kan888:
Barber
Barton
Clark
Comanche
DickinRon
Edwards
Ellis
Ellsworth
Ford
Gove
Grant
Gray
Harper
Harvey
Haskell
Ho<l11:eman
Kiniman

Kansas-Contd.
Kiowa
Lane
Lincoln
McPherson
Marion
Meade
Mitchell
Ness
Osborne
Ottawa
Pawnee
Pratt
Rawlins
Reno
Rice
Rooks
Rush
Russell
Saline

South Dakota-Contd.
Brule
Charles Mix
Clay
Davison
Douglas
Gregory
Hanson
Hutchinson
Kingsbury
Lake
Lincoln
McCook
Miner

Minnehaha

Moody

Sanborn
Turner

Union
Yankton

North Dakota-Contd.
Pierce
Ramsey
Renville
Rolette
Sheridan
Sioux
Slope
Stark
Stutsman
Towner
Walsh
Ward
Welle
Williama
South Dakota:
Brown
Campbell
Corson
Edmunds
McPherson
fu>ink
Walworth

Winter Wheat ANG
KanB&B-Contd.
Sedgwick
Seward
Sheridan
Stafford
Stanton
Stevena
Sumner
Thomas
Treito

Nebraska:
Banner
Cheyenne
Deuel
Kimball
Perkins
Oklahoma:
Alfalfa
Beaver
Blaine

Digitized by

Google

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 199

Oklahoma-Contd.
Canadian
Cimarron
Custer
Dewey
Ellis
Garfield
Grant
Harper
Kay

Oklahoma-Contd.
Kingfisher
Major
Noble
Texas
Woods
Woodward
Texas:
Armstrong
Carson

Texa-Contd.
Castro
Floyd
Gray
Hale
Hansford
Lipscomb
Ochiltree
Swisher

Ranchlns Area

Colorado:
Archuleta
Costilla
Custer
Dolores
Eagle
Garfield
Grand
Gunnison
Hinsdale
Huerfano
Jackson
Larimer
Las Animas
Moffat
Montezuma
Ouray
Park
Rio Blanco
Routt
Saguache

San Miguel

Montana:
Beaverhead
Big Horn
Broadwater
Carter
Custer
Garfield
Glacier
Golden Valley
Granite
Jefferson
Lewis and Clark
Madison
Meagher
Musselshell
Park

Powder River
Powell
Rosebud
Sanders
Sweet Grass
Wheatland

Oregon:
Baker
Crook
Grant
Hamey
Jefferson
Klamath
Lake
Malheur
Wallowa
Wheeler
Utah:
Daggett
Garfield
Grand
Iron
Kane
Morgan
Piute
Rich
Summit
Tooele
Wasatch
Washington

UST B.-SAMPLE COUNTIES REPRESENTING NINE AGRICULTURAL AREAS
Eastern Cotton Area
Alabama:
Bullock
Calhoun
Conecuh
Winston
Arkansas:
Calhoun
Craighead
Pike
Georgia:
Chattooga
Dodge
Heard
Jenkins
McDuffie

Georgia-Contd.
Madison
Mitchell
Pike
Webster
Louisiana:
Concordia
Morehouse
Natchitoches
Webster
Mississippi:
Lawrence
Tippah
Washington
Winston

Missouri:
Pemiscot
North Carolina:
Cabarrus
Sampson
South Carolina:
Allendale
Calhoun
Fairfield
Pickens
Tennessee:
Henderson

Western Cotton Area

Oklahoma:
Jackson
Lincoln
Texas:
Bastrop
Casa

Texas-Contd.
Collin
Houston
Karnes
McLennan
Montgomery

Texae-Contd.
Shelby
Terry
Wilbarger

D ~jl' zect by

Goos le

200 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Appalachlan-Ozarlc Area
Arkansas:
Madison
Georgia:
Lumpkin
lliinois:
Franklin
Kentucky:
Johnson
Knox
Lee
Muhlenberg

Missouri:
Shannon
North Carolina:
Jackson
Wilkes
Tennessee:
Cocke
White
Williamson

Virginia:
Bedford
Lee

Page
West Virginia:
Boone
Marion
Nicholas
Pendleton

Lalce Stales Cut-Over Area
Michigan:
Gogebic
Oscoda
Schoolcraft

'Wisconsin:
Forest
Sawyer

Minnesota:
Pine

Hay and Dairy Area
Michigan:
Sanilac
Minnesota:
Benton
Olmsted
Otter Tail
New York:
Broome
Livingston

New York-Contd.
Oneida
Washington
Ohio:
Geauga
Stark

Pennsylvania:
Bradford
Wayne
Wyoming
Wisconsin:
Chikpewa
Sau
Walworth

Com Belt
IDinois:
Scott
Whiteside
Woodford
Indiana:
Fountain
Hancock
Morgan
Shelby
Iowa:
Black Hawk
Calhoun
Guthrie

Iowa-Contd.
Ida
Mahaska
Marshall
Page
Washington
Kansas:
Smith
Wabaunsee
Missouri:
Hickory
Ray

Nebraska:
Hall
Hitchcock
Johnson
Pierce
Ohio:
Clinton
Putnam
South Dakota:
Brookings
Hutchinson

Sprln9 Wheat Area
Montana:
Chouteau
North Dakota:
Burke

North Dakota-Contd.
Emmons
Hettinger
Ramsey

Colorado:
Sedgwick
Kansas:
Pawnee

Kansas--Contd.
Saline
Oklahoma:
Harper

Colorado:
Archuleta
Garfield
Routt
Montana:
Garfield

Montana-Contd.
Granite
Madison
Ml'agher
Oregon:
Baker

South Dakota:
Corson
Edmunds

Winter Wheat Area
Oklahoma-Contd.
Kingfisher
Texas:
Carson

Ranching Area
Oregon-Contd.
Crook
Utah:
Garfield
Grand
Piute

Dg1

mlbyGoogle

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 201
UST C.-SAMPLE COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS REPRESENTING 34 STATES

Alabama:
Calhoun
Conecuh
Dale
Dallas
Marshall
Shelby
Winston
Arizona: 1
Cochise
Graham
Pinal
Yavapai
Arkansas:
Calhoun
Craighead
Grant
Madison
Marion
Miller
Phillips
Pike
Prairie
Yell
California:
Glenn
Humboldt
Kings
Lake
Lassen
Madera
Mono
Monterey
San Bernardino
San Joaquin
Ventura
Yuba
Colorado:
Alamosa
Archuleta
Garfield
Kiowa
Kit Carson
Routt
Sedgwick
Teller
Connecticut:
Fairfield County:
Easton
Monroe
New Fairfield
Wilton
Hartford County:
Burlington
Granby
Rocky Hill
Simsbury
South Windsor
Suffield
Litchfield County:
Barkhamsted
Bethlehem
Canaan
1 In

Connecticut-Contd.
Litchfield County-Con.
Goshen
Harwinton
Kent
Middlesex County:
Durham
East Haddam
Essex
Middlefield
New Haven County:
Beacon Falls
Cheshire
Madison
Orange
Oxford
Prospect
Southbury
New London County:
East Lyme
Lebanon
Montville
Preston
Voluntown
Tolland County:
Coventry
Hebron
Somers
Tolland
Windham County:
Ashford
Canterbury
Pomfret
Woodstock
Florida:
Bradford
Broward
Jefferson
Lee
Polk
Washington
Georgia:
Chattooga
Dodge
Greene
Heard
Jenkins
Jones
Lumpkin
McDuffie
MclntosJ-,
Madison
Mitchell
Murray
Muscogee
Pike
Tattnall
Ware
Webster
Iowa:
Appanoose
Black Hawk
Calhoun

Iowa-Contd.
Emmet
Guthrie
Ida
Mahaska
Marshall
Monona
Washington
Kansas:
Barber
Ford
Gove
Greenwood
Hamilton
Jefferson
Neosho
Pawnoo
Russell
Saline
Seward
Smith
Wabaunsee
Kentucky:
Boone
Hickman
Johnson
Knox
Larue
Lee
Mercer
Metcalfe
Rowan
Scott
Todd
Webster
Louisiana:
Acadia
Concordia
Morehouse
Natchitoches
Plaquemines
Pointe Coupee
Tangipahoa
Terrebonne
Vernon
Webster
M8888chusetts:
Barnstable County:
Dennis
Eastham
Mashpee
Berkshire County:
Alford
Cheshire
Florida
Richmond
Sheffield
Bristol County:
Freetown
Rehoboth
Westport

survey during October, November, and December 1935 only.

Dig ll,ed by

Google

202 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Massachusetts--Contd.
Dukes County:
Gay Head
Oak Bluffs
Essex County:
Essex
Georgetown
Middleton
Salisbury
Franklin County:
Buckland
Colrain
Shutesbury
Warwick
Whately
Hampden County:
Chester
Monson
Tolland
Hampshire County:
Belchertown
Cummington
Southampton
Middlesex County:
Ashland
Carlisle
Littleton
Stow
Townsend
Norfolk County:
Avon
Wrentham
Plymouth County:
Duxbury
Plympton
Scituate
Worcester County:
Boylston
Charlton
Hubbardston
Millville
New Braintree
Michigan:
Barry
Berrien
Gogebic
Kaikaska
Leelanau
Mecosta
Monroe
Oscoda
Presque Isle
Sanilac
Schoolcraft
Minnesota:
Benton
Big Stone
Hubbard
Kittson
Olmsted
Otter Tail
Pennington
Pine
Pope
Redwood
1

Minnesota-Contd.
Rock
St. Louis
Scott
Missouri:
Adair

Douglas
Franklin
Hickory
Holt
Johnson
Miller
Newton
Pemiscot
Rallii
Ray
Shannon
Montana:
Chouteau
Daniels
Garfield
Granite
Lake
Madison
Meagher
Prairie
Nebraska:
Box Butte
Hall
Hitchcock
Johnson
Morrill

Pierce
Richardson
Sheridan
Thayer
New Hampshire:•
Belknap County:
Gilmanton
Carroll County:
Eaton
Tamworth
Cheshire County:
Alstead
Chesterfield
Troy
Coos County:
Dummer
Northumberland
Pittsburg
Grafton County:
Dorchester
Enfield
Franconia
Haverhill
Hebron
Holderness
Thornton
Hillsborough County:
Deering
Greenville
Hudson
Milford
Peterborough

New Hampshire-Contd.
Merrimack County:
Bow
Canterbury
Warner
Rockingham County:
Fremont
Newington
Newton
North Hampton
Nottingham
Strafford County:
Milton
Strafford
Sullivan County:
Charlestown
Springfield
New York:
Broome
Livingston
Oneida
Schuyler
Washington
North Carolina:
Alamance
Cabarrus
Caldwell
Chowan
Franklin
Gates
Harnett
Jackson
Onslow
Pasquotank
Perquimans
Stokes
North Dakota:
Burke
Emmons
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

In survey during June 1935 only.

Dg1tzedbyGoogle

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES •

Oregon:
Baker
Clatsop
Crook
Josephine
Morrow
Polk
South Carolina :
Allendale
Calhoun
Collet-On
Fairfield
Georgetown
Leo
Newberry
Pickens
South Dakota:
Brookings
Corson
Custer
Edmunds
Grant
Hand
Hutchinson
Jackson
Meade
Tennessee:
Anderson
Cocke
Fayette
.l<'ranklin
Hawkins
Henderson
Stewart
White
Williamson

Texas:
Bastrop
Bosque
Brewster
Burleson
Carson
Cass
Collin
Colorado
Fishllr
Floyd
Freestone
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

203

Virginia:
Alleghany
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
Wisconsin:
Calumet
Chippewa
Crawford
Forest
La Crosse
Portage
Sauk
Sawyer
Walworth

LIST 0.-STATES SAMPLED, BY REGIONS

Northern States:
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
MiBBouri
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin

Southern States:
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia

Western States:
Arizona (October 1931>
only)
California
Colorado
Montana
Oregon
lltah
W11.Shington
New England Statee:
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New Hampshire (JuDe
1935 only)

Dlgtized by

Google

~

SCHEDULE A
SURVEY

or

THE

RURAL RELIEP SJTUATio"f-RURAL BoUSEBOLDS REcmvINo Rm.mr oa

F. E. R. A. Foax DRS-77A

Du• ------------------------------

BcRICDULJ: NO.---------------------

Fn.i.&D BT ------------------------•

N.uui: or AG&NCT. ------------------------------------------------ CoU!ffT -----------------------NUKBER
SEX or
OF PER·
HEAD OJ'
SONSIN
BELIBF
BSUBF
C.\JIB
C.\JIB

.:,

"
.,"

.
0

~=

.

0

0

::i

0
(Q
N

21.

cr

"<

C")
0

~

rv

-1
-2
-I

-

llO

."

~

.,"
◄

2

~

~

◄

."

3

4

:ii

"
1

.,i,:

◄

~

. ".

:i5
lllo

!

i~

~

p

z

=
z i

I

6

7

◄

Cl

ONBOII
JIOBBHILSONS BKPLOYED OB
8EBIING
111'0111[

30

:I

=
"'
:ii

0

8

o"'

o ◄

~~=

::,i_,

"lll :i1• ◄

z
0

9

-- -

0 olll

ill

10

- - = ,_- == = =
- -- ,_

TOTAL. ________________ ---------{::: , -

USUAL OCCUPATION

or HUD

BELIEF
BBCBIVKD

.

II

:! !ll
c,§

Ol;:J

~s

Rumna ------------------------

N

·-§2 :

~

IS 'i

JABIi
OPBILATOii

BSCIDVl:D BJU.11:f
DUIIIMG
Sll:PSCT-

~=...

BSLID'

S:8

jj~

Cl

◄ 0

II=

!j
::I
p

0

0

:;j

0

◄--

0

~

Ill

0

◄

p

0

ill

0

IJ

Cl

:;j

:;j

►

►

19

20

◄

:ii

0

p
◄

21 22 23 :M

1--

-,- i

I
~

II..

o

z

:ao 27

.

II

.I
o

S8 29 30

-

- - - - - -

= - = = = '='= = = = =

i.
15

IJ

11 12 13 14 11 16 17 18

-

•••

§?i

Ill]

OI

•=

UBAIIII-

IN HII•
ITATION
IIUAIIY
IXOCTO111311

oi!

= --·=- -- = =
1-

-

===
-

,_ -- -- -

"'::c

>
~

~

Wil

uusr

BDTOBS
CASSON
ON

. I ;. .i
.. a
".
.
"
§~
.
§ =: SB
o., :l I :I
....
! .". . ~-a~"§ ..
.!!l
"
•"z z::
~
z .. . s
.
.
"
SJ
~
ia
ii
.. "
0

z"
"~:ii"' "'
·-"
.,!j

- - - '::=::

Ii

IXOCTOBU

"◄

1u11s or BRAD or c.uB

STAB --------···-···---------------

lDl'1> or
PBll80NS UHlt
TSARBOf AGB

• - - ---

.".
I.
z

•

RBBABDJTATION ADVANCES IN Ocroaza 193'

I
0
...,

::ii,

C

::ii,

>
r,i:,

m
m

C

...,

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 205

SCHEDULE B
ll'. E. R. A. FoRK DRS-77B

0ATJI---------------------•

CouNTT __________________ _
STATE ____________________ _

FILLIIDBT _________________ _

SURVEY OF THE RURAL RELIEF SITUATION
Rural Rehabilitation Bch«Juu

I.

CASES RIICJIIVING ADVANCES UNDmB TBm BUR.AL RIIBABILITATION PROGR.AII.
1. MONTH AND YIIAR l'IRST CASII WAS PLACED ON BOLLS __________________ _
2. NUMBER 01' NEW CASES J:NBOLLJ:D:

a.
b.
c.

Bml'ORm IULY 1, 11134_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ - DURING SULT ____________________ -----------DURING AUGUST ______ - _ - _ - - __________ - __ -- _ --

d.

DURING SlllPTJ:MBIIR_____ _ - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - --- ---

f.

TOTAL NIIW CASES _______________________ _

ct. DURING OCTOB:ma_________________ ------------

L TOTAL CASIIS REMAINING ON BOLLS OCTOBER 31, 11134 ___________________ _
4. TOTAL CASES DROPPlllD l'ROM BOLLS _______________________ (:if) MINUS (a)

a.
b.
c.

BIICAus• NO J'URTBEB AID NECE88ABY--------------------------l'OB NONJ'ULl'ILLIDIINT OJ' CONTRACT______ -- ___ - __ - -- __ - __ - - ----l'OB OTBlllB. UASONS (SPJlCil'Y UNDlllB BIIKARKB) ____________ - - - - - 6. Kl7JDIIIB OJ' CASES UTUBNJID J'BOM UBABILITATION TO ULIJ:J' THROUGH
OCTOBIIB 81, 1934______________ -------- _____________________ ------

II.

NUKB:mB
OJ' CA8118
:mXPIICTJID TO BJI ON RUBAL UHABILITATION BOLLS IN'
DBBUART1936
___________________________________________________
_
1. CABll8 TO BJD CARBlED OVJDR l'ROM OCTOBlllJL _________________________ _

2. JfllW C.Aallll TO B.m .ADDmD AJ'TIIB OCTOBIIB 81--------------------------

D~11·

zeobyGooglc

SCHEDULE C

'J.E. B. A. Jl'o. . DllS-100
4.:,oan,rcua

II. 1'011 CLOIIKI> C.t.SD

D4T& 01' n&IIT

D4TS OJ' J.4ft

ULDIJ' 0IU>D

UJ.1111' 0IU>ll

o.

J'BDEBAL IMEBOBNOY BILIBJ' ADMINISTRATION

aam>allCII-CB:SCI:

(

DIT1BJOIII 01' . .lillCJI, IIT4'!IIITICII, 4Xl> l'IIU.JICJI

(

)

(ll:)

- --

TILl.4011

OPIIX

COtnffBT

Jl4UT L. BOPDXII, 4l>KDlllll'IUTOII

on

)

T01l'lf
(

)

OO!lamotOK GILL, Dtaa:'IOII

c. :,oa asoPSlfSD UJ.1111' CAaB

D4T& 01' n&IIT

a•

1.1&I' OIU)SJI IX
P&US!ff UJ.1111'
PSII.IOD

l>4ft 01' J.4ft . . .
LJIII' OIIDSS IX

PUTIOUII UJ.1111'

PSII.IOD

SuaVBY oP CUIUIBNT C&ANGBS IN TBB RUllAL RBUBr PoPm.AnoK

Aom____________________
N.t.KS

CoVlffT _ ..................

B. TS4II J.4ft JIOVSD TO TIIJII COVlffT

BT.t.n ••••••••••••.•.••••••.

or Cumn•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••

CIDCJC

WIIITS
0
~

~
rn
a.
cr

'<

CJ
0

~

rS"'

l>4ft 01' Tll4JIIID4ff01' l>4ftOl'Cl.09l'SllftOK
OPSKDIO
Dl'O

ULDIJ'

(

)

on

I

1:1:1

IBOIIO

)

11' ..0TIID"IJ'mCll"I'.

I §>
,a

C

>
r

,a

r. _ . . DI' l'.t.&K oa BOKlllft'S4J>

m
m

C

OTIDDI

VIJU.U.
(

~

,a

l'f4ft

COVlffT
II. COLO& 01' Bll4D 01' BOtlllDOLI>-

~

0
..,
L II' 1 - 011 .t.l'TD: COVlffT oa ft4n
DOK WBICII JIOTIU>

ADD................................... ..................0 ..... No••• - •••

I>. 1'011 IUIIUIIILlT.elD -

g
•
...>0

< I

4TTDlSOI'
OPIIIIIXO

4TTDlSOI'
CLOIIDIO

l. JmCllffSl> ULDIJ' DUBDl(J,-,ClmCII; CO

11111
(

)

I

lUI

1116

I I

< )

..,

IL IPSUOIUL .AXIi OCCOP.lftON.il DATA
ALL Rll80N8 Df ULmr C.lU

PIUIBON8 111-86

0

CVll&J:NT J:KPLOTIIJ:NT 8T.lTl18

.

j;j

0

II:

RJ:U•
TJONSRIP
TO BUD
or
BOUSI:·
BOLD

§
1
l
ll

3

.
6

II
7
8

=~
I. .~ ""'"'ii.
j

I>

◄

0

.,"1

IDU.D

3

<g

N
a.

10

"'a

11

0

12

M

~I<

8

I<

-'

..l

Q

~

rv

OCCUPATION

zO

IKDUl!TIIY

.,_
., .
-z

:J

6

5

7

B

,- -

--- --

--- -- --- --- --- ---

--

-13 ---- -- - --H ---- -- --

:!I

;
.,_ t
.

I>

I -;.. =...
◄
o"'
.,w z~

I

or .A.OJ: WOBJ:INO 01I DKJDlllO

t• ='◄

8

Q

C

9

-- --- - --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --

◄

pQ

OCCUP.l"nON

DfDU8TBY

z"'
◄ Q
z

Q

0

10

11

:.

OCCUP...TJON

IKDUl!TIIY

" -- "
J: 12 I'
-

H

13

::ii,

C

::ii,

>

I'""

"

-- --

C

::ii,
::ii,

"'
~

--

l

1 (

l

) LOSS or lOR IN ORDIN.6.RY J:KPLOY•
MKNT.

2 (

) UCURJ:D OBDINilY IIKPLOYlilNT.

3 ( ) LOSS OB DJ:PLIITION or .lSSJ:TS.

a<

) CROP )IARKICTJ:D
CROP PRICKS.

'

) CROP f.llLURJ: OR LOBS or LIVJ:STOCI[.

'

(

) OTHJ:B-BPJ:CIJT.

6

<

OB

1NC&J:.A8ID

) Ta ... Nsri:a TO OTBJ:a .lOJ:NCY.

N. JI' TBS CASI: W ...8 CLOSJ:D rOR RJ:.t.80N8 1 OB 2
OIVJ: TBJ: roLLOWINO INFOBKATION FOB TBJi
KJ:KRJ:& or TllJ: BOUSJ:HOLD INVOLVJ:D

LINI:
NVKBEB
SHOWN
IN .I: 1

8-<
0
..,

--

1 (

~

0

8

A

0

--

2 (

) 0Tllll-8PJ:CIJT.

0

j

---

K. 11.J:ASON FOR CLOSING--<:llJ:CK ONJ: Cl)
CHECK FOR CLOSED 0& RJ:OPJ:NJ:D
CASJ:S

6 (

J:

I>

◄

L. RKASON FOR OPICNlNO OB BJ:OPJ:NlN<rCHJ:Clt ONE (i)

(

..,,.._s .,_
.,-z.
-j
.... l:!"1
z ·=
I>

Q

D

ALTJ:B!f.lff OCCUP.l"nON

.

.

lQ

:!~ ~

wou

UST J:KPLOTIIJ:NT AT U8U.U. OCCUPATION

"'"'
M
Q
0
0
8
~
" -- -" --

0

-- --

'<

0

0'"►
..

~

"'◄

11

D

I>
◄

lQ

M

2

~o

n.a.u

OOCUP...noN

INDU8TRY

WJ:EIUY
1:.6.RNINOS

">::c

~
"'
!!l
C
0

rn
•

...,"'0 °

SCHEDULE C-COntinued

t,O

0

O. II' Bl:.A.D ,r.LS 1:110.A.01:D llf .A.OBICUI.TUIII: llllfCII .t.0• II

co

Q.IJ'CADaac:mnD:DLID

•

('\
TJ:.UlS l:NOAOltD llf
.A.GIUCULTOBI:

1--a

-

7➔

IOOR
MOBS

Uft

OWNl:R
CROP.
OBM.t.11·
P&B
40&8

Bl:NT-

a:a

uBOU&

ftlroll•

If .....

AJIOVJIT C W ~ -..cmTSD

IIT.t.TUS

.t.CRU
OPl:B•
.t.TZD

JIOlfflUJID
PRINCIPAL
PBODtJCT

D.t.TI:
l:NDl:D

&li9011' l'OI:

'l'UII

'WOBII:
:a&Lllll'

l:NDIJl'O

DIBllCT
&11:Ulll'

l'&ON>IIIID
l'O&
&llB.t.BILI•
BOTB'WOllX
T.t.TIOM
..t.NDDIRllCT
TllS/MO
BllUlll'

0

K

~

C')
0

a-n

na. 1oaa

D.t.Tll
1:11•
BOLU:D

TOTAL
COM·
lll'rM&NT

~

z
)>

a~

P. IJ' C.t.al: 18 OM llB.A.BILIT.A.TIOII &GLLII

VONTB
.A.ND Tll.t.B

)>

G')
R11.1eaa

401'.t.MCSII TO D.A.TZ

:I:

JBTIIOD O• . . .4Tlll:ln'-CJDCK (Xl

0
..,

IDll'LOTIIJllff os-

:Ill:,

:Ill:,

TJ:48

or

UST
RllBA•
Rll:PAY·
BIUT.A.•
Ml:NT TOT.A.L TION
OOODII

--- --- --

!tTB!I!'rllNCll
OOODII

&llP.t.T•
B.A.LllllNTB ~Nt;Z
TO
Dllll
D.t.n

• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • •

C:

)>
HULIQOID.A.TIJl'O
PBOlllCT

r

woaa:
DIVl8IOM

,a

OTDa

'"C..,
'"

PIIOlllCT

,. ..... ,U.I' '

D.A.tL-•--•••··

nu.m> •T ••••••• _ _ _ _ _ _ __

D.t.'l'L...........

SllffSD BT•• · - - - • • · • • • • • - - · • · - - • ·

I'. IL L A. ll'OSJI Da8-10H.

SCHEDULED

[ A. K01'Tll or 11u.HT

. . lmlD or C.A.0-CIDCJ[ Olfa (lC).
DW( ) UOHXJ:D() a.our>(

DDJCJU.L BMBBOENOY BELIEF .&DMINlBTL\TION
B. REASON roR OUNIN O OR REOHNINO ;
CR ECK ONE (X).
1. LOSS or 11:KPLOYKENT (WITHIN rmra
MONTH~ ).
A. ( ) WORKS PROGRAM .
B. ( ) PIUVATK ORREOUI.ARGOVER N•
MENT.
c. ) OWN ACCOUNT.
) OTHER (S PECIFY BELOW).
D.
) LOSS OR DEPLETION OF AllSETS.
2.

a.

) DJ.cR K4SED EARNINGS J'BOM'
Cl' RR KNT EM PLOY MENT.
) LOSS OF R ESETTLUIENTST A TUB.

,.

(

) CROP UILCRE OR wss or
LI VESTOCK .
) INCREASED N EEDS (SPSCIFY BE-

(

) OTHER (SPECTrY B ELOW).

6.

6.

1.

UDY L. BOPDRII, ADKDmn4'10a

DIVISION OJ' RESEARCH, STATISTICS, AND FINANCE
OOUDrOTOJr

SURVEY oP CUllBBNT

Nur ■

or

a. ( )

oiu. _ .

Ca.uloBa m

AollNCY _ _ _ _ _ __

u.uo•roaCLOIIDfo-amc:K ox ■

C.
D.

TBB RURAL

CoUlffT_ _ _ _ _ __

RBLIBP PoPounoN

ll,

_ _ _ _ _ __
Bun.

I.

CUlr.ff _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

ADDUIB _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

C.t.n No. _ _ _ _ __

W W ).

c.

PDIOD

1'1B8T
AJ!lll8TAllCJI

HO•

I

"

!l>
Q

~

0
0

-

00

n

oa

Al'TJ:J:: C0'171'YT AX»
l'a01l W1DCII KOTIID

.LIIC1'

=~:::::::/::::::::,::::::::/::::::::

00'171'YT

WJl1TII

1'IOa0

omu(anan)

I

IIT.LD

( )

Tllll:

- ---·-

1'111' ■

111111•••••

( )

JIOXTB or
IIUKftT•••••

( )

Tu.-

"·

( )

( )

'IO

UPOaT.
) OTIID OIP]XDT HLOW),

8

8
~

0
.,,

"'C:
"')>rt"\

C:

"'"'z

rr,

L D'TIOCill: Wilc:LOll■Dl'Oa :a■.LIIOlf 1, A '!OD, lmOTIOlf l,GIV■ TIO l'OLL01rlll"O lll"l'OSXA'ffl>• ,oa TBA

H--·

AK0'171'T or alll.lD a:a:mYJ:D

wou

)

( )

n:r.ow,.

CIB1'T xovm> oa r .tlL■D

]UJmU or Tim BO'l7DIIOU, Dn'OLTIID

uo ■

(

oa l'IIIDINL

AIIK11'IIITIU.~ POLICY.

Ir lD,',l,611,111,019111~. ,

O. ll'CUJ:B.J:CJ:IVJ:DaJ:UD

TOW11

( )

8.

. - T B•

(llnCll'Y

:::c:

-4

("\

D. I L U I D ~ on <Xl
onx
00'171'•
TaY

uunv■11

7.

IITAY■

LAST

A88111T-

rou.nr • • • ••• • •••••••••• • •••••••••••••

!/ I

r.1:i,~111).

r. oowa or tmAD or BO'l7DIIOLJ>-amCK
on (J:)

J'D'Tll . ••····•· .••.••••...• •••....•....

$

UUDIOII ROJI
CUUl:IIT aKPLOTIODIT.
■ T ■ D oa 111"•
JI.Lalt
c■ OP9

) LOCil .LODCr

I:
!!l
0

(SHClff ■SLOW),

DID■.L.IIJ:D

cmo:a

II' 111110

1-------1---,---,--a

}

OTIBa

nos.

DADOF

OUK

ll■ MT.

01'11 .LIXX)t71'T.

)

B. (

Jll(KIIQJl!ICT UUD .um IIJIDOJ:IICY
SlllPLOTIONT llJll'fOaT

DADOr

i

Pan'.LY■ OaBSG~GOTSIUf­

CS&.LIIJ:D CROP PJUCml.
( ) LOAIIII 18HC1rT8011aC■ JIIILOW).
6.
( ) GOVSBJnl■XT JIUUD' OSRI.
arr BJ:J.OW).
II. illlll!TAIIC1' PaoVID■D BY:
A. ( ) 111:Sl&TTLDIKlff All:IIDIIIIB.L•

IJ' JD, 6, OR '7 IS CHKCKED--SPEl'l7Y .

J:. TJ:AJ: Lift KOTKD TO 'l'Blll CO'l71'TY

<J:J.

1. ■ KPLOTX■XT UCUUD.
A. ( ) WORD ROO■All.

•

&IIUD'

.L~ia.t:T

•

U1Q

JrollJID

na

JIQ

)>

z

G)
rr,

.IIDSUIIDTO~
lOJl'I ADll11U8m.L'ffl>X

:::c:

111101'11
11'
HCTIOlfl.,
COLUJlll l

ooevrAno•

lll"D'DlfflT

ll'KU•
LY
lill1'·
DIOI

•

BOUKII
WO■Jt•

&D

~0
~

•
"°
~

SCHEDULE D-Continued
ALL PERSONS
16-MYEAIIS

ALL PERSONS IN BJ:Ul!F CASI!

ALL HBSONS UHW. TUBS or AO& 11'0UINO OB 8J:J:][IN0 WOB][

.

EDUCATION

w
BELA TIONSRIP
TO HEAD or
ROUSICHOLD

I'!

0
:z:

8

~

2

1
1
2

•
'
6

;:J
<q

6

~

7

21.

8

O'

·<

L)
0

~

ro

II

10
11

12
II

1,
11

j
"'114

BE.I.D

IN SCHOOL
(CHECK)

~

el
."' a. t
.
~

s

114
Q

0

~

LAST
GRAD&
COM•
PLJ:TJ:D
i:,O
:z:O

=~

a

<=1111

0
:z:

◄ o

~ iil

114
0

;
0

"
-- -- -8- -6
9
7
3 4, ,u
I
-- - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - -- -- - - --- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - --- - - - - -- - - - - --- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - --- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- -- - - -"

PRBS&NT
STATUS:
ENTEB YES,
NO, N. A.

Ir CUR•

CUBIUINT &KPLOTKJ:NT:
lJ' UNEIIPLOTIID
LAST EIIPLOYIIJUI'?

BENTLY
&IIPLOYED

" "
~ ....

.,
OCCUPA'l'ION

DIDUBTllT

~bl

0

Ii'

~~

10

11

------

3e

!!~
◄ 114

">::c

USUAL OOCUPA'ftON AKD DIDUIIT&T

12

13

=..
~~

~!

d :a=Ei
11111'

ti

14

11

16

00

--

OOCUPA'l'IOX

DIDUMIIT

17

18

i@
0
..,
::0

C

::0

>
r-

-------

-----

---

::0
l'TI

C:

l'TI
..,

--

--

JI. lJ' BUD 11'A8 JCNOAOED 1K AOBICULTUKa DUBIJIO LAST 10 DAU

LAST ll'UTUS

TICAll8 JCNOAOIID

1◄ 1-

z

Q

zQ

ci..,
ci!;

..,

~

0

114

.....
"°
0
•

OCCUPA'l'IOJIIAL DAU

L. PIDISONAL DATA

7-10

OWNER
CBOP.
OB
PU
JU!f•

AOU

UN•
AMT

I..

li•

IIOB-

X, A.

i'ILLJCD &T -------DAB ••••••
ACBJ:81 DAff
OPEB• JCNDED
ATED

J!:Drr&D BT --·····DAB ••••••

SCHEDULE E

W,P • .AJ 7oaMDBS-GA.

WOIUCB PBOOBBSS ADJIIINISTJU.TION

&. :aauowroaCL011D10: IUIUD' l'DIOD W111C11

at.DY

IJK:LWID .Jt7lfK lU&--OIZC1t (X}

1, 11-.oTIIDT I ~ .
A. (
B. (
C.
D.
I. ( )

a. <

)

4, ( )
6, (

)

) W0BIUI PSOOII.Uf,
) PUV4D oa U0'l!Ua OOVDII•
KIDIT,
( ) 0Wlf 40C01711'f.
( ) 0TIIO (Iraan' BII.IDW),
DICII.II.UIID lU.IIRDl'OII l'BOK CUII.IIU'f
11.KPLOTIIIDIT,
CB0P IIAlllUl:T&D OB INCBJ:A.811.D CROP
PII.ICU,
L041111 (SPacD'I' 80V.:S BII.IDW) ,
OOVUli'IIIDIT BJDUnT Oll'aan' BilLOW) ,

II. .&IIIIIIIIT4NC& PBOTIDl:D BT:
4. ( ) 11.11.811.TTLSKll.l!IT .l.DKIMIBTILUI0K,
B. ( ) LOCil 40UCY (IPaan' B11.IDW),
C. ( ) l.lKDLOIII>.
D, ( ) Ul.lffVU Oil nmIIDII.
L ( ) OTll&II. (IP:a:DT B11.IDW),
7, ( ) .l.D~!ITII POLM:T (IPaan'Bll-

L (
ti, (

LOW>,
) CLlmff II0TIID Oa J'.A.ILIID TO UPOJIT,
) OTIID (llnCIJT B11.IDW),

L,

..aaa. ADIIDlll!lU.-

COUDl01'01' OD.t.
.uBIIIUllT 4DJ111Ulft.llf0S

L.

BOWil!> •· JrTDI,

nammoa

DITIIIIOIC 01' 80CUL . _ _

&. IDJ:ICTll'ICATIOII' or HOUBJ:HOLD

illlJITII.

CLmli'T............. ..............

CA.BIi KO • •••••••••••••• •••••

IQBID&ll'CS: eh.TL............... . ........ .

CO'DlffT••••••••••••••••••••••• • •••• ••••

nr.ronlilfPLS
-nu..oa oa TOWX . .................. ..
ll4ld or l'DILD

.1.om....................

TU(

)

110(

)

DATIi or
INTl:llTIKW•••••••••••••••••

ll4ld or 8CIIJID17LII. CJ.Sim................. IICH&D'O'L& 110•••••••••••••••

-

a

-!l

L)
0

a-;;;-

B, D4D or TB19 CLOlllll0

(

H.

s u m • ~ nro <X>

onx

wmra

~

roa BaOl'SIIIJl'O . - .
m ULlllJ' l'JIII.JOD--CJDC&:
0NS(X}

I. (

Jl'.x& 01'

I'. OOLOII. or DAD OJ' H0UBD0LD
Cll&IX0IIS(X)

0

BII.UO•

1, LOIi 01' 11.KPLOTIBlff,
A. ( ) W0BIUI PSOOIU.K,
:a. ( ) PSIVAD OS UO'CUS
OOVUll'KDT.
C. ( ) 0Wlf .l.0001711T,
II, ( ) OTHO (IPIIC[ff BIi.LOW),
I. ( ) LOIi OB J):&PI.WftO!II' OJ'

SwVEY or Ruau. HoUBBDOLDS THAT R.BCBrVED RELIBll'
IN JUNB AND WBBB CL08BD Plu:oa TO DBc. l, 19SS

U ID,', 11,CIB, 1111., 7,011. ti DI CIUC&:K:>--IPII.CIWT,

Cf!

1.

)

IIS0BO

(

OTDB Oll'alCD'T)

TlKS

CO'D'X·

'rllT

_, ,_
vu,.

I.LOIi.
(80-

lroa c.ua
U0PS!i'II.D
lllli'CII.
IUll'&lllU
AND 11.llC&l'l'DI0
l:KD·
0UCY
Uli'&K•
PLOTK&!ll'T
lll:1.111.J'

) J>:&CBII.ASII.D
11..I.B1'1Jl'0I
l'BOK CUBBll.li'T 11.KPLOT·
KIDIT.
4.( )LOIi or
:a&IIBftLII.IOl
ll'UTUII.

II. ( ) CJIOP l'AILVBS OB LOIIII or
II, (

UTU'NJC&.
) DICUAlll:D nm>8 (IIP:a:in'

7. (

BIi.LOW).
) OTHO (Iraan' BJa.OW),

U ID, S. OB 7 DI CIDC&ll.l>-IIPacin',

DUII.III0
DIICD•
11.llRlllU
I, DAD OJ' l'DIIIT
0111>0 Iii' Tlllll
BII.LlllrPII.II.I0D

DAD 01' I.LIT
0111>0111
PUVI0UBBII.LIII.J'PSBIOD

111Malll6

(

)

(

I

(

)

DIIC. 1116.

(

)

(

)

(

)

)

J:

0

8

8-<
0
.,,
,0

C:

,0

)>

r-

e
,0
,0

'"
z
-t
I"\

J:

)>

TOWJI'
-)

?:

!:!I

I , TTP& AND AK01711T 01' B&Ll&I'
-..Cllffm> Ill DIICII.IIBO
DIIIIIC1'
wou DIBIICT 4KD

UIJD

BII.Llllr

wou

IIII.LID

z

,,,G')

22
~

•

.....
"°
.....

....

SCHEDULE E--Continued
C. II' CASI: WAS CLOlll:D JIIOU Tlu.J!I OIICli
lllllCli IUD 111116

O. 1'4JIIILYUJ.ll'DDC4U~
Jlllilff 4DIIJJ.ll'Jlft'UTIOJ.11'; TIIII
( ) J.110 ( ) II' YU 18 CJmCl[D

D4Tli

JIIOl!ITB OJ'
CLOelKO

pl0-------1

JII. II' CJ.Ill: WAS DOPmOID IIDICli lUJQ 11116

~

I.

1.4ft JIIOTlil>
TO TIIIII COUJlff

-.uaos roa uoPUDfo

KOIITII or

4l>T4JICU TO D4Tli

4a:l:PTIII>

-.&ASOJ.11' JOA CLOmJ.11O

1,0

II'

&liOPUDfO

1- oa una

IIOTIID nox .t.J.11O'l'JID 00Ulff1'
OJ' TIIIII IIT4Tli

KOTIID nox
4NOl'ID&
ft4Tli

(IUJllli C01JIIT'l')

(J.11'4Jllli ft4Tli)

tra----1 OOODL---····-•--·-··
4JIIOU!ff li.liJ'4JD_, _____ _

z

z

Q

110-0.:.

TTPSOJ'
:liKJ.ID

I~

(1)
0

<Q
N

ti)

0.

u
"<:

C"')
0

~

n

T4LU.
PUBUCOli
PIIIV4Tli

J.11'4Jllli OJ'

(2)

(3)

I

IIIM

II' TIIII II CHa:Km>
:liKJ.ID 4Gli!ICT

It.

4O1111CT

<'>

•

M. OTIID IIOUKlill OJ' lll00Jllli Da:JIIUIU 11116

l. TUlill PIIIO& TO 11116 4ND JIIO!ff][II D'OIIDIO 11116 JJ.11' WIIICII HOlllllilll
&aClilTliD :mn&OIDIC1' 11lQJlll'I.OYJIIDT ~ a>

I
I.A.JI., rn. JU&. 41'11., Jll4

1

•

•'

lllift·1 oor. I

1[1!1O..\OliDCHIICI[

ona>

1.4ft r4&JII OOCUl'4TIOJ.II'
D.t.ft mn,m,________________ oa u CU.mT
IIT4T17II-CJlliCII: OJQ

(I)

a>

1-c____ (
...._
___
(

1-10___ (

)
)

)

.....

_________________

<

)

)

a.

ll4Lli or PDIIOll4L 111:LOIIOIJIOL ___________ _

ftODUCL...-------T---------

,i:,

a. IIJ.LliOr r4&JII

CIIOl'IL---··-··-·-·-·-----·--- ---·------

.. Ul'lllft'OCIL _________ -- ------ - ,- -- ------ C. Lll'lilllOCK ----------•----------

~-=-

II. J.. J.. J.. PJ.TIOllft... ______________

r•••-·--•-

O'fllD

I. O'l'JID IIOUKlill (lll'aCD'!) ••••-·-•-•-•-·•-·-·-

4-----------

C

)>

7.

1'0T4L --------------or c:&1111 CliOP-------

0
.,,

lllft'J.IIUl!llllil)______________ ----------

CliOP J.CIID __ -·--····----c:&1111 CliOP - - - · - - · · - -

, >>> nn

§
::ii,

' - alil)JT

>

)>

::ii,

J..

c,>

OWIID oa :KJ.IU.OD (
TIIIIJ.JIT. - - ·••-••---- (
CliOl'l'lili
L4BO&D__
____________
---------- (

I. UL4fll'lill J.l!ID J'lilSIIDII __________ •-------2. 114Xlt J.OOOUlft'II, 114VDIOII__________________ _

Jn1JDIDOrJ.CliD
OPD4TliD

(3)

I J.JIIOU!ff

Mol'.

I( ) ( ) ( ) ( >
·II' Hli4D WAS 1[1!1O4O1:D Ilf 4O111CULTUU DUIIIJ.ll'O l'Mlf 10 TUlill

1.11'11
NO.

I

iu[.t.uo1

( ) I( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

TUlill

11)

lllU

"
Q

81JW'f&iiCX

D. HOUIIDOU> JlacllllVKI) llliTli oa LOCAL
llliLIU Oli .I.II) D'OIIDIO Da:JIIUID
11116:YU() NO ( )

•

::c
)>

Tm.U,_ __________ , ._ __ _

lu.t.'l' ______ C4ffl4L 0001111 __ ------

1,0

COIIPDll4TIOJ.II' __ 4ND_ ·--------·

r-

ITI

r-

m
.,,

0.

PIRSO N.U. AND OCCUPATION.U. DATA
il.L PSllSONS l&-M TS.I.RS or
AO&

il.L Pll:llSONS IN HOTJSSHOLD

RELA TIONSHtP
TO HEAD OF

BO USJ: BOLD

0

-(1 -)
l
2

3

•
6
G

7
8

""
(D

g
10

a.
CT

11

'<

0

0

a..(v

12
13
14
16

(2)

IN SCHOOL
(CHJ:Clt)

. .,9
.,
" "~ .,
., "
.
z
-- - - - - - - - - - - ~

BIAD

◄

0

Ill

(3 )

0

(4)

M

N

(6 )

~~

◄

(G)

ci a o

( 7)

~

0

(8)

(9 )

:,:

-

i:,i~

e

0
N

0

P. U.laOM roa ,iBUOI•
BILITT roa w. r. Sil•
PLOTI(JIMT
CODS
1. PIIYlDCALI.T OR M&M·

Til.LYVNrlT
2. NJ:&DSD AT HOICJ:
NO LONG&& J:l.1Gl1JLJ:

3.

Q ~

roa BJ:UJ:.r

► o:

4. OT!lll CIP&CUT)

0

O

~

~
,.o
53: lil f,ofl.~~
O a,:
t-ot~ O=
c&:
ZN ~!5~!5
..
u .. : ., i=
. ...

z,..,
::,m e:)

0
.,◄ Z.
~ "'B :I =
fl.
..
.,
8
~
◄
---( 10)- ( 11) ( 12) (13)- --(14)
(16)
(16)

Ozao

USTJ.U. &MPLOTif&NT

A

..
= o:
~ .. :1
wz ~":'" Sz
.. o
fl. ~;,i ~fl. o-=
-='"i :zci
Iii

-- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - --- - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - --- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - --- - --- -- - - - - - - -- - lll:MARJ<S:
-- - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -

.. 0

◄~

0,.111

COM·

NO-'

oa

"'ZIii
~~ca

LAST
ORAD E
PLET&D

0:

~

§

~ :-

0

:,i

:,:

0
<.<:i°
f:j"

. .es., ..., ...,.'
A

(:SN UB " T&S"
"NO")

EOUCA.TlO:S

,~

~e:

Ill

=~o "' ."'
":~~~

PR.&.UNT STATUS

.;
R OUS& ·
HOLD
J T]N]C 1936
(CHEC!tl

[N

A.LL P&ll.'IOMS l&-M Y&All.'I or AO& WOBI:•
nm OR s11:1c1tINo won:

OCC UPATION

INDUIITBY

Q.

( 17)

( 18)

BJ:ASON
roR
NOT
WORKING OB 801'.INO
WORK

CODS
I. BOUSJ:WII'&
2. UNPAIDBOMJ:WOBUtR
3. 8TUD&NT
•• CIIBONIC ILLNJ:!lS OR
PHYl!ICAL DLUBIIJTT
6. UJ:BLK-lllNDl:DN&SS
ORINSANITT
e. oma:a (SP&an)

~

~

§

8-<
0
..,
;o

C
;o
)>
I""

"';o

C

;o

'"
z
-4
a. B &ASON roa SNDINO
OOV"SRNVENT
Sl(ER·
O&NCT SMPLOYXl:NT
CODS
1. SKCUIUID
OBDINAIIY
&JO'LOTMINT
2. LAID on oa PR0111CT
KNDSD
8. fNJIDl&D OR ~
4. DISCIU.ROED
6 . OTJUB (l! PICIFY)

"'::c

)>

z

Cl

'"

~

C

C

~

•

....w
I<)

.
.....

to

SCHEDULE E-Continued
I. J:KPLOTI011'! ON OOVJ:BNKJ:NT lllBBGJ:NCT PIIOlEC'T9 (J:XCE"l' Ii. L .A..
PBOJJ:CTS) lULY 1, 11135, TO NOV. 30, 1U36

l5

0

3:,i

?
l5

e•.
0

z

OIO

Ill

OCCUP.t.TlON

lPl
0◄

".
"◄

z

(2)

(3)

IQ

INDUBTBY

Q

IiQ
lPl

t:

"."

"~
"
--- -- ◄
(1)

..
~Is

◄
Q

0

(4)

(5)

(8)

00

"lPl

•

:Z:N

0 ... ~

.,:,:.
~~:~
IQ

..~ .,
0

.. 0

~:5

~
f;;

0

(8)

-•-

0

~;_,

m
a.
cr

'<

CJ
0
0

00

r5"'

-

--

J:KPLOYKJ:NT DUlUNG

}
l!i

=
IJ!
0

0

Jr.

~

•

JIONTJI OJI DIIIClillllD 1836

2

t: 0 l5

TYPJI OJI Ell•

oz

.,

IQMO

.. ,.E
"Ill """
~":.

~
0

=~= .,.~-.
....
i:iel

;

I!
◄
Q

g" ~◄

(1)

(2)

(3)

.

;.Ill
OCCtJP.t.DON

Dn>tllffllT

Q

":z:
Q

~

Zo ◄

- - - - ---- - - ---

I!"

IQ~

0

(4)

z►

:z:3=
.,c

PLOYll&Nl'

~

:ii

-- -(7)

,.

(5)

(8)

(7)

0

"2g

~

n::
g~i.;;
l!l

·"·
(8)

~
~

~
(9)

0

a

0

~

e
il
(10)

•

z

0

►

~
@
0
...,
:ii,

C

:ii,

►
r-

-- - - ---

- - -- -- - ------- - - - ---- - - - -- ---

,i,
l'T'I

r-

m
...,

--- -

--

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 215
DRS-162

SCHEDULE F
DIVISION OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, W. P. A;

NUHBER OF CASES AIDED AND AMOUNT OF OBLIGATIONS INCURRED FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ASSISTANCE IN RURAL AND TOWN SAMPLE AREAS
AGl:NC1' __ - - ______________ - - __ - - - - - - - - -- ___________________ •• ___ - - _----- -- - - --- - - --- --- ---- - - --- - - --- ----8TATJ: ___________________________________ - ___ _ ____ ____ COUNTY ____ - - - - - -- - -- - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - • - __________ _
81GNATUU o• Pl:IUION Bl:POBTJNG __________________________________ ·------------------------------- ____ _
DATIi:______________________________________ RJ:PORT roR KONTH or ______________________________ 19___ _

TYPJ: OJ" .t.llllIBT.t.RCI:

:r.nn:
XO.

1
2

3
f
6

II

7
8

1------------------------1·

NUKBl:B
or CASES
.AIDl:D

AKOUJIIT
I.IX■

KO.

(1)

(2)

(3)

1

PUBLIC AMll!!TANCB (ICNTBl'ES J'OB PUBLIC AGl:NCll:8):
CATEGORICAL OB SPICCIAL ASSISTANCE:
STATUTORY AID TO DICPENDENT CHILDBICN ________________________ $___________ _
STATUTORY OLD
ASSIBTANCJ: _________________________________________________ _
STATUTORY AID TO THI: BUKD ____________________________ ---------- _____________ _
STATUTORY VJCTKB.AK'B .AID-------------------------------· _______________________ _
OIIDILAL ASSTBTANCI: ! __________________________________________________ -----•--------

2
3

AG■

'

6

II

7
8

OTHKB (SPJ:CIJ'T):
A. - - - - -- - ---- - - - - - - - --- - -- -- - -- ----- - - ---- -- --- -- ----- - - - - - - --- - - - - - • - -- -- -----•- -

B. -------------------------------------------------------- -- --- - --- - - -- ------- - -- -

9

lll:T 'UNDUPLICATJ:D TOTAL OJ' CA8J:8 BJ:Cl:IVING PUBLIC .us:nrrAKCJ: ______________________ ----------------------- ----------- _______________________ _

=l=====I
AGl:NCll:S) __________________________________
_

10

PBIVATI: Al!Sll!T.t.RCI: (E1fflUl:II roB PBIVATJ:

11

OTHER ASSISTANCI: (ENTBil:BrOBCOKBINATTONPUBLICAND PBIVATI:

1

AGJ:NCIJUI)____ _ __ ___ _ ___ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ ___ __ ____ __ __ ___ _ __ __ ____ _ _ _____________ _

9
10

11

Additloll811Dformation ooncernlng general public assistance:
[LINll 7, OONTTNUl:DJ
UNATTACHED BKSIDl:NT
PKBSONS

-..su>J:NT J'ilULil:8

U10I
XO.

7

JIUKBl:R OJ'
J'AlULll:8

NUKBJ:B or
PERSONS
Bl:PRJ:SJ:NTl:D

AKOUlff

NUKBKB or
PltBSOMS

AMOUNT

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

TOTALNUKBl:B
OJ' PJCBSONS IN
CASES BICCl:IVING OICNERAL
PUBLIC ASSISTANCK

LilQ

NO.

(9)

----------------- ··--·----------- •------------ -------------- ._ ___________ --·--·---·------

'

Dg1tzedbyGoogle

216 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
SCHEDULE G
SURVEY

Il

o:r

CUIUIBNT CBANGBl!I IN TBB RURAL

l\zuEP

::U:1'ATIOK

PoPULATJOl'f
OOlffBOL CA&D DU-lCNIJI

KAXa ____________ --- . --··- •.••••••• _····--·-··-----·- ·-----···•••--•••--•--• CAd KO. -·--·-·····-·-· ··-U8Uil
r. O. ( )
ftH. ( )
CBOP,
( )
0, C, ( )
'l'OWlf ( )
oocuuno•
LAB. ( )
om. ( )
Kon ( )
UIIID:BHCa TILL. ( )
an ( )
■TAft ••• --·-················· COUHTT ········-···--·-········ llO. or RB801'8 IX HOUBaOLD.--·----

1

F M A M 1

1

A B O N D

o•

ORIUD
aaonKaD ••••• --····················· •••••••••••• ··-· •••••••• -··· •••••••••••••••• ···CL0811:D •••••••• -------·--·----···-················· •••••••••••• ··-· •••• ··-· -••- •••• •-•• •·-· ••••••••
nJIIIDD OVlUL--•-•··········-···•·•·•• - •••···•·ftil8RKUD 'l'O UlliBIIJT.t.TIOII-·-•••-••···•-··
'l'O Ba IIICLUDll:D IX
ICBJIDULa l'ILLKD "80111 BallOBDII •• --·-···········
ll'IIUKCIAL ll'10lUUTIOlf a!ITll:UD-•• •-••••·•····ICBJIDULa IIDT 'IO 8UPD't'I90B ••• ·-···•• · ··-·•• ·
ICBSDULa UTUJl.lfSD BT IIUPUVl90B •••••• ___ •••

-··- •••• ··-· •••• ···- ··-• •••••••• ••-· ••••••••••••
···- •••• ··-· •--• --•- •••••••.•••• -·•· •••••••• - ···

IIAlD'LII-····-·--·-·-···---··· ··-· ··-· ......•. ···- .........•...... ·-·· ···- -···
••••
.•••
••••
-·--

···-·····.•.•

···- ··-· .••• ·-·- ••••.•••••••
-··- .••••••••••••••••••• ··-·
•••••••••••••••••••• ··-• ••••
•·-· ..•.•.•. ·--• .••• ••-- ••••

-···
••••
··-·
··-·

• •••
•••••••
-·-·

- ···
-·••
······-

SCHEDULE H
RELIEF
Da&-109D

SURVEY OP CURRENT CHANGES IN TBB RURAL

POPULATION CoNTROL CARD

KAIia -·--··· .••••••••••••.•..•.•.••. ·········---·-·····--···············--- CAiia llO, -------·······-·-·
■TATS··•-··-•··-·•-············-· COUHTT ------··•·••-••-····•·------ JrUJIJID DI BOUBaOLD --•---·
U8Uil
r. O. ( )
ftN. ( )
CBOP.
( )
0, C.
( )
TILL. ( )
OOCUPATIOK
LAB. ( )
om. ( )
Hon ( )
- - 'l'OWW ( )

1

F M A M 1

1

A S

O N D

OPS!Ol> OB RICOPaHJCD __ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ·-·· •••••••••••••••••••• · -•· •••• -··· ···- ••••
CABRlll:D OVICB----···················•• • •••······- -··· •••••••••••••••• --·· •••• • ••••••• -··· ··-· ___ _
CLOSll:D._._··----·-··---·-···-··-·-------••••-···-· ··-· ·--- ---· •••• ---· ·--· ··-· ··-• •••• ··-· ·--• ---·
CLOSICD BICCAUSII: or:
WORKS PROORAIII_ ••• - •• ··········••----······
Bll:SBTTLll:1111:NT ADIIIINJ8TBATIOH •••••• ___ •••• _
OTBll:B Rll:A8ON8_ •• - •• --·····-· · ··•••••·······
CASII: INCLUDED IN l50 PBBCll:NT 8AMPLS ••••• - •• - ••
ICBBDUL& rILl.11:D rxo111 BBCOBD8 •••••••••••••••••

···- ·--· ____ ·---··· ·--- --·· ••••
••••••••••••••••
-··· -·•· •••• ·•-·
··-- ••••••••••••

·-··
···-···
······-

---· ·-·· ·--• •·-- •••• ·--·
--•- ··-· ··-• • ••••••• -·-··-· ••••••• • •••••••• ··-·
••••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••• ·· · - •••• ·-··

Digitized by

Google

·--··-··-·
-•••
···-

METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE STUDIES • 217
STATE SUPERVISORS OF RURAL RESEARCH
[Peraonnel record as of 1ul:, 1, 1937]
Name

Period or cooperation

State

Allred, C. E _______________________________ _ Tennessee ______________ _
New York _____________ _ Jan. 16, 1935, to date.
Anderson,
W. A------------------·---------·
Beers,
Boward
W __________________________ _ Washington ____________ _ Sept. 16, ll!a4, to July 1, 1935.
Wisconsin _________ . ____ _ May 16, 1935, to Sept. 16, 1936.
Sept. 16, 1935, to Feb. 1, 1936.

New Jersey ____________ _ Feb. 4, 1936, to June 30, 1936.
Boyer, Phillps B ____________________ _______ _ Tennessee ______________ . Nov.
1, 1934, to Jan. 15, 1936.
Brannen, C. Q _____________________________ _ Arkansas _______________ .
Oct. 1, 1934, to date.
Breithaupt, L. R ___________________________ _ Oregon _________________ _
Burgess, P. s _______________________________ _ Arirona. _______________ . Jan. 2, 1936, to Dec. 31, 1936.
Oct. 1, 1935, to June 30, 1937.
Coen, B. F _________________________________ _ Colorado _______________ . Oct. 1, 1934, to Dec. 31, 1935.
Minnesota _____________ _
May 16, 1935, to June 30, 1937.
Colle:,,
W.
C
__
----------------------------Dennis, W. V ______________________________ _ Pennsylvania _________ .. Oct. 16, 1934, to June ao, 1936.
Dnncan, 0. D------------------------------· Oklahoma _____________ _ Sept. 16, 1934, to date.
Eastman, M. Gale _________________________ _ New Hampshire _______ _ June 1, 1935, to Jan. 31, 1936.
Texlll! __________________ _
Utah __________________ ..
North Dakota _________ ..
Hamilton, C. H ____________________________ _
North
Carolina.-------·
Wisconsin
______________ .
Kansas _________________ .
Hoffsommer, B. c _________________________ _ Alabama ______________ ..
Hummel, B. L _____________________________ _ Virginia ________________ .
Johansen, Sigurd __________________________ _ New Mexico ___________ _
Kirkpatrick, E. L __________________________ _ Wisconsin _____________ ..
Knen,el, Carl F ___________________________ _ Montana ___ .. __________ _
South Dakota __________ _
Washington ____________ _
Colorado. ______________ .
Larson, Otar F __ ---------------------------·
Lively, Charles E--------------------------- Ohio
__ .---------------Maryland
______________ -_
Oregon _________________ _
Morgan, E. L ______________________________ . Mlssouri_ ______________ _
l\f umford, Eben _____________ . _____________ .. Michigan ______________ _
Utah __________________ ..
Kentucky ______________ _
California ______________ _
Louisiana __ ; ___________ _
Iowa ___________________ _
Whetten, Nathan L ________________________ _ Connecticut ___________ ..
Williams, B. o _____________________________ _ South Carolina _________ _
Zimmerman, Carle c _______________________ _ Massachusetts ___ . _____ .

~=~J~5tiX:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Gillette, John M ___________________________ _

:m: ~~1:n'k::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

~~~np:i·f:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

~:::.~·l. if_::-_::::::::-_::::::::::::::::~:.

tr~1fs~':'b:::::: :: :::: ::: ::::: :: ::: ::: ::

i.!fJ:-17:t;~:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Oct. 1, 19:<4, to date.
June 1, 1935, to June 30, 1937.
Nov. 1, 1934, to date.
Sept. 16, 1934, to June 30, 11134.
Feb. l{ 1936, to date.
Sept. 6, 1934, to date.
Oct. 1, 1934, to Aug. 31, 1935.
Nov. 1, 1934, to date.
July 2, 1936, to date.
Oct. 1, 1034, to Sept. 16, 1U36.
July 16, 1935, to date.
Oct. 1, 1934, to date.
Oct. 1, 19:J5, to date.
Jan. 2, 1936, to date.
Jan. 1, 1935, to date.
Oct. 1, 1935. to date.
Nov. 23, 19:14, to Sept. 30, 1935_
June 25, 1935, to dnte.
Oct. 1, 1934, to Nov. 30, 1936.
Sept. 24, 1934, to Dec. 26, 1934.
Sept. 16, 1934, to June 30, 1937.
Nov. 1, 19a4, to June 16, 1935.
Oct. 1, 1934, to date.
Sept. 16, 1934, to date.
Oct. 16, 19.14, to date.
Mar. 1, 19:15. to date.
May 16, 1935, to date.

Te111porary State SupervllOII of Rural Research
Name
Anderson, T.

w ________________

Broderick, Katherine ___________
Callin, A. E ____________________
Creek, Charles R_ ______________
DeFord, John F ________________
Durham, W. E_ ··-------------Facinoll, John __ .. ______________
Galbraith, Charles S ____________

State
Oeorl!'ia.
Florida.
Alabama.
Indiana.
Nebraska.
Indiana.
Nehm.ska.
Missls.sippl.
West Virginia.
Florida.

Name

State

Johansen. 8l1nml. ______________ _
Lindstrom, D. E _______________ _
Link, Irene L __________________ _
Lounsbury, Thoma.'L·--·------McClure, John II. .. __________ _
Matthe"!, M. Taylor __________ _
Minear, Kenneth_.--------· ___ _
Rapp Robert IL ______________ _
1 Melvin. ________________ _
Sneeo,
Wilson, Edwin E ______________ _

New Mexico.
Illinois.
West Virginia.
New York.
Alabama.
North Carolina.
West V lrglnla.
California.
Mis.sour!.
Calilomia.

[)91.zedbyGooglc

D91

zedoyGoogle

Appendix C
METHOD OF CLASSIFYING RELIEF CASES BY
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

DEFINmON OF RELIEF HOUSEHOLD

As

USED here, the term relief hO'U8ehold is synonymous with the
term relief case. It consists of one person or of a. group of related or
unrelated persons who live together and who receive e.ssiste.nce as
one unit and are considered as one case by the agency extending the
assistance. The relief ce.se may consist of an unattached man or
woman living alone or with relatives or friends, of a group of persons
bound together by ties of kinship, or of unrelated persons living together as ''partners.''
The relief household is, for the most pa.rt, synonymous with the
unit designated as a. "private family" by the United States Bureau of
the Census. The 1930 Census reported as "private families" all
persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, who lived together
as one household, usually she.ring the same table. Single persons living
alone as well as small groups of unrelated persons living together as
"partners" were e.lso considered "families." Those groups having
more than 10 boarders or lodgers were designated as boarding or
lodging houses rather than as families. Other groupings, such as
hoteh! and institutions, a.long with boarding houses were called "quasifamily groups."
As a general term, household has a broader meaning than does the
word family as the latter is used by the census. The household
includes the family and in addition those boarders, lodgers, servants,
and others who are accustomed to living with the family. Very rarely,
however, does a. rural relief household contain persons related e.s
employer and servant or as landlord and lodger. Generally speaking,
the relief household contains only persons related by blood or by
marriage and is, therefore, like the "private family" of census parlance.
There are, however, two respects in which the relief household may
differ from the private jamuy. In the first place a. private family
219

Dig t1zed by

G oog IC

220 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

may, for administrative reasons, be split into two or more relief households by the agency extending assistance. Such a procedure may,
for example, be followed in instances where two or more groups have
combined or "doubled up" during depression years. In the second
place the agency extending assistance may set off certain members of
a particular "family" as in need of assistance while other members a.re
considered undeserving of aid or capable of supporting themselves.
Only the needy member or members are included as a relief household
or case. For example, an aged couple may receive relief as a unit while
living with the family of a self-supporting relative who nevertheless is
not considered able to support the aged pair in addition to his other
dependents.
The extent to which the relief households or cases included in the
present study have been split off from other members of their families
or households is not known. The procedure of splitting "families"
into two or more cases or into relief and nonrelief personnel varies
··with local agency practice. In some localities the relief policy is to
extend assistance to some member or members of a "family" while
other members are considered self-supporting. In other localities
assistance is denied any individual so long as any member of his
immediate family can be held responsible for his support.
METHOD OF CLASSIFYING RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE

Rural relief households are not homogeneous units. On the contrary they represent as much diversification of structure as is found
in the general population. The majority of rural relief cases consist of
husband, wife, and their children living apart from any other persons
and forming a relief unit in and of themselves. Others consist of
married pairs, pa.rent and child, and unattached individuals either
receiving relief as units in themselves or as parts of larger units.
In order to determine the structure of the rural relief household, the
following general classification was me.de of those cases included in
the relief samples of June and October 1935.
Rellef households conslstin1 of:

A. Husband and wife without children
Without other persons
With one or more other persons
B. Husband, wife, and children
Without other persons
With one or more other persons
C. Father and children
Without other persons
With one or more other persons

Diglized by

Google

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION •

221

D. Mother and children
Without other persons
With one or more other persons
E. Man without wife or children
Without other persons
With one or more other persons
F. Woman without husband or children
Without other persons
With one or more other persons
A relief houshold might be classified in any one of a number of
ways, depending upon the relationship of the several members to the
head of the household. Consider a household composed as follows:
Aman
His wife
Their unmarried son
Their unmarried daughter
His sister
His sister's child
His brother
His brother's child
If either the man or his wife were head of the relief household, the
case was classified as "husband, wife, and children with others." If
the brother and sister and their children had not been present, the
case would have been classified as "husband, wife, and children without others." If the man and his wife had been aged, disabled, or if
for other reasons the unmarried son were head of the household, the
case would have been classified as "man without wife or children with
others." Similarly, if the daughter were head, the case was classified
as "woman without children with others." If the brother were head,
the case was classified as "man and children with others." Finally,
if the sister were head, the case was classified as "woman and children
with others."
The Relief Family

The scheme of classification revealed relationships which may be
discussed under the term relief family. For present purposes the
term family is given a different meaning than that provided by the
United States Bureau of the Census. The relief family is a restricted kinship group constituting, or included in, a relief household.
This kinship group consists of persons related as husband and wife
or as parent and child. Married pairs without children or without
children living at home are called families as are groups consisting of a
single parent of either sex with one or more children. Children may
be own, step, or foster children and may be legitimate or illegitimate.

Dig 11zed by

Goog Ie

222 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF

Membership in the relief family is determined on the basis of marital,
pa.rental, and filial relationships. In general family membership
is limited to those relatives who live together though members
temporarily away from home are included in the family group if they
were also included in the relief case.
Relief families, as defined above, may be classified into several
groups. From the scheme followed in classifying relief households,
four types of families emerge, the husband-wife type, the husbandwife-children type, the father-child type, and the mother-child type.
As a matter of convenience, relief families may be classed as normal
or broken. Normal famuies include the husband-wife and the
husband-wife-children types. Broken families include the motherchild and the father-child types. These families are broken in the
sense that the marital bond has been severed by death, divorce, or
separation.
Nonfa111ily Typa of Relief HoUNholds

In instances where the head of the relief household is not a father, a
husband, or a wife to another person in the relief unit, the case may
be designated as a nonfamily type. Nonfamily relief cases are of
two kinds, one-person households consisting of a single individual
receiving relief and nonjamuy groups consisting of cases the head
of which is not a parent or a spouse. The term nonfamily group
is used only for convenience and for lack of a better term. As will
readily be seen from the method of classifying households by type, a
relief group, although under the headship of a man without a wife or
children or of a woman without a husband or children, may nevertheless contain other persons related as husband and wife or as
parent and child.

Dgi

zeclbyGoogle

Appendix·D
LIST OFT ABLES

TEXT TABLES
Table
Page
1. Incidence of rural relief, February, June, and October 1935, by resi3
dence_______________________________________________________
2. Ratio of rural cases to all cases receiving general relief, January 1933
through December 1935______________________________________
22
24
3. Incidence of rural relief, October 1933 through October 1935, by area_
4. Average monthly general relief benefit per case in rural and town areas,
January 1934 through December 1936__________________________
27
5. Separations and accessions of rural relief cases, March through June
1935, per 100 cases receiving relief in February, by area__________
32
6. Separations and accessions of rural relief cases, July through October
1935, per 100 cases receiving relief in June, by area______________
33
7. Accessions and separations of rural relief cases per 100 cases at beginning of month, July through December 1935____________________
33
8. Separations and accessions of rural relief cases, November and
December 1935, per 100 cases receiving relief in October, by area__
34
9. Reason for accession of rural cases receiving relief in February and
June 1935, by area _________________________________ - _- _- ___ - _
37
10. Reason for accesMion of rural relief cases, July through December 1935_
39
11. Reason for accession of rural relief cases, July through October 1935,
by usual occupation of the bead_ _ _ ____________ ________________
41
12. Reason for separation of rural relief cases, July through October 1935,
by month___________________________________________________
43
13. Reason for separation of rural relief cases, July through October 1935,
by usual occupation of the bead_______________________________
45
14. Net change in the rural relief case load, July through October 1935,
because of private industry and other reasons___________________
46
15. Accessions to rural relief per 100 separations, July through October
1935, because of private industry and other reasons, by usual occupation of the head of the case_ _ _ _ _______________________________
47
16. Accessions to rural relief per 100 separations, July through October
1935, because of private industry and other reasons, by region and
usual occupation of the head of the case________________________
48
17. Size of rural relief cases, June and October 1935, and of all rural
families, 1930, by residence____________________________________
51
18. Size of rural relief cases, February, June, and October 1935, by residence_______________________________________________________
53
19. Percent decrease in rural relief cases, February-June and JuneOctober 1935, by size of case and residence______________________
53

223

Dig l1,ed by

G oog IC

224 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Table

20. Type of households on relief in rural areas, June 1935, by area_______
21. Sex and age of I-person households on relief in rural areas, June and
October 1935, by residence____________________________________
22. Age of rural relief persons, June and October 1935, and of the general
rural population, 1930, by residence____________________________
23. Rural relief cases with children under 16 years of age, by residence,
number of children, and region________________________________
24. Children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20 through 44 years
of age in the rural relief population, October 1935, and in the general
rural population, 1930, by residence____________________________
25. Males per 100 females in the rural relief population, June and October
1935, and in the general rural population, 1930, by age and residence_
26. Age of heads of rural relief cases, June 1935, by residence and sex_ ___
27. Female heads per 100 rural relief cases, June and October 1935, by
age and residence ___________ - ________________ ____ __ ____ ____ __
28. Female heads per 100 rural relief cases, June and October 1935, by
region and residence _______________________ -----______________
29. Aged heads per 100 rural relief cases, June and October 1935, by
region and residence__________________________________________
30. Aged female heads per 100 aged heads of rural relief cases, June and
October 1935, by region and residence__________________________
31. Marital condition of the rural relief population, October 1935, and of
the general rural population, 1930, 16 through 64 years of age, by
sex_________________________________________________________
32. Percent of married persons in the rural relief population, October
1935, and in the general rural population, 1930, 16 through 64
years of age, by residence and sex__ ____ ___ ________ _____________
33. Percent of widowed persons in the rural relief population, October
1935, and in the general rural population, 1930, 16 through 64
years of age, by residence and sex______________________________
34. Percent of separated persons among all married persons 16 through 64
years of age on relief in rural areas, October 1935, by residence and
sex_________________________________________________________
35. Divorced persons per 1,000 rural relief population, October 1935,
and per 1,000 general rural population, 1930, 16 through 64 years
of age, by residence and sex___________________________________
36. Percent of single persons in the rural relief population, October 1935,
and in the general rural population, 1930, 16 through 64 years of
age, by residence and sex_____________________________________
37. Percent of separated persons among all married persons 16 through
64 years of age on relief in rural areas, October 1935, by residence
and area___________________________________________________
38. Marital condition of heads of rural relief cases 16 through 64 years of
age, October 1935, by sex_____________________________________
39. M.'lrital condition of heads of rural relief cases 16 through 64 years of
age, October 1935, by residence________________________________
40. ~chool grade completed by rural relief persons 10 through 64 years of
age, October 1935, by age ____________________________ . _______ _
41. School grade completed by heads of rural relief cases 16 through 64
years of age, October 1935, by age_____________________________
42. Median school grade completed by rural relief persons 10 through 64
years of age, October 1935, by area_____________________________

Page

Dg1tzedbyGoogle

56

57
61
61

63
65
66
66

67
68
68

69

71

71

72

72

74
75
76
76
80
81

84

LIST OF TABLES • 225

Table

Page

43. School grade completed by heads of rural relief cases 16 through 64
years of age, October 1935, by area______ _______________________
44. Percent of the rural relief population, October 1935, and of the general
rural population, 1930, 5 tlirough 24 years of age attending school,
by area_____________________________________________________
45. Workers and dependents in rural relief cases, June and October 1935,
by family statue_____________________________________________
46. Employability composition of rural relief cases, February, June, and
October 1935________________________________________________
47. Number of workers in rural relief cases having 1 or more persons 16
through 64 years of age working or seeking work, February and
June 1935, by residence ______________________________________ _
48. Type of rural relief cases without workers, June 1935, by residence __ _
49. Size of rural relief cases without workers, June 1935, by residence ___ _
50. Age and sex of rural relief persons 16 through 64 years of age working
or seeking work, June 1935, by family statue ___________________ _
51. Age and sex of heads of rural relief cases working or seeking work,
June 1935, by usual occupation _______________________________ _
52. Usual industry of rural relief persons 16 through 64 years of age working or seeking work, February, June, and October 1935, by residence_
53. Usual occupation of rural relief persons 16 through 64 years of age
working or seeking work, February, June, and October 1935, by
residence ___________________________________________________ _
54. Percent with some employment of all rural relief persons 16 through
64 years of age working or seeking work, February and October 1935,
by usual industry and residence _______________________________ _
55. Current industry of rural relief persons 16 through 64 years of age employed in private industry, February and October 1935, by residence_
56. Current employment status of workers and wage income received by
rural relief cases, October 1935, by area ________________________ _
57. Percent of heads of rural relief cases 16 through 64 years of age, working
or seeking work, who were unemployed and median number of
r.aonths unemployed, June 1935, by region, usual occupation, and
residence ___________________________________________________ _
58. Percent of heads of rural relief cases 16 through 64 years of age, working
or seeking work, without employment at the usual occupation and
median number of months without such employment, June 1935,
by region, usual occupation, and residence _____________________ _
59. Number of months without usual employment of heads of rural relief
cases 16 through 64 years of age who had lost their usual employment, June 1935, by residence and usual occupation _____________ _
60. Year of migration to county by heads of rural relief cases, June 1935,
by region and residence ______________________________________ _
61. Employability of heads of n1ral relief cases, June 1935, by residence
and year of migration to county ______________________________ _
62. Usual occupation of heads of rural relief cases 16 through 64 years of
age working or seeking work, June 1935, by residence and year of
migration to county _________________________________________ _
63. Current occupation of heads of rural relief cases 16 through 64 years of
age working or seeking work, June 1935, by residence and year of
migration to county _________________________________________ _

Dig l1,ed by

86

87
91
92

93
93
94

•95
97
97

102

103
105

106

107

108

112
117

118

118

G oog IC

226 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Table

Page

1. Rural relief cases in 138 sample counties, February, June, and October
1935, by area sampled________________________________________
2. Rural relief persons in 138 sample counties, February, June, and
October 1935, by area sampled________________________________
3. Estimated number of rural relief cases in 9 sample areas, February,
June, and October 1935, by residence___________________________
4. Estimated number of rural relief persons in 9 sample areas, February,
June, and October 1935, by residence___________________________
5. Rural relief cases in 300 sample counties and 83 New England townships, June and October 1935, by State sampled_________________
6. Rural relief persons in 300 sample counties and 83 New England townships, June and October 1935, by State sampled_________________
7. Estimated number of cases receiving relief in rural areas, June and
October 1935, by State and residence___________________________
8. Estimated number of persons receiving relief in rural areas, June and
October 1935, by State and residence___________________________
9. Rural relief and Works Program cases, January 1932 through December 1935____________________________________________________
10. Type of assistance received by rural relief cases, February, June, and
October 1935, by area________________________________________
11. Type of assistance received by rural relief cases, June and October
1935, by State_______________________________________________
12. Average monthly general relief benefit per case in rural areas, February,
June, and October 1935, by are& and type of assistance__________
13. Average monthly general relief benefit per case in urban areas, 19341936_ ____ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _
14. Average monthly general relief benefit per case in rural areas, June and
October 1935, by State and type of assistance___________________
15. Reason for separation of rural relief cases, July through October 1935,
by State____________________________________________________
16. Rate of accessions and separations of rural relief cases, July through
October 1935, because of private industry and other reasons, by ueual
occupation of the head________________________________________
17. Accessions to rural relief per 100 separations, July through October
1935, because of private industry and other reasons, by State and
residence____________________________________________________
18. Private industries responsible for closing rural relief cases, July through
October 1935, by region and residence__________________________
19. Type of households on relief in rural areas, June and October 1935, by
residence____________________________________________________
20. Type of families on relief in rural areas, June and October 1935, by
residence____________________________________________________
21. Age and sex of the rural relief population, June 1935, and of the general
rural population, 1930, under 65 years of age____________________
22. Age of the rural relief population, June 1935, by State______________
23. Age of the general rural population, 1930, by State_________________
24. Percent of all rural relief cases and of 2 or more person cases, June 1935,
containing children under 16 years of age and average number of
children per case with children, by State and residence____________
25. Percent of all rural relief cases, June 1935, containing aged persons
and average number of aged persons per case with aged, by State and
residence____________________________________________________

Dig uzed by

Goog Ie

123
123
124
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132

132
133

134
136
138

139
140

141
142
142
143

144

145

LIST OF TABLES • 227

Table
Page
26. Percent of rural relief cases, June 1935, having no person under 16 or
over 64 years of age, by State and residence_____________________
146
27. Percent of married persons in the rural relief population 16 through 64
years of age, October 1935, by sex and area_____________________
147
28. Marital condition of the rural relief population 16 through 64 years of
age, October 1935, by sex and area_____________________________
148
29. Marital condition of beads of rural relief cases, October 1935, by sex
and area____________________________________________________
149
30. School grade completed by rural relief persons 10 through 64 years of
age, October 1935, by residence________________________________
150
31. School grade completed by heads of rural relief cases 16 through 64
years of age, October 1935, by residence________________________
151
32. School grade completed by rural relief persons 10 through 64 years of
age, October 1935, by sex_ ______ _________________ _______ ______
152
33. School grade completed by heads of rural relief cases 16 through 64
years of age, October 1935, by sex______________________________
153
34. Percent of the rural relief population 5 through 24 years of age attending school, October 1935, by residence and area__________________
154
35. Usual industry of heads of rural relief cases 16 through 64 years of age
working or seeking work, February, June, and October 1935, by
residence ________________ -----------------------------------155
36. Usual occupation of beads of rural relief cases 16 through 64 years of
age working or seeking work, February, June, and October 1935, by
residence____________________________________________________
155
37. Length of time between loss of last job at usual occupation and accession to relief by heads of rural cases in their first relief period, June
1935, by usual occupation_____________________________________
156
38. Year of migration to county by beads of rural relief cases, June 1935,
by State--------------------------------------------------158

Dig llzed by

Google

n,g lized by

Goog IC

Index
229

Dig llzed by

Google

Digitized by

Google

INDEX

Accession rates. See Rural relier.
Page
Agricultural Adjustment Administration ______________________________ 12-13
Agricultural conditions (see also Farm situation):
Effect on rural population__________ ______________ _________ _____ xvu, 4
Factors affecting _ _ _ _ ______________________ ___ _________ _ ____ xm, 4-8
Indexes of____________________________________________________
7-8
Agricultural Situation, The__________________________________ 5n, 6n, 7n, 13n
Agricultural Statistics 1936 __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ 5n, 6n, 7n, 8n
Areas represented (see also Methodology) ______________________ x111-x1v, 168
Asch, Berta and Mangus, A. R.: Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation____
4n,
15n, 112n
Bean, Louis H. See Ezekiel, Mordecai.
Beck, P. G. and Forster, M. C.: Siz Rural Problem Areas, Relief-Reaource11-Rehabilitation______ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ ___ ___ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ 59n
Biennial Survey of Education in the United States: 1982-84--- _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ 79n
Breithaupt, L. R.: Preliminary Data Concerning an Immigrant Family
Survey in Oregon, January 1980 to November 1936____________________ 114n
Bronner, Edmund deS. See Kolb, J. H.
Carmichael, F. L. and Payne, Stanley L.: The 1935 Relief Population in
1S Cities: A Cross-Section ______________________________________ 29n, 81n
Carothers, Doris: Chronology of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, May 12, 1983, to December St, 1985____________________________
20n
Castle, H. H.: "Summary of Drought Relief"_________________________
16n
Changes in Different Types of Public and Private Relief in Urban Areas___ 133n
Civil Works Administration (see also Governmental programs):
Factor in reducing relief load ______________________________ 19-20, 22-23
Termination of_____________________________________________ 20, 26-27
Civilian Conservation Corps ____________________________ 22, 42, 43, 44, 45-46
Closed relief eases. See Rural relief, separation rates; Rural relief oases,
closing.
Coal, Employment and Related Statistics of Mines and Quarries, 1935__
99n
Cooper, Martin R.: "Displacement of Horses and Mules by Tractors"___
5n
Counties sampled ____________________________________________ xiv, 168,174
Current employment.

See Workers in rural relief population.

231

Dig t1zed by

G oog IC

232 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Page
Dawson, Howard A.: "Rural Schools of Today"----------------------79n
Deffenbaugh, Walter S. and Keesecker, Ward W.: Compuuory School
Attendance Law11 and Their Adminilllration_ _________________________ 87n
Depression, effects of, on rural population____________________________
XIII
Droba, Daniel D.: Rellllom for Clolling Rural Relief Cllllea, March-June
and July-October, 1995___________________________________________
43n
Drought:
Effects of_ _____ --- -- _---- ---- -- ---- _____ -- _-- --- __ -- ----- XIII, XIX, 28
Relief:
Agencies participating ______________________________________ 15-16
Percent of February load___________________________________
130
Responsible for migration _________________________________ 114, 115-116

Education. See Population, rural relief; Rural relief heads.
Employment. See Industry, employment in; Rural relief households;
Workers in rural relief population.
Ezekiel, Mordecai and Bean, Louis H.: Economic Baaea for the Agricultural Adjustment Act_____________________________________________

7n

Family, rural relief (see also Rural relief households):
Definition __________________________________________________ 221-222
Nonfainily groups ____________________________________________ 57,222
Sex and age, by residence__________________________________ 57, 140
One-person households:
Sex and age, by residence _______________________________ 57-58, 140
Types:
By area__________________________________________________
56
By residence ________________________________ 54, 55, 56--58, 140,141
Farm Population Estimates__________________________________________ 11 ln
Farm situation (see also Agricultural conditions)_______________________
4-8
Federal Emergency Relief Administration (see also Governmental programs):

Drought relief program _________________________________________ 15-16
Establishment _______________________________________________ xvu, 14
Expansion of program _______________________________________ 19, 26--27

Final grants-------------------------------------------- XVIII, 14, 23
Rural rehabilitation program _____________________ xvm, 15, 20, 21, 23, 25
Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930 _ _ _ ______ _ 4n, 5n, 6n, Sn, 9n, 24n, 25n,
51n,60n,61n,65n,69n,71n,72n,73n, 74n,79n,87n,142n, 143n, 170n,173n
Forster, M. C. See Beck, P. G.
Governmental programs:
Nonrelief:
Agricultural Adjustment Act _______________________________ _ 12-13
Agricultural Credit Corporation ____________________________ _
16
Bureau of Public Roads ___________________________________ _
16
Farm Credit Administration _______________________________ _ 12, 16
Farm loan banks _________________________________________ _
12
Federal Farm Board ______________________________________ _
12
Pu blio Works Administration ______________________________ _
16
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act _______________ _
13

D91

zeabyGooglc

INDEX• 233
Governmental programs-Continued.
PagtJ
Relief (see also Social Security Board and Works Program):
Civil Works Administration_________________________________
H
Drought __________________________________________________ 16-16
Federal Emergency Relief Administration____________________
14
Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation____________________
15
Federal Surplus Relief Corporation _______________________ 14-15, 16
Local and State responsibility_________________ ______________
13
Reconstruction Finance Corporation _________________________ 13-14
Resettlement Administration ___________________________ - _- _15
Rural rehabilitation________________________________________
15
Groves, E. R. and Ogburn, Wm. F.: American Marriage and Family Relationship,______________________________________________________ 73n
Hauser, Philip M.: WorA.er& on Relief in the United States
in March 1935 ________________________________________________ lln,96n
Hodson, William: "Unemployment Relief" ______ ,..____________________
13n
Horne, Roman L.: The Farm Busine1111_______________________________
12n
Industry, employment in:
Effects of, on accession rate ____________________ _________ ___ _ xx, 45-48
In relation to accession rate and usual occupation of head__ 46-48, 136-137
By State and residence _________________________________ 47-48, 138
In relation to separation rate and usual occupation of head_ 46, 47, 136-137
Types of industries responsible for closings, by region and residence__
139
Keesecker, Ward W. See Deffenbaugh, Walter S.
Kolb, J. H. and Brunner, Edmund deS.: A Study of Rural Society______

6n

Laborers, farm. See Farm situation.
Landis, Paul H.: Rural Immigrants to Wa&hington State, 1932-1936______ 114n
Lotka, Alfred J.:, "Modern Trends in the Birth Rate"_________________
64n
McCormick, T. C.: Comparative Study of Rural Relief and Non-Relief
Households______________________________________________ 59n, 80n, 112n
Mangus, A. R.: Type and Value of Relief Received by Rural and Town
Cases, October 1984----- _____ __ ___________ ____ _ ____ __ ____ ___ __ ___ _ 26n
See also Asch, Berta; Smith, Mapheus.
Marital condition. See Population, rural relief; Rural relief heads.
Methodology:
Areas sampled __________________________________________ 164-166, 168
Collection of data ___________________________________________ 178-179
Counties in nine agricultural areas_____________________________ 190-199
Representativeness of sample ______________________________ xv, 179-190
Sample cases, selection of_____________________________________ 176-177
Sample counties:
Field studies conducted in ________________________________ 175-176
Representing nine agricultural areas_______________________ 199-200
Selection of, to represent areas ____________________________ 166-170
Selection of, to represent States ___________________________ 171-175
Townships and, representing 34 States _____________________ 201-203
Sampling method ____________________________________________ 163-164
Schedules ___________________________________________________ 204-216

I

Dig llzed by

Google

234 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Methodology-Continued.
Page
State supervisors of rural research______________________________ _ 217
States sampled, by regions______________________________________
203
Units of studv _______________________________________________ 162-163
Metropolitan areas, definition_______________________________________
Sn
Migrants, rural relief heads:
Current employment _________________________________________ l IS-1 H)
Employability _______________________________________________ 116-117
Usual oocupations ___________________________________________ 117-118
Migration:
Drought as cause of _____________________________________ xxui, 114,116
General population, farm and non farm trends_____________________
111
Relief heads:
Extent of_ _____ ____ _____________ ___ ______ ____ _____ _____ ___
112
Interstate migrants __________________________________ 115-116, 158
Lifelong residents __________________________________ xxnt, 112, 114
Recent migrants _____________________________________ 112, lH-115
Year of:
By region and residence________________________________
112
By State ___________________________________ .. _ ___ ___ 113, 158
Monthly Labor Review______________________________________________
28n
Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Admini.,trcuion:
April 1 lo April 30, 1934 _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ 20n
December 1 lo December SI, 193.'J __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ ___ __ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ __ ___
15n
December I Through December SJ, 19."J4___________________________
20n
January 1 Through January 31, 1935_____________________________
20n
June 1 Through June 30, 1936___________________________________
14n
March 1 Through March SI, 1935________________________________
21n
November 1 Through November SO, 1984__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ ___
20n
November 1 Through November SO, 1985 __ _______________________ 15n, 16n
October 1 Through October S1, 1934 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20n
Negroes:
Afl,e and sex of heads ___________________________________________ 67-68
Education:
Grade attainment_ _______________________________________ _
86
School attendance ________________________________________ _ 87,89
Nonfarm situation, ruraL _________________________________________ _ S-12
Notestein, Frank W.: "Class Differences in Fertility" _________________ _ 62n
Occupations. See Industry, employment in; Migrants, rural relief heads;
Nonfarm population, rural; Workers in rural relief population.
Ogburn, Wm. F. See Groves, E. R.
Open country. See Residence.
Opening of relief cases. See Rural relief, accession rates; Rural relief
cases, opening.
Payne, Stanley L. See Carmichael, F. L.
Perrott, G. St. J. See Sydcnstricker, Edgar.
Population, rural:
Afl,e and sex ______________________________________________ 59-ffl>, 142
Age distribution, by State and residence ________________________ 61,143
Definition ___________________________________________ - - - - - - - - - 3, 3n
Farm and nonfarm ___________ - - -- -- -- - - -- - - - - -- - - -- -- - -------3

Dig l1zed by

Goog IC

INDEX • 235
Population, rural relief:
Page
Age and sex ____________________________ . __________________ 59-61, 142
Age distribution, by State and residence ___________________ 59, 60--61, 142
Eduoation:
Grade completed:
By age_______________________________________________
80
By area and color _____________________________________ 84-87
By residence _________________________________________ 83, 150
By sex ___________________________________________ 83-84, 152
Median grade completed___________________________________
82
Percent without schooling __________________________________ 79, 81
Rural-urban differences _______________________________ 79, 80, 81, 82
School attendance, 5 through 24 years _______________ xxm, 87-89, 154
Fertility rate, by State, region, and residence _____________________ 62-65
Marital condition, persons 16 through 64 years, by area and sex ____ 69-71,
75,148
Percent married, by age, residence, and sex _____________ 71, 72, 73-74
By age, area, and sex _____________________________ 75,147,148
Percent separated, by age, residence, and sex ___________ 71-72, 75, 148
Percent single, by age, residence, and sex _________________ 74, 75,148
Percent widowed, by age, residence, and sex ________ 71, 72, 74, 75, 148
Ratio of divorced persons, by age, residence, and sex _______ 72, 74, 148
65
Sex distribution, by age and residence____________________________
Size of_ ________________________________________________ xm, 127, 128
Production, agricultural.

See Farm situation.

Reconstruction Finance Corporation:
Effect on rural relief_________ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ __
19
Establishment_________________________________________________
13
Rehabilitation program, rural. See Federal Emergency Relief Administration; Resettlement Administration.
Relief (see also Rural relief; Population, rural relief):
Federal funds made available ________________________________ 13-14, 19
Federal programs (see also Governmental programs) ____________ 12-16, 22
State participation_____________________________________________
13
Resettlement Administration (see also Governmental programi,):
Advances to farmers ___________________________________________ XVIII
Emergency grant program of_ ___________________________ xvm, 21, 22, 23
Factor in relief situation________________________________________
44
Rural rehabilitation program____________________________________
15
Residence:
Open country and village, definition _____________________________ 3, 3n
Rural population. See Population, rural; Population, rural relief.
Rural relief (see also Population, rural relief; Rural relief cases; Rural relief
heads; Rural relief households):
Accession rates, 1935:
July-December____________________________________________
33
July-Octobei:
By area_ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ 32-33, 34
By State and residence_________________________________
138
By usual occupation of head __________________________ 136-137
March-June, by area _______________________________________ 31-32
November-December, by area______________________________
34

Dig t1zed by

G oog IC

236 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Rural relief-Continued.
Page
Incidence of, by residence_ _ _ _ _____________ ________ _____ _____ ___
3-4
Intensity, factors affecting (au alao Rural relief cases)______________
3-4
Load, estimated, by area, State, and residence __________ xm--xrv, 123-129
Peak month ______________________________________________ XIX,20,31
Reasons for decline____________________________________________ 20-21
Separation rates, 1935:
July-December____________________________________________
33
July-October:
By area______________________________________________
33
By usual occupation of head __________________________ 136-137
March-June, by area _______________________________________ 31-32
November-December, by area______________________________
3'
Trends. See Rural relief cases.
Turnover rates, 1935 ________________ - _______________ __ _________
xx
July-December____________________________________________
33
July-October, by area ___________________________________ 32-33, 34
Maroh-June, by area ________________________________ 31-32,33-3'
November-December, by area______________________________
34
Rural relief cases:
Average monthly benefi~ per case:
By area _________________________________________________ 28, 132
By State and type ________________________________________ 28, 133
Rural and town ___________________________________________ 26-27
Rural-urban differences ____________________________________ 29, 133
Trends __________________________________________ XIx,26-27, 28-29
Closing, reasons for, 1935 (see also Industry, employment in) _______ xx, 42
July-October _____________________________________________ 43-44
By usual occupation of head ____________________ 44-45, 136-137
By State and region ___________________________ '5-46, 134-135
March-June ______________________________________________ 42-43
Intensity, by area _________________________________________ XIX, 24, 25
Number ________________________________________ xvm, 19,124,127,129
Opening, reasons for, 1935 (see also Industry, employment in):
February and June, by area ____________________________ XIX, 35--38
July-Dece".mber ____________________________________________ 38-40
July-October:
By State ____________________________________________ 48,138
By usual occupation of head ____________________ 40-42, 136-137
Ratio of, to all cases ___________________________________________ 22-23
Trends ________________ --- _-- _-- _-- ----- __ ---- -- _____ XVIII-XIX, 19-22
Types of a.ssistance--direct, work, and drought ___________ XIX, 26, 130, 131
Rural relief heads (see alao Workers in rural relief population):
Age distribution, by sex and residence ____________________________ 66-67
Education:
Grade completed:
By age _________________________________________ 80,81-82,83
By area and color _____________________________________ 80-87
By residence _________________________________________ 83, 151
By sex ___________________________________________ 83-84, 153
Female:
Aged, by region and residence_______________________________
68
By age and residenoo _______________________________________ 66-67
By color and region________________________________________
67

DgltzectbyGoogle

INDEX • 237
Rural relief heads-Continued.
Page
Marital condition:
By age and sex________________________________________ xx1, 76-78
By area and color________________________________________ 78, 149
By area and sex _______________________________________ 76-78, 149
By residence______________________________________________
76
Ratio of aged, by region and residence_ _ _ __ __ _____ _______________ 67-68
Rural relief households (see also Family, rural relief; Rural relief cases;
Rural relief heads) :
Age composition, by State, region, and residence _________ 61,144,145,146
Aged persons, percent containing _______________________________ 62,145
Children, number by region and residence ________________ xx1, 61-62, 144
Children or aged, number without_ _____________________________ 62,146
Classification by type ________________________________________ 220-221
Composition, by residence~------------------------------ xx, 53-54, 140
Definition __________________________________________________ 219-220
Employability composition __________________________________ XXI, 91-92
Containing workers, number per household, by residence ________ 91, 92, 93
Without workers:
94
Size of, by residence__ _ ____ ___________________________ _____
Type of, by residence ______________________________________ 93-94
Nonfamily types _____________________________________________ xx, 222
Size:
By residence, June and October 1935 ________________________ xx, 51
Changes in, February-October 1935:
By residence__________________________________________ 52-53
Differential rates of decline _____________________________ 52, 53
Compared to all rural families _______________________________ 51-52
Rural relief persons:
Number:
By State and residence____________________________________
128
In sample areas _____________________________________ 123,124,126
Rural relief population. See Population, rural relief.
Sample cases. See Methodology.
Separation rates.· See Rural relief.
Smith, Mapheus and Mangus, A. R.: Case11 Receiving General Relief in
Urban and Rural Areas, July 1933-December 1935 (Estimated)_ 21n, 23n, 12911
Social Security Board ____________________________________________ xvm, 14
Spencer, Lyle M. See Stouffer, Samuel A.
States represented (see also Methodology) ___________________ XIV, 125,126,174
Statistical Summary of Emergency Relief Activities, January 1933 Through
December 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ ___ _ _ 22n
Stouffer, Samuel A.:
"Fertility of Families on Relief"_________________________________
63n
73n
Spencer, Lyle M., and: "Marriage and Divorce in Recent Years"___
Survey of Current Business (1936 Supplement) ___________________ 811, lln, 12n
Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population______________
xm
Sydenstricker, Edgar and Perrott, G. St. J.: "Sickness, Unemployment,
and Differential Fertility"________________________________________
63n
Thompson, Warren S.: Ratio of Children to Women 1920________________
62n
Townships sampled (see also Methodology) ________ xiv, 173, 174n, 175, 201-202

Dg1

zedbyGooglc

238 • CHANGING ASPECTS OF RURAL RELIEF
Po,e

Unemployment Reluf Cenaiu, October 1933 __ • _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ xmn, 24n,
25n, 162n,170n, 173n, 187n
United States Census of AgricuUure: 1935 _______________ 170n, 173n, 182n, 183n
Usual industry. See Industry, employment in; Workers in rural relief
population.
Usual occupation, definition _______ ._________________________________
41n
See also Industry, employment in; Migrants, rural relief heads;
Workers in rural relief population.

Village.

See Residence.

Woodbury, Robert M.: "Infant Mortality in the United States"________
Woofter, T. J., Jr.: "The Natural Increase of the Rural-Nonfann Population" _____________________________ .___________________________

65n
Sn

Workers in rural relief population:
Current employment and industry:
By residence _________________ . ___________ . ___ ._·_________ 103-104
Income from, by area ____________________________________ 104-105
91n
Definition____________________________________________________
Family status and dependents, by age and sex ______________ 91-92, 94-95
Heads:
Age and sex __________________________________________ xx11, 94-95
Employment experience ____________________________ xxu, 91, 95-96
Unemployment, by region and usual occupation _________ 105-106, 107
Usual induHtry, by residence _________________________ 96, 97-99, 155
Usual occupation:
By age and sex ___________________________________ 97,100,101
By residence ______ ---- _________________________ . ____ 100, 155
Last job at, length of time between loss of job and accession
to relief, by residence __________________ 107, 108-110, 156-157
Unemployment at:
Median months of, by region and residence _____ xxn, 106-108
Number of months, by residence ________________________ 108
Percent reporting ____________________________ 106-108
Members:
.
Age and sex _____________________ . _____ . _______________ ---.- 94-95
Employment experience _______________ . _______ . ______ 91-92, 95-96
Usual industry, by residence _________________________________ 96, 97, 99
Current employment status, and _____________ .. ___________ 101-103
Usual occupation, by residence _________________________________ 99-101
Works Program:
Effects of, on relief load __________________ xix, xx, 21, 24, 32, 33, 43, 44, 45
Increase in cases __________________________________________ 21, 22,129
Works Pro11:ress Administration_______________________________________ xvu
Wynne, Waller, Jr.: Five Years of Rural Relief ________________________ 176n
Yearbook of Agriculture: 1936 ___ . __ .. _...... _________________ - _ __ __ Sn, 13n

0

Dg,tzedby•Google

Dig lizecJ by

Google

D91

zedbyGoogle