The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Research Monographs
of the Division oF Social Research
Works Progress Administration
I. Six Rural Problem Areas, Relief-Rao11rce1-Reha.
bilitation
II. Comparative Study of Rural Relief and Non-Relief
Households
Ill. The Transient U,iemployecl
IV. Urban Workers-on Reliel
V. Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation
VI. Chronology of the Federal Emergency Relief A~min•
istration, May 1,2, 1933, to December 32, 1935
VII. T,he Migratory-Casual Worker
VIII. Farmers on Relief and Rehabihtation
IX. Part-Time Farming in the Southeast
X. Trends in 'Relief Expenditures, 1910-1935
XI. Rural Youth on Relief
1
XII. 'Intercity Differences In Costs of Living in March 1935,
59 Cities
XIII. Effects of the Works Program on Rural Helief
~
........._..,.._
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
Harry L. Hoplc)ns, Adalnldrotor
Conln,ton Gill, lwllhlnt Adalnldrofor
DIVISION OF SOCIAL RESEARCH
Howard B. Mycn, Dl,ector
EFFECTS OF THE WORKS
PROGRAM ON RURAL
RELIEF
A Survey of Rural Relief CGMI Cloeecl In Seven
States, July Through November 1935
By
Rebecca Famham
and
RESEARCH MONOGRAPH XIII
1938
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON
Digitized by
Google
GlAN.N.1.i..i. 1·vi_;.;l)i>.TION
Digitized by
Google
Letter of Transmittal
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D. 0., September 15, 1987.
Sir: I transmit herewith a report describing the effects of the transfer, during the latter half of 1935, of needy rural families from the rolls
of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration to more specialized
programs of assistance, including employment on the Works Program,
ca.re by the Resettlement Administration, or relief or other public
assistance from State and local agencies. The analysis also attempts
to appraise the extent of economic recovery in December 1935 as it
affected rural households which had been on relief in June. The study
was made in rural areas of seven States selected to represent a variety
of agricultural regions and of local administrative policies toward the
problem of public assistance.
The findings of the survey reveal wide variation among the seven
States in the sources of income and types of economic and relief
status of the former Emergency Relief Administration cases in December 1935. In all States surveyed the Works Program was already
caring for considerable proportions of the needy employable cases in
December, although the peak of Works Program employment had not
been reached in any State.
Substantial proportions of the former relief cases were employed in
private industry. In many cases, however, particularly among farm
operators, the income accruing from such employment was slight, and
much of the employment secured was of a temporary and seasonal nature.
The survey reveals that in some of the States studied State and
local programs of public assistance had not been sufficiently developed
in December 1935 to take over the entire residual load of needy unemployed and unemployable cases not cared for by Federal agencies.
Some of the States had not yet accepted responsibility for general relief
to the needy within their borders and were leaving the entire task to local
governments, often impoverished from the effects of the depression.
The study was made in the Division of Social Research under the
direction of Howe.rd B. Myers, Director of the Division. The data
were collected under the supervision of A. R. Mangus and the analysis
was supervised by T. J. Woofter, Jr., Coordinator of Rural Research.
The report was prepared by Rebecca. Farnham and Irene Link.
Berta Asch assisted in the preliminary analysis of the data. The
report was edited by Ellen Winston. Acknowledgment is me.de
of the cooperation of the State Supervisors and Assistant State Supervisors of Rural Research who were in direct charge of the field work.
Respectfully submitted.
CORRINGTON GILL,
Assistant Administrator.
Hon. HARRY L. HoPKINs,
WorkB Progress Administrator.
Ill
M44080
Dig,t zed tJy
Goos le
lJigt1zecJ by
Google
Contents
PtJ{le
XI
Introduction - - - - - Summary of Findings _
- - - -
_ - _ - -
XVII
Chapter I. Income of the Household, In December 1935 - - - - Principal sources of income _
_ _ _ _ _
Secondary sources of income _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Amount of income _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1
1
4
5
7
Chapter II. Shifts In Economic Status, July Through November 1935 Reasons for closing _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Reasons for reopening _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Changes in residence _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7
10
Chapter Ill. Employability and Employment Experience - - -
15
Employability of households _ _ _ _
Sex and age of workers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Employment experience of workers _
_ ___ _
Usual industries _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Usual occupations _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Occupations of closed cases compared with total June load _
Relation of usual occupation to relief history ____ _
Chapter IV. Works Program CertiAcation
__ - _____ _
12
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
Certification in relation to employability ___ _
Reasons for noncertification _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Certification of members other than heads _
Occupational differences in certification ____ _
Sex differences in certification _____ _
26
27
29
30
30
Chapter V. Employment in December 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Private employment _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Duration of private employment ___ _
Earnings in private employment _ _ _
Occupational shifts in private industry
31
34
35
35
36
V
Dig tizncJ by
Goog Ie
VI • CONTENTS
Page
Works Program employment _____________ _
Duplication of Works Program and other employment __
Usual occupations of heads of households with Works
Program employment _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Age and sex of Works Program workers _
Type of employment on Works Program
Duration of Works Program employment
Earnings on the Works Program _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
36
37
38
38
42
42
44
47
Chapter VI. Relief In December 1935
Relief agencies in the States _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Federal Emergency Relief Administration of Georgia
North Carolina Department of Public Welfare _
South Dakota Department of Public Welfare _ _ _ _ _
Montana Relief Commission _ _ _ _ _ _
West Virginia Relief Administration _ _ _ _ _ _
Wisconsin Department of Public Welfare
_ _ _ _
Iowa Emergency Relief Administration _ _ _ _ _ _
Extent of December relief loads _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Sources and amounts of relief _ _ _ _ _ _
Assistance to the aged, to the blind, and to dependent children _______________________
47
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
53
55
Chapter VII. Characteristics of December Relief and Nonrellef
Households _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
59
Size of households _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Age of heads of households _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Female heads of households _ _ _ _ _
Employability of heads of households _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Employability of members other than heads of households
Normal dependents _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_
_
59
60
61
61
62
62
Appendix A. Supplementary Tablfl _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
67
Appendix B. Methodological Note
97
- _ - _ - - -
_
_ _ _ _
Index
Figure
107
FIGURES
1. States represented and counties sampled _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ XIII
2. Relief and employment status of heads of rural households,
December 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ xvm
3. Principal source of income of rural households, December
1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3
4. Median income of rural households, December 1935 _ _ _
6
5. Sex of employable members other than heads of rural households, December 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
19
Digitized by
Google
CONTENTS • VII
Page
6. Sex of heads of rural households 16-64 years of age who
were working or seeking work, certified for Works Program
employment, and employed on Works Program, December 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7. Median amount of relief received by rural households, June
and December 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Digliwd
39
55
byGoog[c
D1g1tzeobyGooglc
Effects of the Works Program on
Rural Relief
IX
Oig112cd by
Google
Dig1tzeobyGooglc
INTRODUCTION
AeouT A MILLION and a quarter families
in rural 2 areas of the
United States left emergency relief rolls during the 5-month period,
July through November 1935.3 The number of families in this group
was only 13 percent less than the entire number of rural families
which were dependent on relief in June 1935. The sharp reduction
in the rural relief load was due partly to economic recovery and
improved conditions in agriculture but more particularly to important changes in the administration of public aid.
Federal support for direct relief through the Federal Emergency
Relief Administration was being gradually withdrawn during the
latter half of 1935. The Federal Works Program was inaugurated
in July and by the end of December 1935 had achieved its initial
objective in the employment of about 3,500,000 persons, nearly all
of whom were drawn from general relief rolls. The Resettlement
Administration, established by the Federal Government to aid
destitute farm families through loans or grants, assumed responsibility for the rural rehabilitation program of the Federal Emergency
Relief Administration on July 1, 1935. The number of clients under
the care of this organization increased from about 295,000, the
number transferred in July, to 445,000 in December.' Families on
public relief rolls that could not qualify for these types of Federal
aid became entirely the responsibility of State and local governments
in December 1935. The newly established Federal Social Security
Board was preparing to assist the States in providing aid to the aged,
to the blind, and to dependent children, but funds did not become
available to States with approved plans until February 1936.
In order to get a representative picture of the effects of economic
recovery and of administrative changes on rural relief families in selected States, this study was undertaken in 71 rural counties of 7
l
Estimated at 1,244,000.
Includes open country and centers of 50 to 2,500 population.
• Droba, Daniel D., Reasons for Closing Rural Relief Cases, March-June and
July-October, 1995, Research Bulletin H-7, Division of Social Research, Works
Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., March 30, 1936, p. 1, and unpublished data from the Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population.
• Statistics Section, Finance and Control Division, Resettlement Administration.
1
1
XI
Cig1t zea by
Goog re
XII • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
States (fig. 1).6 The sample 6 drawn from relief cases in these counties included 5,377 families which were dependent on relief in June
1935 and which were dropped from the rolls during the succeeding 5
months. Information on the status of these families in December
1935 was obtained to show how the families fared after their removal
from relief rolls; how many found employment in private industry;
how many were employed on the Works Program or received loans
or grants from the Resettlement Administration; how many went
back to relief rolls before the end of the year; and how many were in
need but not receiving relief.
Other queries were directed toward showing the reasons for workers
leaving relief rolls; the employability and employment experience of
workers; the sources and amounts of family income; the extent to
which families received more than one type of aid or aid to supplement
private earnings; and the social characteristics of the families.
The States selected for the study to illustrate the effects of changes
in the administration of relief represented different types of farming
and of rural nonagricultural industries.
State
Principal types ol larmlng •
Principal mral nonagricultural
Industries•
Montana ________________ Livestock, ca.sh grain _______ .......... . Railroad, mlnln!1: and quarrylJli,
lore.stry and llshmg
Booth Dakota .••••...... Livestock, cash gralo •••............... Railroad, bolldlng, lumber and furniture
Wisconsin.••••••••.••... Dairy, potato, livestock ....•........•. Building, railroad, forestry and flllhlns,
Iron and steel
Iowa ..•.••.•••••••...... Livestock, cash grain, ~oenl ........ . Building, railroad, Iron and steel, coal
minlnp:
West Vlrglola........... Sell-sufficing, livestock, general ....... . Coal mining, lumber, forestry and
fishing
North Carolina.......... Tobacco, oottoo, sell-sufflclng ........ . Lumber, furniture, textiles
Oeol"l(la........... .. .. .. Cotton, sell-sufficing, tobaooo......... Lumber, textiles, forestry and fishing
• Elliott, F. F., 7'1/pu of Farming in tu United Statu, U. B. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, D. C., 19:~1.
• Based on the number of gainful worlrers reported In the Fifleentll Cemu, of the United Statu: tfWJ, Popa•
Jation Vol. Ill, Pta. 1 and 2, table 20, Washington, D. C.
The States also represented different degrees of relief intensity in
the rural population in June 1935.
Percent of Rural Population on Relief, June 1935
7
Georgia
}
Iowa
7 percent or less
North Carolina
M?ntan~ } 10 to 15 rcent
W1Sconsm
pe
South Dakota}
. . . 23 percent or more
W es t Virgm1a
----These counties were covered in the Survey of Current Changes in the Rural
6
Relief Population conducted from February through December 1935.
1 For method of selecting sample, see Appendix B-Methodological Note.
7 Mangus, A. R. and Woofter, T. J., Jr., The Trend of Rural Relief, Research
Bulletin H-4, Division of Social Research, Works Progrese Administration,
Washington, D. C., October 29, 1935, chart 1.
Digit zca oy
Goog IC
INTRODUCTION• XIII
FIG. I- STATES REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES SAMPLED
SURVEY Of .A.INE 1935 RURAL RELIEF CASES
CLOSED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1935
The extent to which State and local governments helped to carry
the financial burden of relief during the 3-year period 1933 through
1935 also varied in the seven States although all but Iowa exceeded
the national average in dependence on Federal funds for relief.
Ranked according to their dependence on Federal funds the States
fall roughly into three groups.
Source of Emergency Relief Funds Obligated January 1933 Through December 1935
Total
State
1-------.----1
Amount
u. 8. totaL ••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••.
$4, O!HI, 574,293
100. 0
North Carolina. •..........•••.....••..••......
39,667,112
Oeorgla.. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• - •• - -
47,730,325
100.0
100.0
South Dakota •••.•••.•..••.•..................
Montana••..•.•••.•..••. •••·•· .. -.••••...... -.
35,D67, ll08
311,334,633
57, 232, 604
Wl,comln ••••••••.....•••..•.•.•••••••..•.....
Iowa.•......•..••.....•...........•...........
100,001.~
West Virginia •••••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•....
41,764,128
Federal
State
Loaal
Percent
70.G
=IHl.8
=
12. 8
18. 3
3. 2
~-8
8. ~
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
811. 8
88. 8
88. 5
C:!s
10. 4
8. 8
2.7
100.0
100. 0
72. 5
57.8
3.8
10.0
23. 7
G.8
32. 2
•Less than 0.06 percent.
Dakota collected beer and wine revenues and turned them over to the counties, bot these were
1 South
reported by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration as local fonds. The counties credited the
revenues to their l)00r funds and administered them locally.
Source: Mo11thlr &port of tM Ftdmu Emn(lfflef Rdlt/ Admlnimatlon, Jum I TAroug/t ./um $0, 19811,
table C, p. 57.
It is believed that the rural relief situation in each State sampled is
accurately reflected in the findings for the sample areas of that State,
and that these States in tum illustrate various aspects of the rural
relief situation in the country as a whole during the latter half of 1935.
No attempt has been made, however, to combine the figures for the
seven States or to draw general conclusions for the entire United
Dig tizncJ by
Goog Ie
XIV • EFFECTS OF THE WORl<S PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
States on the basis of this study. Such procedure would not be justified in view of the small number of States sampled and the variety of
administrative situations existing in these States at the time of the
survey. .AB will be apparent from the report, the various degrees of
promptness with which the States put the Works Program into
operation as well as differences in the availability of State or local
funds to continue general relief as Federal support was withdrawn
caused many differences among States in the situations of the households 8 in December.
Moreover, differences in administrative policy were partly responsible for variations among States in the composition of the ease load
sampled for this study. The variety of policies pursued by State
emergency relief administrations in closing relief eases in 1935 caused
the types of eases on relief in June and those closed after June to differ
from one State to another.
A number of examples may be cited of the effects of the various
methods of closing cases. For instance, although practically all
emergency relief administrations in the States conducted reinvestigations of relief rolls in May or June, the resulting closings of cases were
not carried out on a. uniform basis. In some States, such as W1Sconsin and West Virginia, no specific types of eases were apparently
singled out for closing, whereas in other States, such as Georgia and
South Dakota, the closings were selective. In Georgia. closings were
directed specifically at tenant farmers, part-time workers, and women
heads of households in May 1935. Another selective order in Georgia.
was that removing all unemployables II from E. R. A. rolls by June 1,
1935. .AB a result of such closings occurring in May and June, the
types of cases affected would naturally appear in very small numbers
in the sample of July-November closings used in this study. In
South Dakota an order removing all farmers from relief in June might
• The terms cases, households, and families are used interchangeably in this
report.
• Unemployability was defined as follows in Georgia:
1. An unemployable man is one who is handicapped by age, disability, or
chronic illness to such an extent that he could not secure gainful employment or
do efficient work even in a period of normal industrial activity. This includes
(a) the handicapped who are incapable of any employment; (b) the handicapped
who may secure employment only through the assistance of interested persons
and organizations; (c) workers who are unfit for work because of chronic illness;
and (d) all men under 16 years or over 65.
2. A woman is described as unemployable by the same definition as is given
for an unemployable man. An unemployable woman is also one who is so situated as to be needed at home to care for children or other members of the family.
Release No. 1029, Administrative Division, Federal Emergency Relief Administration of Georgia, Atlanta, Ga., May 13, 1935.
01911 zco by
Goog Ie
INTRODUCTION • XV
have had the same effect on the sample had it not been followed by
the suspension of all relief in the State in July.1°
In Montana all unemployables were ordered removed from E. R. A.
rolls during the first 2 weeks of September with the result that unemployables are conspicuous in the Montana sample. In North
Carolina an order removing unemployables was issued in January
1935, early enough to permit some of these cases to find their way
back to E. R. A. rolls by June. Still another administrative difference was found in Iowa. This State had always attempted to follow
the policy of limiting E. R. A. funds to employable eases and assigning
the care of unemployables to county poor funds. Hence few unemployable eases would be expected to appear in the Iowa sample
of E. R. A. closings. 11
Because the administrative factors prove to be such an important
variable in this study, the findings regarding the social characteristics
of the rural households involved in the July-November E. R. A.
closings are of less value than the information obtained on the extent
to which private industry was absorbing rural relief cases and the
success with which changes were being made from general public relief
to several different forms of aid. Some of the effeets of these changes
on the rural households concerned can be evaluated from these data.
More detailed accounts are available in earlier published reports of
the Division of Social Research. 12
•• Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Adminiatration, Jul'fl I
Through July SJ, 1986, Washington, D. C., p. 47.
u Information on administrative closings and policies was obtained from State
E. R. A. administrative orders and correspondence with E. R. A. officials In the
States.
11 See surveys of cases removed from relief rolls for administrative reasons in
rural Georgia, South Dakota, Colorado, and Maryland in 1935, Research Bulletins, Series II, No. 8, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, and Series II, Noa. 10, 12, and 13, Division of
Social Research, Works ProgreBS Administration, Washington, D. C.
Dig tizncJ by
Goog Ie
D1gl1zccJbyGoogle
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Bv
DECEMBER 1935 the rural households which were on Emergency
Relief Administration rolls in June 1935 and were removed from the
rolls in the 5 succeeding months had received Works Program employment, had been distributed among other public assistance programs, had found private employment, or had turned to relatives or
friends for support. The seven States surveyed differed widely in
the manner in which this redistribution had been effected (fig. 2 and
appendix table 22).
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS FOR SELF-SUPPORT
Analysis of the employability composition of the former relief cases
indicates that there were very few households that lacked a member
or members who could undertake the support of the family if opportunities for work were available. In all but one of the States surveyed, more than 93 percent of the closed cases contained at least
one member 16-64 years of age who was either seeking work or
employed. Not only were the great majority of the heads of households in the rural areas of all seven States reported as able to work
but considerable numbers of secondary workers, mostly youth, were
also in the market for jobs.
The age of some of the heads of households was one factor which
might limit their chances for reemployment in private industry.
At least one-third of the household heads who were working or seeking work, in all seven States, were 45 years of age or older. In the
Cotton South many of the household heads who were workers and
most of the secondary workers were women.
The employment experience of the workers gives a key to the
possibilities of their households returning to a permanent self-supporting basis. Farm families were in the majority among the relief cases
closed in sample counties of Montana, South Dakota, and North
Carolina. Most of the heads of these families were farm operators by
usual occupation although among North Carolina Negroes farm laborers were slightly more numerous. Farm laborers also outnumbered
farm operators among Georgia Negroes and in Iowa. In Georgia and
Iowa, however, as in Wisconsin and West Virginia, the principal relief
XVII
44269•-as-2
Diglizerl
byGoogrc
XVIII • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
~ No employrnenl
0,
~ Nonot:,icu111.wl ~ • Oliy
public oid
l:iEi:I Ralitf and other ••
f•:•.·.·.f Resettlement ditnt
100
90
~/~/~
,,,,,
,,,.,,
,,,.,,
,,,.,,
,,
,,,
,',",
,',",
,,,,,
'~'~'
~ AcJricullural employment only
-Wor111Pl'o9flllllondatlw . . .
,,,
,,,.,,
,,,.,,
,,,,,
,,,,,
100
,,_,.,,
,,,,,
,,,,,
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
i:
l! 50
50
<10
<10
30
30
20
20
10
10
•
l.
0
F1G. 2 -RELIEF ANO EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF HEADS
OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS*
December 1935
• Alceivino relief in June ond closed prior to Decemller 1935.
,.,i,f
•• lncludinQ those who hod ,.lief anly and
combined with private employment, but not includinq
those with rtlitf ond Works Program tmploymtnl.
• •• lncludinQ those with Works Praorom tmploymtnt
only, Works ~ and p,ivo.. employment_ ond
Works Pfll9'0III ond rtlitf.
Digitized by
Google
1
I
SUMMARY OF ANDINGS • XIX
problem among the rural cases studied was one of nonagricultural
families. Many of these in West Virginia and Iowa were coal miners'
households. In Georgia textile workers and domestic servants had the
largest representation, and in Wisconsin building and construction
workers were most numerous. In most States the bulk of the nonagricultural heads of households were classified as unskilled workers.
The employment experience of the secondary workers was more
limited than that of heads of households. Many of them had worked
merely as farm laborers on the home farm. Others had been employed
in domestic service and a few in some States reported manufacturing
or mining experience. One in five or six secondary workers in most
of the States surveyed was an inexperienced person who wanted to work
but who could not offer a. record of even as much as 4 consecutive
weeks' employment at a nonrelief job.
The capacity of the workers to maintain a foothold in industry is
reflected in their employment status in December 1935. In all seven
States the great majority of the households with workers actually
had some employment, whether on their farms, in other self-employment, in private wage employment, or on the Works Program.
Among the household heads who were workers, the majority in the
sample counties of five out of seven States reported some private
employment, usually self-employment as farm operators. More than
three out of five worker heads of households in Georgia and Wisconsin
and about two out of five worker heads of households in all other
States except Iowa had Works Program jobs. Only from 6 to 19
percent of the worker heads of households had no jobs of any kind.
In some cases where the head had no employment, a. secondary
worker in the household had a job. About half of these secondary
workers in the majority of the States surveyed had private employment in December 1935, probably most of it on the home farm.
Usually about one out of five had a Works Program job. In most
States from 30 to 40 percent of the secondary workers had no work
of any kind.
The employment reported did not necessarily produce income.
Farm operators were reported employed if they were residing on their
farms, and home farm laborers were reported employed if they regularly spent most of their time in farm work even if they received
merely room and board as remuneration. Other workers were
reported employed if they worked as much as 1 week during the
month.
REASONS FOR LEAVING E. R. A. ROLLS
Tho reasons for closing the June rural relief cases, as reported
by the Emergency Relief Administration agencies, showed that in
Georgia more than two-thirds and in Wisconsin more than two-fifths
of the families included in the sample were transferred directly from
C1g1t zea by
Goog Ie
XX • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
E. R. A. rolls to Works Program employment. In the other States
the Works Program developed more slowly, and smaller proportions
of the cases were transferred directly.
Immediate transfers from E. R. A. rolls to the Resettlement
Administration loan and grant program were important only in
South Dakota where they accounted for more than one-sixth of the
closings, and transfers directly from E. R. A. rolls to local relief
agencies were important only in Montana where they were responsible
for more than one-seventh of the closings. Insignificant numbers in
the sample counties of any of the seven States left E. R. A. rolls
because of receipt of seed loans, production credit loans, or pensions.
No closings were reported because of receipt of Agricultural Adjustment Administration benefits.
More than two-fifths of the rural households in all States except
Georgia and South Dakota left E. R. A. rolls because they had obtained
jobs or increased earnings in private employment, or, to a lesser
extent, because they had marketed their crops.
In South Dakota nearly two-fifths of the cases were closed because
of administrative policy. This high percentage reflected an order
issued in July suspending all relief in the State on the ground that
work in the harvest fields was thought available. In other States
closings because of administrative policy were less important and
were explained by insufficient relief funds, no means of transportation
to work projects, and a number of other miscellaneous factors.
Much of the employment which was responsible for closings was of
a temporary nature. This is indicated by the fact that when c&Bes
returned to E. R. A. rolls they usually did so because of loss of employment. In five of the seven States from one-fourth to more than
one-third of the closed cases returned to E. R. A. rolls before December. Many of these reopened cases had again left E. R. A. rolls
before the month of the survey.
ECONOMIC STATUS OF HOUSEHOLDS IN DECEMBER 1935
The economic status of the former rural relief households in December 1935 can best be judged by the sources and amounts of their
income in that month.
Works Program employment was most frequently cited as the principal source of income of the families formerly dependent on relief in
all but one of the seven States. At least two out of five households in
most of these States reported the Works Program as their principal
source of December income. In Georgia and Wisconsin more than
one-half of the households studied listed Works Program employment
88 their main source of income.
Nonagricultural private employment W88 more important than
Works Program employment as a main source of income among the
rural households in Iowa. In four other States it ranked second in
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY OF RNDINGS • XXI
importance to the Works Program. From 10 to 34 percent of the former relief households in all seven States reported nonagricultural
private employment as their principal source of income during the
month.
As would be expected in the month of December, agricultural employment was rarely reported as a. principal source of income. Less
than 7 percent of the former rural relief households in any State
reported that their principal income during the month came from the
sale of farm produce. Except in Iowa and North Carolina only 1 or
2 percent of the households derived their principal income from farm
laborers' earnings.
Loans and grants made by the Resettlement Administration were of
minor importance in all States except South Dakota where one-fourth
of the households reported Resettlement aid as their principal source
of income in December.
Less than 10 percent of the families in all States but Iowa and
Montana were dependent on relief as a principal source of income in
December. There were practically no such cases in Georgia, but as
many as 24 out of every 100 households in Iowa reported general relief
as their principal source of income.
More numerous in most States were the households depending on
relatives and friends, surplus commodities, sale of personal belongings,
loans, savings, pensions, etc. In 4 of the 7 States 1 out of every 6
to 8 former relief households reported such miscellaneous items as
their principal source of income during the month, and in Montana
the proportion was 3 out of every 10.
The proportions of the households reporting no income at all in the
month of December ranged from 3 percent in Montana to 8 percent
in North Carolina. On the other hand, a number of households had
more than one source of income. The presence of multiple sources
of income during the month was to some extent a reflection of transfers from one status to another, such as from general relief to Works
Program employment, which were taking place in December 1935.
Average incomes of households with incomes ranged from $19 a
month among Negroes in North Carolina to $42 a month in Montana
and corresponded closely to Works Program security wage rates for
unskilled labor in rural counties. Size of income showed little relationship to size of household.
WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT IN DECEMBER 1935
In December 1935 from 23 to 69 percent of the employable heads
of households had Works Program employment. Most cases without
farms or other private employment had jobs on the Works Program.
Not all families with workers had been certified by local relief agencies
for Works Program employment. This was due in part to delays in
getting the program under way in the States. Also, in all States
C1g1t zea by
Goog Ie
XXII • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
many persons were no longer considered eligible for relief. Women
other than heads of households of ten were not certified for employment on the ground that they were needed at home. Other persons
were rated as physically or mentally unfit for employment.
On the whole, women heads of households appeared to have had
about an equal opportunity with men in obtaining jobs on the Works
Program. Also, all age groups were represented to about the same
degree among male heads of households with Works Program jobs as
they were among all male heads of households who were workers.
When workers other than heads of households were employed on the
Works Program, however, they were usually youth. Many such
workers, especially in West Virginia, found their first employment
experience on the Works Program.
Works Program employment was very largely at unskilled labor.
Although agricultural projects, such as soil erosion control, had been
set up and provided considerable numbers of farm laborers with their
customary type of work, only a few farmers were needed for supervising these projects. Consequently, farmers who obtained Works
Program jobs generally joined the ranks of unskilled laborers.
EARNINGS IN PRIVATE AND WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT
Earnings in December 1935 of worker heads of households employed
the full month in private industry (exclusive of farm operation)
ranged from $15 among the Negroes in the North Carolina. counties
to $67 in the West Virginia. counties. The range in average Works
Program earnings for workers employed on the program for the full
month of December was from $19 among North Carolina Negroesto
$48 in the Montana counties.
Earnings of workers in private industry greatly exceeded those of
Works Program workers in West Virginia. and among Georgia. whites
and were somewhat greater than earnings of Works Program workers.
in Wisconsin and among North Carolina. whites. The full-month
earnings of Works Program workers exceeded the full-month earnings of workers in private industry (excluding farm operators) in
South Dakota and Iowa and among North Carolina. Negroes.
GENERAL RELIEF IN DECEMBER 1935
When the Federal Emergency Relief Administration announced
its final grants in December, two of the seven States studied (Georgia
and North Carolina) had made no provision for direct relief to take
the place of Federal assistance. Iowa, Wisconsin, Montana, South
Dakota, and West Virginia. each had a State relief administration or
welfare department with State funds available for distribution to
general relief cases through continuing local agencies, but total funds
promised to be greatly reduced with the exhaustion of Federal grants.
Except in Montana most of the relief funds distributed to the rural
Oig112cd by
Google
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS • XXIII
cases in December, in the five States for which data were available,
were still derived from Federal sources.
The proportions of the closed June relief cases which recei~ed relief
again in December appeared to vary in direct relation to the comprehensiveness of State relief programs. Less than 4 percent of the cases
which were unemployable or which had neither Works Program nor
private employment received general relief in December in the sample
counties of Georgia., where practically no direct aid other than county
poor relief, surplus commodities, or private charity was provided in
December 1935. On the other hand, in the counties sampled in
Iowa., where the State Emergency Relief Administration was continuing on the same lines as before with relatively liberal contributions from both counties and State, nearly four-fif tbs of the unemployable and unemployed cases received aid in December.
In addition to general relief some assistance to the aged and to
dependent children was being granted in the Iowa, Montana, and
W1SCOnsin counties. The North Carolina. and South Dakota counties
also granted some aid to dependent children. The Wisconsin and
Iowa counties reported some aid to the blind. None of these three
types of aid was reported in the Georgia and West Virginia counties.
Amounts of general relief received by cases from all sources in
December were much lower than those received under the E. R. A. in
June. In the North Carolina counties the average amount received per
case had been reduced from $13 to $3 a month. In the South Dakota
and Wisconsin counties average amounts had been cut in half-from
$15 to $8 in South Dakota and from $23 to $11 in Wisconsin. The
reduction was least in Iowa-from $17 in June to $16 in December.
The decrease in amounts of relief was much greater than the decrease
in size of relief households between June and December. Although in
most States one-person households were relatively more numerous
among December relief cases than in the group no longer receiving aid,
the median size of December relief households in the sample counties of
most of the States was about the same as the median size of the
December nonrelief households.
An increasing concentration of unemployables on general relief rolls
was noted in December. The cases receiving relief in that month
included relatively more aged persons, more women heads of households, more unemployables, and fewer workers than did the cases which
were no longer on relief rolls. This would be expected since the
households with workers had a better opportunity to find other means
of support, either in private industry or on the Works Program. Also,
some State relief administrations and county poor relief agencies
followed a policy of limiting relief to unemployables on the grounds
that the Federal Government should provide jobs for all those able to
work or that such cases should be able to shift for themselves.
01911 zca by
Goog Ie
XXIV • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHITE AND NEGRO CASES
Negroes in the rural South were found to be more dependent than
whites on various types of public aid and less successful than whites in
obtaining income from private employment. Negro households had
smaller incomes than white households although more Negro than
white households had two or more sources of income.
In private industry Negroes' earnings averaged considerably less
than those of whites, but on the Works Program the difference between
their earnings and those of the whites was not great. White heads of
households employed on the Works Program reported smaller average
earnings than did whites employed in private industry, but Negroes
employed on the Works Program reported average earnings greater
than those received by Negroes employed in private industry.
Digit zca oy
Goog IC
Chapter I
.. .. .-· .....
.. . ... :·..· : ·-: : ·•· . ......
.
: ::·._··.·.. 7_:.=_ :_:_:_ =
....·.·..
. . - :.-.·. :: ....
INCOME OF THE HOUSEHOLDS IN
DECEMBER 1935
ALL HOUSEHOLDS surveyed in this study received relief from
Federal Emergency Relief Administration funds in June 1935. All
were removed from E. R. A. rolls a.t least once in the 5-month period
July through November. Their status in December 1935 showed the
degree to which Federal Works Program employment, the rural
rehabilitation program of the Resettlement Administration, and
private employment had been successful in replacing relief a.s means
of support for the employables in the group.
PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF INCOME
Employment on the Works Program was the major source of income
of the households in December in all but one of the States surveyed
(ta.hie 1 and fig. 3). In Georgia., where the program had developed
further than in any of the other six States and where few unemployable
cases were included in the sa.mple, 1 nearly two-thirds of the rural
households removed from relief since June were deriving their chief
support from Works Program employment.2 At the other extreme
was Iowa. where only 18 percent of the closed June relief households
obtained their chief support from the Works Program.3 In that
State general relief-Federal or local, public or priva.te--rema.ined
more important a.s a. source of income.
See Introduction for explanation of this peculiarity of the sample.
Exclusive of the Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Youth Administration. Although the C. C. C. and the N. Y. A. were part of the Works
Program, the employment they provided affected so few adults that they have
been eliminated from the discussion of the Works Program 88 much 88 poBBible
throughout this report. That the C. C. C. was an insignificant factor, 88 far 88
the heads of the former rural relief cases were concerned, is shown in appendix
table 22.
1 The proportions of total households with members employed on the Works
Program in December were slightly higher than the proportions deriving their
chief income from this source (appendix table 11).
1
1
1
Dig,t zed tJy
Goos le
2 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
•: •:,Toft,. ·,:~f~i:i,G1 Source of Income in December 1935 of Rural Relief Cases Closed
: :. •• ••
July Throv9h November 1935
: ·. : ; : : .:•; ._.: .: : .. : ... ·... :
171
representing 7 States]
:. ; : .; .·: .•.•• : :
.,
OOIIDtiP9
s
0
Principal IOIU'ce of Income
.!!
@
-5
.s.,
a
j
::!!
,:8
~
j
-=
Q
"
.s
.
...!
North Carolina
Georgia
~
>
i
~
Ii
---- -z!
'30
:a
0
~
E-<
;;
0
3
:a
E-<
~
15. 6
112.4
0. 2
0. I
14. 8
3. 4
1.6
16. 2
liU. 8
0. 1
0. 1
111. 3
4. 0
l. 4
!
- - - - --- - - - - - Number .••.•.•.•••..••••.. 498
802
1139
f\31
6211 I, 157
937
780
889
3M
177
Percent••••.•.••• •.••••... . 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100. 0 100. 0
- - -- - - -- - - - - - - ---Acrlcnltural employment.••.... . 6. 4
a.o 13. 6 1. 3 7.
11.2 10. 1
1. 9
2. 1
7. 8
l. 1
3. 4 o. 7
0. 9
~::f.l=.::::::::::::::: 4.1. 04 6.1. 35 1.I. 64 II1.. 97 0.I. 2I ll.3. 86 4. 02 11.7
1. 2
1. 2
I. I
4
Nonagricultural employment.. _. 14. 1
28. 11
17. 7
Reeettlement loens and gni.nts . .. 1. 2
Other IOW'Oel 1 • •• • • • •• • •••••••. . 211. 11
No Income . ...... .. ...... . . . . .. . 2. 8
~~~~.".1~~~~_1:::
Unknown •• •. . .. ... .••..••... ...
-
9. 11
35. 6
2. II
24. 5
13. 1
6. 8
0.4
14. 3
64. 1
8. 4
6. 4
7. 6
3. 6
2. 6
33. 9
18. I
24. 2
31.11
40. 6
6.2
0.6
17. 11
3. 0
0.4
-
3.8
0.2
4. 4
23. 4
39. 0
2. 11
1.8
16. 4
8. 0
I. I
2.
24. 4
38. 11
2. 6
1. 0
Ill. 2
9. 6
I. 1
21.1
311. 2
3. 4
3. 7
16. 11
4. 5
1. 1
13. 0
71 . 2
0. 6
-
8. 5
1. 1
4. 6
• Exclualve of the Civilian Coiae"atlon Corps and the National Youth Admlnbtratlon.
• From Federal, State, or local 90U?Ql9 .
The Oh-Ulan Oome"atlon Corl}S, tho National Youth Administration, credit, bank neerves, reladvee
and friends, penalom, surplua commodttlea, aale or penonal belonalnp, eto.
1
Nonagricultural employment was second in importance as a source
of income in four States and was the most important source of income
in Iowa where one-third of the closed June relief cases relied primarily
upon earnings from such employment. In West Virginia nearly onethird, and in North Carolina nearly one-fourth, of the households
derived their chief income from nonagricultural employment. The
effect of a seasonal upturn in the coal mining industry of Iowa and
West Virginia and in th~ cotton textile industry of North Carolina is
apparent in these figures. Only from 10 to 16 percent of the households surveyed in the other four States reported nonagricultural employment as their chief source of income.
As might be expected in the month of December, agricultural employment or sale of farm produce provided little income in any State,
although about one out of every eight households in Iowa derived its
main support from farm laborer earnings. In the other States less
than 8 percent of the rural households received their chief income from
agriculture in December.
The rural rehabilitation program of the Resettlement Administration provided income for only o. few cases in December, except in South
Dakota where 25 percent of the households were chiefly dependent on
rehabilitation loans or grants for their support. In Wisconsin 6 percent of the households derived their principal means of livelihood from
Resettlement payments, but elsewhere the proportion was less than 2
percent. These data do not reveal the important part played by the
rural rehabilitation program in reducing rural relief rolls since the major
increase in loan cases occurred in the spring of 1935 prior to the transfer of the program to the Resettlement Administration.
Digitized by
Google
INCOME IN DECEMBER 1935 • 3
Cl
11111
Unknown
!•!·!•:•:•I
No income
12221
~ Other soun:ea
~ General r1lief
Rlselllemerl loons ond orants
Nono9riculturol employment
~ AQricultural employment
**
-
Wor11s Program employment
70
60
J
40
30
MCNTANA SOl1TH WISCONDAKOTA
ONA
WEST
SIN
VIRGINIA
lolol
wt.II Ne<1<>
IIOITH CAROLINA
Total
wtate
Ne9')
GEORGIA
FIG. 3- PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF INCOME OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS
*
December 1935
• Receivinc;I relief In June ond closed prior lo December 1935.
**Fram Federol, Stole, or loco! 1011n:es.
Digitized by
Google
4 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
The proportions of the households which had returned to relief
rolls and were chiefly dependent on relief in December 1935 ranged
from practically none in Georgia to 24 percent of the total in Iowa.
The proportions were greatly influenced by the availability of State
and local funds to provide relief as Federal aid was being terminated.
Georgia, with almost no relief load in December, had depended almost
entirely on Federal relief funds throughout the depression, reporting
no State contribution in 1933, 1934, or 1935.' At the time of the
survey the State was allowing counties, cities, and towns to bear
the entire responsibility. On the other hand, Iowa had always had
relatively large amounts of State and local relief funds available•
and was continuing a State system of public aid.
Miscellaneous and relatively unsubstantial sources of income, such
as credit extended, relatives and friends, sale of personal belongings,
and surplus commodities, were the chief sources of income for 30
percent of the cases in Montana. The proportions deriving their
chief support from such sources were also fairly high in the three
Southern States and in South Dakota (13 to 18 percent).
Households reporting no source of income in December amounted
to 3 or 4 percent of the total in most of the States. The proportions
were somewhat higher in North Carolina and South Dakota, with
8 and 6 percent, respectively (table 1).
In both Georgia and North Carolina relatively more Negroes than
whites appeared to be dependent on public aid in the form of Works
Program earnings, Resettlement loans and grants, or general relief.
Fewer Negroes than whites were successful in finding remunerative
employment in nonagricultural industry.
SECONDARY SOURCES OF INCOME
The principal source of income was the only source of income for the
bulk of the households (appendix table 1). In all States except West
Virginia, however, at least two out of five households had one or more
other sources of income. In many cases the secondary income consisted of n. relief grant; other cases obtained supplementary income
from loans, savings, Civilian Conservation Corps earnings, sale of
personal belongings, or surplus commodities. Agriculture provided
secondary income to one-tenth of the households in South Dakota,
mostly to those whose chief income came from Resettlement loans or
grants. Nonagricultural employment was important as a secondary
source of income in Iowa in conjunction with relief as a major source.
Considerable proportions of Negro households in North Carolina and
' See Introduction, p. XIII, and Monthly Review of Relief Statistics, Vol. II,
No. 2, Federal Emergency Relief Administration of Georgia, Atlanta, Ga., December 1935, pp. 12 and 13.
1 See ch. VI for a discussion of relief systems in the States following the termination of Federal responsibility in December 1935.
Dig 11,cd by
Goog IC
INCOME IN DECEMBER 1935 • 5
Georgia whose major support came from the Works Program reported
secondary income from nonagricultural employment.
Whereas relief was of minor importance in most States as a principal
source of income in December, it remained an important secondary
source of income in that month in the States outside the South. In
Iowa nearly two-thirds of households chiefly supported by the Works
Program received relief during the month (appendix table 1). South
Dakota also reported a considerable number of households receiving
both relief and Works Program earnings during the month, and all
States reported some duplication between the two types of aid.
For the most part this duplication between relief and Works
Program earnings merely reflects the fact that cases were still being
transferred from relief rolls to Works Program employment in December 1935. In Iowa, especially, the program was only beginning
to get under way. Many workers who did not receive their first
Works Program pay checks until after the beginning of the month
were carried on relief rolls during the earlier part of the month pending
the receipt of their wages.
Another explanation for the duplication of relief and Works Program
payments during December may lie in the fact that some workers lost
their Works Program jobs during December owing to cessation of
project, illness, or some other reason (see ch. V). Some of these, in
such States as Iowa and Wisconsin, were able to return to general relief
rolls.
To a certain extent the duplication of relief and Works Program
income may also reflect a practice of givipg supplementary relief to
large households whose budgetary needs were not covered by the
Works Program security wage. This explanation is indicated in
Iowa with its relatively liberal relief standards. In that State
rather large proportions of households whose chief income came from
private industry also received relief, much of it probably supplementary to inadequate earnings.
AMOUNT OF INCOME
Incomes of the households with incomes 8 in December ranged from
an average of $19 to $20 a month among Negroes in North Carolina
and Georgia to $40 in Wisconsin and $42 in Montana (appendix table
2 and fig. 4). These averages corresponded closely to Works Program
monthly security wage rates for unskilled labor in rural counties of
these States. 7
Few families had December incomes as high as $100, except in
Montana where one out of every six households with incomes received
• Including relief from public or private sources, earnings from private employment or the Works Program, loans, bank reserves, etc.
1 See ch. V, pp. 44-45.
Oig112cd by
Google
6 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
at least $100. Incomes of as much as $80 were reported for less than
one out of eight of the families in all of the States with the exception
of Montana.
In most States amounts of income from all sources tended to increase
as size of household increased, but nowhere near proportionately (appendix table 2). In Montana households with seven or more persons
received only about twice as much income on the average as oneperson households. In Wisconsin households with seven or more persons received only one and two-thirds times the amounts received
by one-person households with incomes.
Dollars
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
MONTANA
SOUTH DAKOTA
WISCONSIN
IOWA
WEST VIRGINIA
NORTH CAROLINA· Tolol
•While
-Negro
GEORGIA
-Total
•While
•Negro
F1G. 4- MEDIAN INCOME OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS*
December 1935
*Receiving relief in June and
closed prior to December 1935.
In West Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia there seemed to be
little relationship between size of income and size of household.
Households of every size most commonly received $31 to $40 a month
in West Virginia and $11 to $20 in North Carolina and Georgia.
D1g1t zed by
Goog [e
Chapter II
SHIFTS IN ECONOMIC STATUS, JULY
THROUGH NOVEMBER 1935
THE TRANSITION from relief to other forms of support was accom•
panied by many fluctuations in the economic status of the households. Some workers evidently found seasonal harvest employment
or odd jobs for a few weeks, returned to E. R. A. or local relief,
then left relief again for the Works Program. Others went from
E. R. A. rolls to Works Program jobs without an intermediate period
of self-support. Some families from the open country, in their search
for work or help from friends, relatives, or relief agencies, moved
to the villages while village families in the same plight often moved
to the open country.
REASONS FOR CLOSING
f
The reasons for closing rural relief cases, as reported by relief
agencies, throw some light on the experiences of the rural households
in the period July 1 through November 30, 1935. It is, of course, true
that, with the limited case work possible in rural areas, the exact condition of each household may not have been known in the relief offices
and the reasons given for closing cases may not always have reflected
the actual situation. As relief funds were becoming exhausted
during this period, shortage of funds may have accounted for the
closing of many cases for which other, nominal, reasons were
reported.
Such economic factors as private employment, crops marketed, or
increased earnings in private industry were responsible for more than
two-fifths of the closings in all States except Georgia and South
Dakota. These factors were relatively most important in Iowa where
nearly one-half of the cases were closed because they obtained private
employment and more than one-fifth because they received increased
earnings (table 2). In Georgia, at the other extreme, only 11 percent
of the closings were due to improved conditions in private industry.
7
Dig,t zed tJy
Goos le
8 • EFFECTS OF THE
WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Most of these opportunities for self-support were in nonagricultural
industry rather the.n in agriculture, as evidenced by the fact that
few farm operators left relief because of sale of farm produce. In
Montana e.nd North Carolina, however, where the closed relief load
was largely made up of farm operator families, crops marketed accounted for about one-fifth and one-tenth of the closings, respectively.
Advances from landlords were insignificant in any State, as would be
expected in the summer and fall months, since tenant contracts
usually begin in the early spring.
Tal>le !.-Reason for First Closing of June 1935 Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through
t-fovember 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States)
...s.
.!I
0
:!
Reason !or closing
s<I
0
)!
Numh<,r ___________________
Percent ____________________
0
~
,Z
--
i!l
j
ii';
.
1
.9
~
>
:
North Carolina
s
:a
s
0
ii';
E-<
zi
Georgia
30
E-<
s
:a
ii';
631
626 1,157
802
355
4118
689
937
7110
939
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
32.8
4.3
4. 8
14.0
7.4
43.3
3.5
0.8
17. 7
1.3
0.1
3. 3
0.:1
0.2
4.e
0.5
o.e
2.3
37.5
4. 7
3.8
2.e
3. 2
4. 4
0.1
I. 7
11.6
2.11
4. 7
Transfer to local relief agency ____ 16.3
Pension or compensation. _______ 1.0
Government
sood or production
credit loan _____________________
-
Aid from relatives or friends _____ 0.8
Administrative policy•---------- 3.0
Client !ailed to report•- _________ 12.11
Other reasons•------------------ 7. 6
-
-
1. l
!
-177
100.0
- - - - -- -- - - - - --46.3 34.4 30. 4 28.11 33.6 10.0 10. 1
11.8
17. 1
2. e
4.11
Private emplorni.:ent
•----------- 2:\,3
Increased
earn ogs _______________
0.8
Crops marketed _________________ 20.6
Advances from landloro _________
-
~1.~~e:.~B!=~
l:i-ministration ___________________
A
.9
21. 7
4.3
-
4.8
4.0
0. 2
33.3
7.6
8.6
Le
24.e
6. 1
10.1
2.1
25.8
13. 2
6. 4
0. 3
22.0
1. 1
0.3
o.:i
es.o
- 2.-7 4.60.2
- 0.1
0.1
- 0.4
5. 7
1. 5
I.II
0.6
0.4
0.2
-
3.1
0. 2
4. g
6. 7
6.4
8.8
II. 5
4.0
8.e
10.11
3. 6
11.3
e. 1
5.1
10.8
6.4
3.8
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.6
1.1
0.8
---19.8
811.1
63.3
8. 7
5.11
4.0
3. 3
2. 3
1 Including regular J.OVeromeot employment and employment on own account.
• Including the Civilian Conservation Corps.
• Work thought available, work project closed, Insufficient E. R. A. funds, no means or transportation to
project, !armers removed from relief, re!Wllll to send son to Civilian Conservation Corps, etc.
• }'or re lier order or !or work.
• Illness or worker, death, "husband sent to Jail," decreased needs, refusal to work, credit secured, Inheritance or insurance thought available, resources discovered, assistance from Red Cross, etc.
From one-fourth to one-third of the closings in most of the States
were due to transfers from E. R. A. agencies to other types of public
assistance, chiefly the Works Program. The proportions were much
higher in Georgia and Wisconsin, where the Works Program had
developed most rapidly, and much lower in Iowa, where Works
Program employment lagged far behind that in the other States. In
Georgia more than two-thirds and in Wisconsin more than two-filths
of the relief cases were closed because of employment obtained on
the Works Program.
Transfer to the Resettlement rural rehabilitation program was an
important factor in South Dakota where it accounted for more than
one-sixth of the closings. In Montana a considerable proportion of
the households were transferred to the county, to the relief rolls of
the Indian Service. or to other agencies working locally. Receipt of
Dig,t zed tJy
Goos le
SHIFTS IN ECONOMIC ST A TUS • 9
old-age, mothers', or veterans' pensions or compensation or of Government seed loans or production credit loans were unimportant reasons
for closings in all States. Payment of Agricultural Adjustment
Administration benefits apparently had no direct effect on relief
rolls, as no closings for this reason were reported.
About one case out of four to six in most of the States was removed
from relief for a variety of reasons not apparently related to economic
conditions or to changes in methods of public assistance. These
reasons fall into three groups as follows: (1) reasons of administrative
policy, such as insufficient funds, closing of work projects, no means
of transportation to project, work thought available, etc.; (2) other
reasons, including refusal to work, illness of worker, death, "husband
sent to jail," credit secured, etc.; and (3) failure on the part of the
relief case to report for a relief order or for work.
In South Dakota administrative policy accounted for nearly twofifths of the closings, owing to an administrative order suspending
all relief in July 1935 in order to provide farmers with harvest labor. 1
Cases closed because of administrative policy were also numerous in
Georgia, especially among Negroes, and in North Carolina and Iowa.
A rather large proportion of cases were removed from relief rolls in
Montana because they had failed to report for work or for relief
orders. The long distances to be covered in Montana probably made it
difficult for rural households to report at work projects or at the relief
office. In North Carolina, also, many households, especially among
whites, were removed from relief rolls because they had failed to report.
In both Georgia and North Carolina larger proportions of Negroes
than of whites were removed from relief because of administrative
policy and slightly smaller proportions of Negroes than of whites left
relief to take Works Program employment. In view of the fact that
relatively more Negroes than whites had Works Program employment
in December (see ch. V), the data on reasons for closing indicate that
Negroes were less likely than whites to be transferred directly from
relief to the Works Program and were more likely to experience an
interval without public aid.
In North Carolina there were further differences in reasons for
closing Negro and white cases. Larger proportions of Negroes than
of whites left relief because of opportunities in private employment
and smaller proportions of Negroes than of whites left relief because
of income from crops marketed. The fact that farmers made up a
smaller proportion of the Negro sample than of the white sample of
relief closings (see ch. III) explains the latter difference. In Georgia
improved conditions in private industry appeared to have affected
Negroes and whites to an equally small degree.
1 See Introduction for discussion of this and other administrative orders for the
closing of relief cases.
44269°-38--8
Digit zca oy
Goog IC
10 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
REASONS FOR REOPENING
Many households which left E. R. A. agencies after June returned to
the rolls sometime during the summer or fall and then left again
before December. Others continued to receive aid in December
either from the E. R. A., in States where it still existed, or from other
agencies.
Nearly two-filths of the closed cases in Wisconsin and Iowa returned
to the E. R. A. rolls at least once before December (table 3). These
were the States with the most liberal State and local provisions for
relief. Between one-fourth and three-tenths of the cases returned
to the E. R. A. in Montana, South Dakota, and North Carolina. In
West Virginia only one-seventh and in Georgia less than one-tenth
of the closed cases returned to the E. R. A. In the latter State, where
the Federal Government had direct charge of the E. R. A., intake was
stopped on November 2 and all local E. R. A. agencies were closed
on November 15.1
To&le 3.-Rural Relief Cases Closed and Reopened on Emergency Relief Administration
Rolls, July Through November 1935
171 counties representing 7 States)
State
Total ca.ses
Number re•
opened on
E.R.A.
Montana _________________________ ------------------------------..
South
Dakota
__ ------------------------------------------------__
Wlsoonsln__
__________
______ ________ __ _____ ______ ___ _____ ___ ______
Iowa______________________________________________________________
4118
6.~9
939
121
206
335
631
235
West Virginia_____________________________________________________
North Carolina___________________________________________________
White_______________________
__ --------------···-··-·------·------------·
___________
Negro
. ____ . __________ ... _______
.... __ ...
526
1,157
802
355
937
760
177
73
351
224
127
86
63
23
Ooocgia. _______________________________ . _________________________ .
White _____________________________________________________ .__
Negro __________________ . __ . _____________ . _________ . ___ . ______ .
Pereentol
total
24.S
29_g
35. 7
37. 2
13.g
30.3
27. g
35.8
9.2
8. 3
13.0
The majority of reopened cases left E. R. A. rolls again before
December. Only in Wisconsin, Iowa, and West Virginia did a majority receive E. R. A. aid in that month. 3 None, of course, received
E. R. A. aid in Georgia in December since the entire program had
been liquidated by that date.
The reasons for reopening show that many of the earlier closings
were not accompanied by a permanently restored capacity for selfsupport. Much of the employment obtained had been short-lived.
Loss of employment in private industry (including agriculture) was
the major reason for reopening relief cases for which data were available in all States except Georgia where decreased earnings was a more
important reason (table 4).
2 For discussion of relief programs in operation in the States in December
1935, see ch. VI.
1 Data on file in the Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.
Dig tizncJ by
Goog Ie
SHIFTS IN ECONOMIC STATUS • 11
In the three States in which farmers made up about half or more of
the heads of households on relief-Montana., South Dakota., and North
Carolina (table 12, p. 20)-crop failure, loss of livestock, and loss or
depletion of assets were important reasons for reopening. In South
Dakota. and Montana., which were still suffering from the aftereffects
of the drought, the proportions reopened for these reasons were particularly high.
To&le ...-Reason for Fint' Reopening on Emergen91 Relief Administration Rolls of
June 1935 Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935
(71 ronnties representing 7 f\tates]
!l
0
Reason for reopening
1§
-=A
::,i
~0
121
206
j
C
aj
~
ii:
.s
335
235
- - -"'- - Number _______________________
Peroent ·----------------- -- --- . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
- - - - -·Loss of private employment•-------- i l l
44.6
45.0
62.8
Decreased earnin~s- _________________
7.8
24. 3
11.3
Crop leilure or loss of livestock _______
8.3
8. 3
0.4
Loss or de~etion or assets. __ ._._ .. __ . 30.6
30.5
4. 2
4.2
Loss of
orks Program employ1. 7
5. 7
ment•----------------------------Loss of Resettlement status ____ . ____ .
0. 6
1.8
2. -~
Incres.sed needs. ___________ •••.. _____
I. 7
3. 9
13. 7
14. 9
Loss of worker _______________________
0.@
1.0
I. 2
0.4
5. ~
2. 4
3.0
I. 3
A'1mlnistratlve policy_--···-·------Other reBSOns •• ______________________
6.6
1.0
14. 1
I. 7
-
>
i
ii:
73
100.0
North Carolina
30
~
:a
E,,
ii:
351
100.0
224
100.0
-•
0
'
z
i
0
---127
100.0
88
100.0
----- ---- - -39.8
27.tl
22.8
3tl. 3
24. 4
12.8
10. 7
16. 6
tl.8
28. 0
8.0
11. 2
2. 4
:lO. 6
11.
1.4
16.5
D.4
--- -- -- -- -:lO. 5
17. 4
21.11
D.4
8.1
I. 4
0.6
0.9
- 19.-8
:Jl. 5
11. 0
8.9
22.9
(I
9.tl
3.1
3.1
3. 1
8. 1
t The number of reopened cases Is not great enough to warrant a separate analysis of the white and Negro
groups.
• lneludlng regular i,:ovemment employment and employment on own acrount.
• Exclusive of the Civilian Conservation Corps.
A number of cases in Wisconsin were reopened because they had lost
their Works Program employment. Relief standards were relatively
liberal in Wisconsin and workers who lost Works Program employment
probably found less difficulty in going back on relief than in most of the
other States. In Montana a small proportion of cases were reopened
because of loss of Resettlement status.
Increased needs, probably with the approach of winter and the opening of the school season, was the reason for reopening considerable
proportions of cases in West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Iowa and of
white cases in North Carolina.
In the three Southern States administrative policy was frequently
the reason for reopening cases. For the most part these were cases
which had previously been removed by administrative rulings and
were returned when the rulings were lifted. Almost one-fourth of the
North Carolina Negro households were returned to relief because of
changes in administrative policy.
Comparisons between reasons for reopening Negro cases and reasons
for reopening white cases could be made only for North Carolina since
very few Negro cases were reopened in Georgia. Larger proportions
Dig 11zerl by
Goog IC
12 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
of Negroes than of whites in North Carolina returned to E. R. A. rolls
because of loss of employment in private industry or because of decreased earnings and reversal of administrative rulings. Relatively
fewer Negro than white cases were reopened because of increased
needs, crop failure or loss of livestock, and loss or depletion of assets.
These differences reflect to some extent the fact that farm operators
made up a much smaller part of the Negro than of the white closed
relief load in this State.
CHANGES IN RESIDENCE
From 2 to 8 percent of the households studied had changed residence
during the 5-month period. The greatest mobility occurred in Montana, Georgia, and South Dakota (table 5).
Ta&le 5.-Change in Residence of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States)
'l'otalca..ses
State
Montana
.. _.. ______________________________________________
_______________ .--------------------- __________.._
South
Dakota
Wisconsin. ___________ ------ _________ ------------ -- --- -- . ----low•--------------------------- -- ----- ----------------- --- -·-_
West Vtn,lnla. _______________________________________________
North Carolina._. ______________________________________ . ____ _
White ___________________________________________________ _
aeo~.F-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
White __ ----------·------------------------ - -- ------- - ----
Negro _____ - --- - -- ---- -- -- --- -- --- -- ----- --- - --- ------ -- - --
Number
moved
Percent or
total
498
42
8. 4
689
30
20
18
12
4. 4
939
631
626
1, 157
802
3.55
937
760
177
23
18
6
67
611
8
2. 1
2. 9
2.3
2. 0
2. 2
1.4
7. 2
7.8
4. 6
Outside the South the trend in movement was away from the open
country and into the villages 4 (table 6). How much of this movement was caused by the relief situation or by the drought and general
industrial conditions cannot be determined. Seasonal moves from
villages to ranches in the summer and from ranches to villages in the
fall are customary in some of the Montana counties. In parts of
South Dakota, also, families move to centers of population in the fall
in order to be near the schools. It is known, however, that some of
the movement in South Dakota in 1935 was occasioned by the search
for relief.
In view of the slight net changes that occurred in the reside.oce
distribution of the households, it appears that many of the movements were of an aimless character, caused more by efforts to escape
unfavorable situations than by any positive attractions in the new
place of residence.
' Open country: territory outside centers of 50 or more population. Villages:
centers of 50 to 2,500 population.
Dig,t zed tJy
Goos le
SHIFTS IN ECONOMIC STATUS• 13
Ta&fe 6.-Residence in June and December 1935 of Rural Relief Cases Closed July
Through November 1935
[71 counties representing 7 States)
Residence
Total cases 1
Open country •
State
M~ntaM .....•••••••.•••••....•.•.•.
South Dakota.•..•.•••••••..•.•••.....
Wisconsin ....•...•••.•••.•...•.......
Iowa .••.................•.............
West Vir~inia ..........•..............
North Carolina .....•...•.....•.......
White •••.••...•.•.•.•••.....•.....
Negro .••..••..•.....•............•
Oeorl!'ia ...•..••...............•.......
White ....•.......................
Negro .....•.........••.•........•.
Number
Percent
498
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
688
938
629
526
1,151
799
352
924
750
174
1une
December
81.8
63. 5
57. 8
61.1
66. 5
60.3
30.8
66.9
71. 9
71.8
73. 0
69. 3
60.1
63. 6
45. 4
72.8
31. 2
51.6
69. 3
60. 5
64. I
«. 8
Village•
1une
38. 2
46. 5
38.9
88.8
33. 6
28.1
27.0
30. 7
39.9
36. 6
54.6
D-.nber
42. 2
48. 4
39. 7
69.2
33. l
28.2
2i.2
30. 7
39.6
35.11
65.2
• Exclusive of the few cases living In towns (centers of 2,500 to 5,000 population) in 1une,which bad moved
to rural areas prior to December. No cases living in towns In December were Included In the study.
• Territory outside centers or r,o or more population.
• Center of r,o to 2,500 population.
D1g1t zed by
Goog Ie
vGooglc
Chapter Ill
EMPLOYABILITY AND EMPLOYMENT
EXPERIENCE
THE MEANS by which rural households obtained a livelihood after
their removal from relief depended largely on their ability to work.
Cases which contained no person able to work formed the potential
case load of continuing State and• local relief agencies or of agencies
expending Federal-State Social Security funds. Cases with members
able to work were potentially self-supporting, but even under improved
economic conditions the ability of these workers to find jobs was
limited by their employment experience and their age and sex.
EMPLOY ABILITY OF HOUSEHOLDS
More than 93 out of every 100 cases removed from Emergency
Relief Administration rolls since June in all but 1 of the States sampled
included at least 1 person 16-64 years of age who was employed or was
looking for work (table 7). The exception was Montana where all
unemployables had been ordered removed from E. R. A. rolls in
September and hence made up an unusually large part of the closed
Tal,le 7.-Employability Status in December 1935 of Rural Relief Cases Closed July
Through November 1935
[71 counties representing 7 States)
State
Montana..•.•.•.•......................................
South Dakota.•.........•..............................
Wlsconsin••••.....•••.••..•...............•............
Iowa ............•.•....................................
West Virginia ...•...•..................................
North Carolina .•......•...............................
White ..••••............•... --..•• -• -. -· --.• ·• -- --- Negro._ •••••.....•...•. --. -•. -. -·· •·• --·• ·• ·• ······
0eow~1te.~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Total cases
1 - - - ~ - - - 1 Wlthno
workers
Number
498
689
939
631
526
I, 157
802
355
937
760
Negro. __ -- - • - -- - --- -- -- -- ·• ·- · · ·- · · · · · ·- · · · · · · · · · · ·
1
ITT
With I or
more work-
Percent
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ers I
20.6
6.3
6.9
3.9
4. 5
4.5
3. 7
6.1
3. 7
3. 8
3. 3
79.6
93. 7
94.1
00.1
95. 6
95.6
00.3
93.V
96.3
96.2
00. 7
Penom 16 through 64 rears of age working or seeking worlr.
15
Diglizerl
byGoogrc
16 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
relief load. Conversely, the sample counties of Georgia and Iowa
showed the smallest proportions of unemployables. In Georgia all
such cases had been ordered removed from E. R. A. rolls in May 1935
and accordingly appeared to only a small extent in the sample of
closings since June. In Iowa there had always been a policy of confining the use of E. R. A. funds to employables and assigning the care
of unemployables to local agencies whose case loads were not included
in the sample for this study.
In all States but Montana more than 9 out of 10 heads of households
were working or seeking work (table 8). The small numbers of heads
not working or seeking work in the various States represented mostly
persons 65 years of age or older, who were assumed not to be in the
labor market, for purposes of this survey, although many of them
undoubtedly wanted to work and some probably had employment. 1
Ta&le 8.-Employability Status in December 1935 of Heads of Rural Relief Cases Closed
July Through November 1935
[71 counties representing 7 States)
State
Montan!\..................................
South Dakota.............................
Wisconsin.................................
Iowa......................................
West Virginia..... • . . . . . . . . • •• . . . . . . . . . . . .
North Carolina...........................
l"':ite................. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .
Negro.................................
Georgia... . . • . • . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White.................................
Negro.................................
Total
Not-king work
,_ _ _ _ _ _,___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,Working
or
Over 64
seeking
Other
Number Percent
Total
years
work
reasons
of age
◄ 98
&l9
939
631
526
l, 157
802
355
937
760
li7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
23. 7
7.8
9.5
6.8
~- 4
7. 9
6.3
11.5
16. 3
4. 7
6.0
3. 4
3.1
3.0
2. 3
8. 4
4. 6
4. 9
4. 3
10. 2
7. 4
9. 8
7.4
3.1
3.6
3. 4
6.3
4.9
4. 0
6.9
3.9
4. 1
2. 8
76.3
92. 2
90.5
93. 2
91.8
92.1
93. 7
1'8.5
91.2
91.8
89.8
Others classed as unemployable were persons mentally or physically
disabled or women needed at home to care for dependents. 2 Estimates of unemployability of this type were made by interviewers from
case records and from their contacts with the families.
More than one-half of the members of households other than heads
were children under 16, and from 2 to 4 percent in each State were aged
parents or other relatives over 64 years old, assumed to be dependent
on the younger members of the household for support (table 9).
1 There was no upper age limit for employment on Works Progress Administration projects. Three percent of the relief persons employed in March 1936
on Works Progress Administration projects in the United States, excluding New
York City, were over 64 years of age. Hearings before the Subcommittee of the
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, in Charge of Deficiency
Appropriations, 75th Cong., 1st sess., p. 153.
2 The number of unemployable heads was not great enough to warrant detailed
computation of reasons for not seeking work.
Dig1w,
byGoogle
EMPLOY ABILITY AND EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE • 17
Within the age group, 16-64 years, most of the household members
other than heads were not seeking work, chiefly because they were
housewives needed at home. Others were not seeking work because
they were students, because they were physically or mentally disabled, or for other reasons (appendix table 3).
To&le 9.-Emplo:rabili!)' Status in December 1935 of Members, Other Than Heads,
of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Throu9h November 1935
[71 counties representing 7 States]
Total
Not seeking work
1 - - - , - - - - - 1 - - - , - - - - , - - - - , - - - - i Working
or
Uniter 16 Over 64
Other
!leeking
years
years
Number Percent
Total
reasons
work
ol age
ol age
State
-------- -------- ------ -----Montana_______________________
1,408
South Dakota ________ .. _____ ...
Wiscomin______________________
Iowa___________________________
West Virginia__________________
North Carolina________________
White______________________
Negro ____________________ ..
Georgia________________________
White _________ . __________ ._
Negro______________________
2, 2f,O
3,234
2,222
1,988
4,656
3,207
1,449
3,166
2, 526
640
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
89.8
90.6
90.3
90. 5
89.0
78. 3
79. 5
56. 3
57. 3
61. 7
58.9
57. 2
69. 7
69. 2
60. 6
57. 8
56. 6
62.3
75. 6
82.4
82.9
80.0
30. 1
29. 9
26. 6
29. 0
28.9
3. 4
3.4
2.0
2.6
2.9
3. 7
3.4
4. 3
3.2
2.9
4.1
10. 2
9. 4
g_ 7
Q.6
11.0
14. 9
21. 7
:al. 5
24.4
17. 6
17. I
:al. 0
16.9
10. 7
21. 4
23. 4
13.6
In North Carolina and Georgia fewer women than in the other
States sampled allowed their household duties to keep them out of the
labor market (table 10 and appendix table 3), and physical and
mental disabilities consequently became relatively more important
as reasons for not seeking work. As a result of the efforts of these
women workers to contribute to the family income, relatively twice
as many members other than heads were in the labor market in these
two Southern States as in any of the other States (table 9).
To&le 10.-Sex of Members 16 Through 64 Years of Age Other Than Heads, Working
or Seeking Work, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July 1hrou9h November 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States]
Total
Male
State
Number
MontanB-----------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Iowa __________________________________________________ _
West Virginia _________________________________________ _
North Carolina ______ -------------- _________ .. ______ ....
White _____________________________________________ _
Negro _______ . __________ ... --- .. ______ ... -... --- -- ..
Georgia. ____________ . ____ --- _--- --- .. __ .. --- . ----. __ . -White _____________________________________________ _
Negro ____ --------. -- ----- -- . -. -.... -. -------- -- . ---
143
0-'ill
353
554
426
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
128
100. 0
214
310
212
218
1,009
Female
Perc,,nt
79.0
61. 2
21.0
38.8
64.5
35.6
61. 3
84. 4
38. 7
15.6
56.8
56. 4
57. 5
58.3
53. 3
75.0
43. 2
43. 6
42. 5
41. 7
46. 7
25.0
Efforts of women to contribute to household incomes were particularly apparent among Negroes. Although there were more aged
persons and more children in Negro than in white households and
more unemployables among Negro beads than among white heads
Dig tizncJ by
Goog Ie
18 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
in both North Carolina and Georgia, Negroes reported more workers
than whites among other members of the households. Among N ortb
Carolina Negroes the workers other than heads actually outnumbered
the worker heads of households. The willingness to work of these
other members of the households-the majority of whom were housewives or daughters accustomed to domestic service or farm labor-brought up the sum total of employability of the Negro households
to that of the whites in Georgia and close to that of the whites in
North Carolina (table 7).
SEX AND AGE OF WORKERS
AB would be expected, the great majority of the worker heads of
households in all States were men. Women represented less than 7
percent of the total in all States except North Carolina and Georgia.
In these two States women accounted for one-sixth to one-fifth of the
white heads and for almost one-third of the Negro heads (appendix
table 12). This sex distribution is in accordance with the usual
situation among relief households in the South.
Although the majority of the worker heads were in the economically most favored age group, 25-44 years, one-third or more in all
States were 45 years of age or older. In Montana and among North
Carolina Negroes nearly one-half of the heads were in the older group.
From 5 to 13 percent of the worker heads in all States were under
25 years of age. The proportions were highest in West Virginia and
among whites in North Carolina and Georgia in accordance with the
tradition of early marriage in those sections (appendix table 4).
Most of the workers other than heads in the States outside of the
Cotton South were young men, usually 18-24 years of age (table 10
and appendix table 5). Boys 16 and 17 years of age were also working
or seeking work in considerable numbers in these States. In Montana,
men: 25-34 years of age, who were not heads of households, were
reported working or seeking work more frequently than youth 16
and 17 years old. In South Dakota and West Virginia, also, men
25-34 years of age were reported among secondary workers about aa
frequently as the youth. It appears significant that such large
numbers of men of this age had not yet established their own households. Some of them, of course, may have had families of their own
which were "doubling up" with their parents' households in order
to save rent and other costs.
Most of the women workers in the States outside of the Cotton
South were also under 25 years of age, but the older age groups,
containing many housewives, were represented in sizable proportions.
The situation among workers other than heads in North Carolina
and Georgia was in marked contrast to that in the other States. In
C1g1t zea by
Goog Ie
EMPLOY ABILITY AND EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE • 19
these two States women made up the majority of the secondary
workers (table 10 and fig. 5). The predominance of women workers
other than heads was especially marked among Negroes. Most of
the women workers in these two States were over 24 years of age
{appendix table 5).
IIIIFemale
-Male
10
20
30
40
Percent
50
60
70
80
90 100
MONTANA
SOUTH DAKOTA
WISCONSIN
IOWA
WEST VIRGINIA
NORTH CAROLINA-Total
-White
-Negro
GEORGIA
-Total
-White
-Negro
FIG.
5 - SEX OF EMPLOYABLE MEMBERS OTHER THAN HEADS
OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS*
December 1935
*
Receiving relief in June and
clOltd prior ta December 1935.
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE OF WORKERS
Practically all workers among heads of households had had occupational experience during the past 10 years (tables 11 and 12). Only a
few of the heads in most States had never been employed for as much
as 4 weeks or had been retired from active work for more than a
decade. The proportions without work experience were highest in
South Dakota, West Virginia, and Georgia.
In most States about one out of five or six of the members other than
heads of households had never had employment {appendix table 6),
as would be expected, since most of them were youth. In West Virginia there was evidence of a more serious unemployment problem
among rural youth. In that State more than half of the workers who
were not heads of households had never had as much as 4 weeks of
employment. At the other extreme were the Negroes of North Carolina and Georgia with less than 5 percent reporting that they he.d
never worked. In those two States, moreover, the proportions of
white members without work experience were much larger.
Diglizerl
byGoogrc
20 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Tallle 11.-Usual Industry of Heads 16 Throu9h 64 Years of Age, Working or Seeking
Work, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States]
s
-a
0
Usual Industry of bead
I
-=A
.!3
~
1~
North Caro!lila
. 1ii
s
Georgia
B
0
i 3 :a
~
~
.... ~
z E-< ~ zi
"'
-- ---- ---- ---- ---- -- -Numb(,r•• ________ • _____ .. _
C:
0
380
.d
;;
0
6.15
Percent. ••••• ___ -·····-··-· 100.0 100. 0
.-.grlculture.•.. __ -_- --- ---- -··- -- 65. 2 65. 5
Forestr and fishing ____________ . 2.1
o. 2
Extract on of minerals ___________ 5. 3
0.3
Manufacturing and mechanical __ 7.6
8. 0
Building e.nd construction.. _ 4. 2
4.5
Food and allied •••• __________
0.5
Iron, stool, e.nd machinery ___
-·
Auto factory e.nd repair stiop. 1.8 0.9
Lumber and furniture-_. ____ 0.3
0.8
Paper, printing, and allied .. _
Textile ••••.. _______________ .
Other._. _______________ . ____ 1.3
1.3
Transportation and communica9.2
5.2
tlon. ···-···--- ---- --- _... ----Street e.nd road construction_ 7.9
2.4
Other__________ -- __ ----- - ---- 1. 3
2.8
Trade __ -·--------· _____ . ________ 3. 2
2.5
Public service. __________________
0.3
Profes.sionsl servie-~. ____________ . 0.8
1. 3
Domestic and personal service ___ 3.4
1. 6
No usual Industry•• _____________
3.3
Unknown•------·--·------------ 3. 2 11. 8
1
---
--
-
JI:
0
~
E-<
:a
0
752
588
850
482 1.066
314
100. 0 100.C 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. o
41. 4 43. 4 32.6 61. 7 62. 3 00. 2
4.0
5.8
1. 9
2. 3
1.0
o. 5 17. 0 34.4
22. 6 10. 7
7.3 21.1 24. 6 12. 4
9. 4
5. 4
3.3
2.9
3. 7
1.0
2. 7
1. 7
0.3
0.1
0.ft
2.0
1. 2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
o. 7 o. 2 0. 5 0. 7
1. 6
1. 5
0.3
1. 9
3.5
4.3
6. 4
0.8
0. 2
- 0.2 o. 3
0.2
1.6
10. 7 14. 4
.. 4
1.2
1.7
1.9
1. 6
2. 5
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.6
4. 1
5.5
4.5
0.5
1.4
3.6
0.4
11. 5
15.3
7.0
8.3
4. 1
0. 7
1.0
2.0
o. 5
5. 3
7. 7
5. 2
2.5
1.9
o. 2
0. 8
1.9
3. 7
3. 7
2.1
o. 5
1. 6
2.3
0. 1
I.I
6.3
0.8
HI
2.4
0.4
2.0
2.1
-
1.1
2. 4
1. 2
1. 6
1. 2
0. 6
0. 6
2.9
0.3
1. 3
15. 6
-
5.1
855
&96
100.0 100.0
45. 4 46. 8
0. 7
o. 7
0.6
0. 7
21.8 24. 6
3.2
3. 4
0.8
0.9
0.4
0. 4
o. 7 o. 7
1. 2
1.0
-
150
100.0
40.3
o.e
-
9.4
1.9
o.e
o.e
-
1. 9
-
10.0
5.5
11. 9
6.3
3.4
I. 2
2. 2
3.3
0.6
1. 3
7. 3
4.8
10.8
3. 6
1.3
2. 3
4.0
o. 7
1. 1
3.9
5.9
8.0
-
2.5
1.9
2.5
o.e
1. 0
--
1.9
22.0
-
23. 3
• Known to be nonagricultural.
Tallie 1.2.-Usual Occupation of Heads 16 Through 64 Years of Age, Working or
Seeking Work, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States]
Usual occupation of head
Number ___________________
Percent_________ ------ ____
Agrfcuiture ••••• _. _______________
Fa.rm
operator
______ ---····-Owner
__________________
Tenant __________________
Fa~~~~.!r::::::::::::::::
Nonagricnlture
__________________
White collar _________________
Skilled ______________________
Semiskilled .• ________________
Unskilled ____________________
Nou.sual occunntion _________ ....
.
~
§
::;;
...s
0
·s.
"'
.!;
>
North Carolina
30
"'
A
.d
M
.
JI:
1l
850
588
482 1,066
25. 2
16. 6
8.6
14. 8
1.9
12. 9
:i
a
as
~
.s ~ E-<
---- ------
380
635
100.0 100.0
-6.5.3 65.5
50. 2 52. 8
2R 9 16. 9
30.3 34.6
1.3
8. I 12. 7
3•. 7 31. 2
2. 4
3. 6
5.8
7. 2
5.5
2. 7
21.0 17. 7
3. 3
-
.!I
.!3
s
0
Cttlorgla
B
:a
~
f
z
iE-<
:a
752
314
855
696
53. 4
21. 2
12. 4
1~.8
9.0
36. 4
3. 7
7. 2
16. 3
9. 2
I. 2
29.6
12. 1
5.4
12.1
30.6
39. 8
1.6
1.3
3.8
33.1
-
25. 5
4. 2
7. 7
13.6
20. 0
49. 7
6.0
5.5
It. 7
26.5
4. 8
26.9
4. 5
8. 2
14.2
19.8
47. 4
6.8
6.3
13- 9
20.4
6.9
~
zi
--
159
100.0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -40.-3
41. 4 43. 4 32. 6 61.8 62. 4 60. 2 45. 5 46. 7
16. 2
58. 2
3. 8
13. 5
II. 4
29. 5
o. 4
28.6
56.1
5.6
9.0
8. 2
33. 3
0.5
2i. 6
16. 9
9. 5
I. 2
5.0
63. 7
3.3
6. 8
3.1
50.5
3. 7
46. 4
18. 6
10. 3
Ji. 5
15. 4
37. 4
3.1
5. 4
12. i
16. 2
0.8
10. 5
:u
5. 7
JO. 7
20.8
59. 7
2. 5
1.9
1.9
53. 4
-
USUAL INDUSTRIES 1
Farmers and farm laborers were in the minority among heads of
closed rural relief cases in four out of seven States.
• Usual industry or usual occupation was defined in this study as that industry
or occupation at which the worker bad been employed for the greatest length of
time during the past 10 years. If the worker had had less than 4 consecutive
weeks of employment during the decade, he was regarded as having no usual
industry or occupation.
Dig1w,
byGoogle
EMPLOY ABILITY AND EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE • 21
Elsewhere a cross section of rural industry was represented. In
West Virginia coal miners were the dominant group, accounting for
more than one-third of the employable heads of households (table 11 ).
Coal miners also made up about one-sixth of the Iowa closed relief
load,' and textile workers accounted for one out of every seven or
eight white heads of households in Georgia. and North Carolina.
More than one-fifth of the Negro heads in Georgia and about onesixth of the Negro heads in North Carolina. had usually been engo.ged
in domestic and personal service. Considerable numbers of household heads in Wisconsin and Iowa had usually been engaged in road
building and other transportation and construction industriP.s.
Street and road laborers were also fairly numerous in Montana and
West Virginia. In Wisconsin and West Virginia workers usually
engaged in forestry and fishing accounted for 4 and 6 percent, respectively, of the total.
Among workers other than heads agriculture had been the usual
industry of the largest group in all States, but domestic or personal
service was almost equally important in Iowa and was more important
among the Negroes in Georgia. Nearly one-fourth of the Negro
workers other than heads in North Carolina, also, had usually been
engaged in domestic or personal service, and about one-eighth of the
secondary workers in Wisconsin and South Dakota were in this group.
Few workers other than heads had usually been engaged in manufacturing or mechanical industries, except in Wisconsin and among the
North Carolina and Georgia. whites. About one-tenth of the secondary
workers in West Virginia. had usually worked in the coal mines
(appendix table 6).
USUAL OCCUPATIONS
Among the agricultural heads of closed cases farm operators predominated in most States, but farm laborers were more numerous in
Iowa. and, to a slight extent, among Negroes in North Carolina. and
Georgia. (table 12). As would be expected, almost all of the secondary
workers usually engaged in agriculture were farm laborers (appendix
table 7).
Unskilled workers made up the bulk of the nonagricultural
workers-both heads and other members of households-in most
States. Among secondary workers the unskilled were usually engaged
in domestic or personal service in four of the seven States (appendix
tables 6 and 7). Due to employment in the textile industry considerable numbers of both heads and other members of white households
in Georgia. and North Carolina reported semiskilled occupations. A
developed construction industry in Wisconsin and Iowa. was reflected
in sizable proportions reporting skilled and semiskilled occupations in
• The high percentage of coal miners in Iowa was due to the inclusion of Appanoose County in the sample.
Digitized by
Google
22 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
those States. Except in Iowa and among whites in Georgia whitecollar workers accounted for less than 4 percent of the total worker
heads of households.
OCCUPATIONS OF CLOSED CASES COMPARED WITH TOTAL JUNE LOAD
The industrial and occupational distribution of the cases studied
cannot be taken as indicative of industrial conditions within the sample
areas studied or of the relative need for relief among various
industrial and occupational groups. Since only closed cases were
included in this study and since closings between June and December
1935 were accomplished in the seven States in various ways, sometimes affecting one occupational group in particular and sometimes
affecting all groups equally, the occupational and industrial distribution of closed relief households in any one State must be related to the
relief practices of that State. 6
Comparison of the occupational distribution of the closed cases
with that of the total June relief load (tables 12 and 12-A) might be
expected to yield some interesting findings, but differences in the
time at which closings were made, as well as differences in sampling
the two loads, obscure the issue. Agricultural households were
markedly overrepresented in the closings in West Virginia in comparison with their representation in the June load, and there was a
tendency in the same direction in South Dakota, North Carolina, and
Wisconsin. In Georgia, Iowa, and Montana the agricultural families
were somewhat underrepresented among closings.
Tat.le 12-A.-Usual Occupation of Heads 16 Through 64 Years of Age, Working or
Seeking Work, of Rural Relief Cases, June 1935
(69 counties representing 7 States)
...s.
0
Usual oocnpatior, of head
;"
=
0
~
A
."
.!!
.
.9
"
M
North Carolina
Georgia
.!:I
>
-
s
s
0
3 :E
~
~
E~
z
-"'- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5::,
0
~
I<
.s"
fi
~
30
I.,
z"'
E-
0
Numher .•••.••••.•••••••.. 1.344 2, i9.\ 2.8-40 2. 002 3, 5S() 2,Rfl8 2, (lf,8
800 1,930 1.584
Percent.•.•..........••.... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100.0
Agriculture ........•.•••.........
Farm operator..•.•..•..•....
Owner ........••..•.••...
Tenant ...............•..
Cropper ..............•..
Farm laborer ..........•.....
Nonal'ficulture ..................
White collar.................
Skilled ..•...................
Semiskilled ....••............
Unskilled ....................
No usual occupation .•...........
Unknown ..........•.....•......
70. 4
62. 4
35. I
2i. 3
63. I
51 8
19. 4
32. 4
39. I
25. I
17. 4
7. 7
45. 0
23. 2
6. I
Ii. I
8.0
:?8. 4
3.0
4. 9
6. 7
13. 8
1.0
0.2
11.3
28. 3
5. 9
6.1
3. 5
12. 8
8. 5
0.1
14.0
59.1
5. 3
11. 9
II. 5
30. 4
I. 4
0. 4
21.8
64. 4
7.0
7. 5
5. g
34.0
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
18. 0
Jt.9
9.6
5. 0
0. 3
3.1
75. 8
4. 0
5. 5
3. 0
63. 3
6.1
0.1
55. 8
40. 8
15. 0
II. 4
13.8
15.0
43. 6
3. 6
4. 2
12. 7
23. I
0.6
-
56. 5
46. 2
18.6
13. 0
14. 6
10.3
42. 7
4. 6
5. 2
16. 0
16. 9
0.8
-
64.0
26.8
8.0
7. 3
11. 5
27. 2
45. 7
0. 7
1.5
4. 5
39.0
0.3
-
48. 7
27. 2
4. 3
8. I
14. 8
21.5
44. 9
3. I
6. 5
16.1
19. 2
6.3
0.1
Source: Survey or Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population.
1
348
100.0
-------- --------------
See Introduction and ch. VI.
Dig 11,ed by
Goog IC
48.9
28. 4
4. 7
8. 3
15. 4
20. 5
43. 6
3. 7
7. 5
18. 4
14. 0
7. 4
0.1
48.0
21.4
2.3
7.0
12.1
26.6
50.9
0.6
2.3
5. 2
42. 8
I.I
-
EMPLOYABILITY AND EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE • 23
Among nonagricultural heads skilled workers tended to be overrepresented among closings and white-collar workers to be underrepresented. This finding would be expected since skilled workers would
be the first to leave relief rolls in a period of economic recovery.
RELATION OF USUAL OCCUPATION TO RELIEF HISTORY
Data from five of the seven States a indicate that f ann laborer
households tended to have longer relief histories than the households
of either farm operators or unskilled nonagricultural workers. In
three of the five States they had received relief for a greater number
of weeks in the years 1932 through 1935 (appendix table 9). They
had also been on relief in more separate periods 7 than had farm
operators (appendix table 8). 8
On the average farm operators had received relief during more
weeks than had unskilled nonagricultural workers.
The relief histoi'y of the households was probably related less to
their occupational status than to administrative policies in the States
and availability of funds for relief. In Iowa and Georgia no cases in
the s1m1ple had received emergency relief prior to 1933 when the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration was established (appendix
table 10). In the other five States from 11 percent in South Dakota to
26 percent in West Virginia had received emergency relief for the first
time in 1932 whenReconstructionFinanceCorporation funds were made
available to the States. Although it may be true that relief needs did
not develop as early in Iowa as elsewhere, owing to relatively favorable
agricultural and industrial conditions in that State, the same cannot be
said of Georgia where the long-standing need is well known. 9
The largest proportion of the openings in Montana, Wisconsin, and
Iowa took place in 1933 when Federal Emergency Relief Administration funds were first made available. In South Dakota and Georgia
the greatest number of cases first came on relief in the drought year
of 1934. In West Virginia and North Carolina the openings were
fairly evenly distributed over the years 1932-1935.
More households tended to remain continuously on relief in West
Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia than in the other States surveyed. In each of the three Southern States the largest proportion
1 The numbers of farm laborer heads of households included in the Montana
and West Virginia samples were not great enough to warrant detailed analysis.
7 Period during which the case received public assistance.
Each period terminated after a lapse of 1 month without financial assistance.
1 Information on relief history was available for only part of the cases sampled.
• Counties studied in Georgia represented the Appalachian-Ozark Area and
the Eastern Cotton Belt, both classified as "problem areas" with extremely low
standards of living. See Beck, P. G. and Forster, M. C., Six Rural Problem
Area8, Relief-Resourcett-Rehabililalion, Research Monograph I, Division of
Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
Washington, D. C., 1935.
Dig 11,ed by
Goog IC
24 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
of the households had had only one relief period. When Negroes and
whites were studied separately, however, an opposite situation appea.red
with regard to the North Carolina Negroes. Many of these Negroes
had been on and off relief frequently, as indicated by the fact that
one-fourth of them had had five or more separate relief periods. The
same situation was true of farm operators in Montana. In the other
States the majority of the households had had two or three relief
periods during the years they were on relief.
flig ltzcd by
Goog re
Chapter IV
WORKS PROGRAM CERTIFICATION
THE WORKS PROGRAM was found to be the most important single
source of income in December 1935 for the rural households surveyed
in six of the seven States (table 1, p. 2). However, less than onehalf of the households in most States had some member employed on
the Works Program in that month (appendix table 11). Many
households contained workers who were waiting to be assigned to the
Works Program. Others had no member certified for employment
because of lack of workers or failure of workers to secure certification
status.
In most of the States surveyed the Works Program did not get well
under way before November. At the end of the year employment on
the program was still about 20 to 25 percent below the winter peak in
the States of Montana, Iowa, and North Carolina. Employment had
almost reached the top figure in South Dakota. and West Virginia and
was within 10 percent of the peak in Georgia and Wisconsin.' In
rural areas employment may have been more retarded than in each
State as a. whole.
The Federal Works Progress Administration, the major agency
participating in the Works Program, required that at least 90 percent
of persons employed on any of its projects should be taken from public
relief rolls 2 after first being certified by public relief agencies as being
eligible for employment. Other agencies cooperating in the Works
Program employed workers from relief rolls in varying proportions.
Persons eligible for certification included "all persons, male and
female, who are receiving relief on the date of certification, who were
receiving relief in May 1935 or accepted for relief subsequent to May
1935, who are working or seeking work, who are 16 years of age or
1 Re'f}OTt on the Works Program, Division of Research, Statistics, and Records,
Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., March 16, 1936, pp. 95--97,
and records of the Division of Research, Statistics, and Records.
1 Labor Employment Procedure, Bulletin No. 7, Works Progress Administration,
Washington, D. C., June 26, 1935, p. 2.
25
44269°-38--4
Dig 11,ed by
Goog IC
26 •
EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
over, and who are not currently serving sentence in a penal or correctional institution."•
On November 1, 1935, by administrative order, employment on the
Works Program was restricted to persons on relief prior to that date.
Hence, for the remainder of the fiscal year, certification for employment meant that the person in question was eligible for relief at the
time of certification and had received relief at some time from May
1, 1935, to November 1, 1935.1
No one whose age or physical condition was "such as to make his
employment dangerous to his health or safety or to the health or
safety of others" could be employed on a project. 6
CERTIFICATION IN RELATION TO EMPLOYABILITY
In each of the seven States the proportion of cases which had workers
certified by the relief agencies fell below the proportion of cases which,
according to the survey enumerators, included persons working or
seeking work (table 13). The disparity was much less in some States
than in others. In North Carolina and Georgia, with eight- to nin~
tenths of the closed relief households containing certified workers,
Ta&le 13.-Works Program Certification and Employability Status of Rural Relief Cases
Closed July Through November 1935
[71 counties representfn1 7 States)
State
Montana ...••••..••..•••.................•....••...........
South Dakota .....•........................................
Wisconsin •...•..............•..............................
Iowa ....••....••.•..•.•...........••..............•.........
West Virginia ....................•.......•..................
North Carolina .•...•.•.........•.•••.......................
White •••.•••......•.•....•..•.•........................
Negro ......••..••....•.•........•..•...•................
Oeorida ....•••..•••.••.••••...•••.•..•.•............•.......
White ....•.••••.•••..•.....•........•..................
Negro .....•••••••.••.........•..................•.......
1
Percent of all
cru,es with
Total cases members cert!•
fled (or Work•
Program
498
689
939
631
526
1, 157
&l2
355
937
760
177
Percent or all
cases with
members UI
through 64
years of age
working or
se<,klng work 1
l!0.4
45.9
'lll.8
54.2
72. I
&l. 4
&l.3
711. 5
73. 8
94.0
96.0
95.4
95. 2
i.i. 6
88.8
88.9
88.1
96. 3
96. 2
96. 3
93. 8
96. e
As reported by survey enumerators.
1
Ibid., p. 3. Distinction was made between persons receiving relief in May and
those accepted for relief subsequent to May because persons with May relief status
were given priority in employment over those who came on relief subsequently
(seep. 1).
'Handbook of Procedures for State and District Works Progress Administration,,
Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937, ch. XII, sec. 1. The
Federal Administrator had authority to extend the period of eligibility as conditions warranted. The Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1936, approved
in June, eliminated the requirement of prior relief status and opened works project
jobs to all persons in need whether or not they had previously been on relief.
' Labor Employment Procedure, op. cit., p. 1.
Dig 11zerl by
Goog IC
WORKS PROGRAM CERTIFICATION • 27
the proportions with certified members most nearly approached the
proportions of households with members considered employable.
Certification rates of households were lowest in Montana, South
Dakota, and Iowa where only about half of the households included
members certified by the end of December. In Wisconsin and West
Virginia almost thre&-fourths of the cases included certified members.
The fact that the process of certification had not been completed in
any of the seven States accounts in part for these shortages; loss of
relief status, usually because of private employment, wo.s responsible
for noncertification of most of the remaining uncertified cases.
REASONS FOR NONCERTIFICATION
When relief agencies failed to certify the head of a household for a
Works Program job, the reason most often reported to the survey
· enumerators was that the household head was no longer eligible for
relief, usually because he was working (table 14). This reason was
especially important in South Dakota where many farmers were not
on relief during the certification period in that State owing to the
administrative orders removing them from the rolls in June and
suspending all relief in July.1 In the sample counties of that State
households living in the open country were considered by the relief
agencies to be the responsibility of the Resettlement Administration. 7
Tat.le 14.-Reason for Noncertification of Heads 16 Through 64 Years of Age of Rural
Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935
[71 counties representing 7 States]
Total
Percent not certified because
Res.son
Not eligible for relief
State
Num- Percent Needed
at home
ber
Total
Phys!uncally or Other known
mentalreasons
Work• Other ly unfit
ing
reasons
-- -------Montana •....••.•.......••
South Dakota .............
Wisco1181n ••••••.•......•••
Iowa .......................
West Virginia .....••....•••
North Carolina .......•••••
White .•••.•.•..•••....
Negro ...•••............
0
00W~iie:::::::::::::::::
Negro••••...•..•.......
t
187
360
250
275
157
278
192
86
119
gg
20
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
13. 4
2. 2
5.6
o. 7
8.3
16. 2
13.5
22. I
6.0
6.1
-
61.4
81.9
61.2
78. 6
69. 4
61.1
61.0
29.1
36. 2
35. 3
t
57. 1
80.0
54. 4
65. 9
65. 6
50.0
60. 5
26.8
32.0
31.3
t
4. 3
1.9
6.8
12. 7
3.8
I.I
0. 6
2.3
4. 2
4. 0
t
17. 1
4. 2
12. 4
8. 7
15. 9
21. 9
18. 2
30. 2
23. 6
23.1
t
7.0
10.0
20.8
12.0
6.1
9. 7
6.8
16. 3
31.0
30.4
t
I.I
I. 7
--
1.3
I. I
0.6
2.3
4.2
6.1
-
Peroent not computed on a base of fewer than 50 cases.
• Bankert, Zetta E., Rural Relief Trends, Meade County, unpublished report,
November 7, 1935, on file in the Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration, Washington, D. C., p. 25.
7 Bankert, Zetta E., Number of Households Participating in Three Emergency
Program, and County Welfare in Nine South Dakota Counties, Bulletin 6, Current
Rural Relief Trends, South Dakota State College, Brookings, S. D., May 1936,
p. 1.
Oig112cd by
Google
28 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Ineligibility for relief was of least importance in Georgia as a
reason for noncertification, presumably because few cases remained
on relief rolls in June which were not eligible, after the reductions of
relief rolls ordered in May,8 or because relatively more workers were
ruled out owing to physical or mental disability or miscellaneous
reasons.
Physical or mental disability accounted for varying proportions of
the noncertifications of heads of households 16-64 years of age, the
highest proportions appearing in North Carolina and Georgia and the
lowest in South Dakota and Iowa.
Miscellaneous or unknown reasons accounted for fa.irly large proportions of noncertifications in most States.
Although the reason "needed at home" was not accepted by the
Works Progress Administration as a reason for noncertification,1 heads
of households not certified because they were believed to be needed
at home were relatively numerous in Montana and North Carolina
where they accounted for 13 and 16 percent, respectively, of the noncertifications. More than one-fifth of the noncertifications of North
Carolina Negro heads of households were explained by this reason,
which also accounted for from 5 to 8 percent of the noncertifications
of heads of households in West Virginia, Georgia, and Wisconsin.
"Needed at home" was tho reason most frequently given when other
members of households failed to be certified (table· 15). On October
3, the Works Progress Administration sent an order to State administrators reminding them that women "who are working or seeking
Ta&le 75.-Reason for Noncertification of Members 16 Through 64 Years of Age, Other
Than Heads, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States)
Total
State
Percent not certilled because
Num- Percent Needed
at
her
home
Reason
Phys!uncally or Other known
mentalreasons
Work- Other ly unllt
ing
reasons
Not eligible for relief
Total
- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - Montana ....•••••••••.....
South Dakota •••••.•••.••..
Wisconsin .••.•••.•••......
Iowa •.•........•••.••...•..
We.st Virginia ...••.•.•...•.
North Carolina ......•••.•.
White .....•.•.•.•••...
49!!
837
980
809
627
900
731
Geo~:':~.·:::::::::::::::::
White ••••••.•.••••••..
616
Negro •••.•••••......•..
259
496
120
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.fl
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
47. 6
3.3. 7
62.6
45. 0
68.9
48. 2
48. 6
47. 1
33.1
33. 7
30.8
35. J
53. 8
20. 7
38. 5
27. 4
27. 3
31.0
16. 6
14. 4
15.1
11. 7
7. 2
9. 7
4. 6
7. 8
5. 3
12. 6
15.0
5. 8
5. 8
6. 2
4. 2
27.9
44. I
16.1
30. 7
22. 1
14. 7
16. 0
JO. 8
8.6
8.9
7. 5
3.2
1.6
4.3
3. 3
4. 6
11.9
10. 7
15. 4
15. 3
14. 3
19. 2
13. 9
8. 2
12. 3
JI. 7
7.5
9.6
7.8
14. 7
33. 5
32. 5
37. 5
0. 2
2. 7
0. 1
I. 5
I. 6
3. 0
1.9
6. 2
3. 7
4. 4
0.8
See Introduction.
Order to all State Emergency Relief Administrators from Josephine C. Brovtn,
Administrative Assistant, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington,
D. C., October 3, 1935, A-106.
9
0
Digliwd
byGoog[c
WORKS PROGRAM CERTIFICATION • 29
work, .whether or not they appear to be needed at home to care for
minor children, should be certified to the Works Progress Administration." Special projects were being planned for such women. 10
Other nonheads 16-64 years of age who were not certified were
mostly members of households not eligible for relief during the period
of certification. As in the case of noncertification of heads, this reason
proved to be the most important one in explaining noncertification of
members other than heads in South Dakota.
Physical or mental unfitness disqualified only from 2 to 5 percent of
the noncertified members 16-64 years of age in all but the two cotton
States. In these States from 11 to 19 percent of the noncertified
white and Negro members 16-64 years of age were considered
physically or mentally unfit.
Unspecified reasons accounted for from 9 percent of the noncertifications of members other than heads in West Virginia to 37 percent
in Georgia.
·
CERTIFICATION OF MEMBERS OTHER THAN HEADS
Federal regulations permitted the certification of any number of
workers in one family although employment on the Works Program
was generally restricted to one worker per family. 11 Comparison of
the proportions of all heads of households 16-64 years of age and of all
other members 16-64 years of age who were certified with the proportions of both groups who were considered employable would seem to
indicate that in most States the secondary workers were certified
about as freely as the heads (table 16).
Tal>le 16.-Works Pro!lram Certification and Employability Status of Heads and Other
Members, 16 Through 64 Years of Age, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through
November 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States)
Heads, 16 through
64
years of
age
State
Total
Montana_____________________________
07
South Dakota________________________
657
Wisconsin ___________ . __ . __________ ...
883
Iowa___________ . ___________ . ________ ._
610
West Virginia.________________________
510
North Carolina_______________________ 1,123
White____________________________
7M
Negro ______ . ________ . _____ . ____ .. _
339
Geofl(ia ______________________________ .
892
1
White_. _____ . ________ . __ . ___ .....
728
Negro ___________________ ----------
l~
Perr,ent
certified
for Works
Program
55.
45.
71.
54.
69.
75.
Percent
working or
seeking
work 1
2
2
7
9
2
2
91.1
7
3
4
6
9
9
Members other than heads, UI
through «K years of age
Total
Percent
certified
for Works
Program
567
12. 2
889
1,172
16. 4
6. 8
75. 5
96.
96.
96.
94.
94.
95.
74. 6
92. 6
86. 7
86. 4
hi. 8
95. 9
95. 6
1,018
60.0
51. 3
97. 0
215
44. 2
856
6.5
793
20. 9
41. 9
38.9
I, 704
1,100
508
I, 233
Percent
working or
seek mg
49. 0
work
1
25. 2
24. 1
26.5
24.8
27. 6
59.2
54.8
69. 5
44.11
41.8
69.6
As reported by survey enumerators.
10
11
Ibid.
Labor Employment Procedure, op. cit., p. 2.
Dig,t zed tJy
Goos le
30 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Only South Dakota and Iowa., of the seven States, showed a tendency to limit certification to one worker in a household. About onehe.lf of the heads in those States were certified, but certification of
other members was more sharply limited. Only 6 percent of the
members other than heads in each State were certified although about
one-fourth were working or seeking work (table 16).
The persons 16-64 years of age certified by relief agencies as eligible
for Works Program employment were not always the same individuals
as were classified by the enumerators of this survey as working or
seeking work (table 16). This fact is illustrated by the de.ta for whites
in Georgia where the household members other than heads certified
as eligible for Works Program employment outnumbered the household members other than heads classified as employable by the survey
enumerators.
Differences in the time at which the certifying agencies and the
survey enumerators made their estimates of employability account for
some of the differences in these estimates. Workers may have become
disabled or may have recovered from temporary disability between the
period of certification and the time at which the enumerators surveyed
the households. Differences in judgment on the part of survey enumerators and certifying officers also affected their decisions regarding the
ability or availability of persons for work.
OCCUPATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN CERTIACATION
Except in the three Southern States members of farm operator
households had more difficulty in getting certified for the Works
Program than did members of nonagricultural households (appendix
table 11). This was to be expected since farm operator households
were less likely than other households to be kept on relief rolls during
the summer and early fall months when most of the certifications took
place.
SEX DIFFERENCES IN CERTIACATION
The proportions of men and women among certified heads of households corresponded very closely to the proportions among heads working or seeking work (appendix table 12 and fig. 6, p. 39). Men were
slightly overrepresented among certified heads in Montana, Iowa,
Wisconsin, and North Carolina, and women were slightly overrepresented in South Dakota and Georgia.
The exceptional position of South Dakota and Georgia may indicate
that women heads of households were more likely than men to be on
relief at the time of certification, due to the unusually sweeping
reduction of relief rolls in those States.
Digliwd
byGoog[c
Chapter V
EMPLOYMENT IN DECEMBER 1935
Few
OF the closed relief cases containing workers were totally without employment in December 1935 (table 17). The majority of the
heads of households in the sample counties of five of the seven States
had some private employment, chiefly farming (table 18), and at least
two out of five heads in most States had been provided with Works
Program jobs (table 19). Of the workers other than heads, about
half in the sample counties of four of the seven States had private
employment (appendix table 15), and usually about one out of five
had a Works Program job (appendix table 13).
Tho figures on private employment cannot be taken to mean that
the majority of the workers formerly on rural relief had become selfsupporting by December 1935. The employment reported did not
necessarily produce any income. 1 Most of the private employment
reported by heads of households was that of farm operators who were
reported employed if they were occupying their farms, however
unprofitable their farming operations might be. Similarly, other
workers in the household were reported employed if they worked
regularly and most of the time on the home farm, even if they received
only room and board as remuneration.
It has already been shown in chapter I that few households received
either primary or secondary income from agriculture in December
1935. The study of employment is significant, therefore, not with
respect to income but for the information it yields as to tho ability
of the workers to maintain a. foothold in industry, to retain their
farms, and to work when work is available. The employment date.
also throw light on the extent to which private nonagricultural industry
was absorbing the former relief households in December 1935 and
the progress which the Works Program was making in providing work
1 By survey definition a worker was considered employed in December 1935 if
he worked at least 1 week during the month. All farm operators were considered employed if they were residing on farms, even though they may have suspended farming operations for the season, provided they intended to resume
operations next season.
31
Oig112cd by
Google
32 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
for persons formerly on relief rolls who were unable to obtain employment elsewhere.
ta&le 17.-Employment Status of Rural Relief Cases With Workers Closed July Through
November 1935
.
(71 counties representing 7 States)
Total cases
With 1 or more
workers employed 1
All workers
unemployed •
State
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
------------[--- --- --- ---1--Montana ....•••.....•.•........••••••••..
t~~:.~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Iowa .....•....•...........................
West Virginia .........•......•...•........
North Carolina ......••...................
White ....•......•...........•......•.
Negro .....••.....•.•..........•.......
Georgia ..•...••.......••.........••••.....
White ...........•...........•••••.•.•
Negro .•..•••.....••.••..••.•.•••••.•..
396
!W6
883
006
li02
1,105
772
333
002
731
171
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
373
007
829
619
465
1,08.~
758
327
871
708
163
94. 2
94.0
93. 9
86.6
g2.6
98. 2
98. 2
98. 2
96. 6
96.9
95.3
23
39
M
87
37
20
14
6
31
23
8
5.8
6.0
8.1
14.4
7.4
1. 8
1.8
1.8
3. 4
3. 1
4. 7
1 On the Works Program or in private employment.
• With neither private nor Works Program employment,
Ten percent or less of the workers who were family heads had neither
private nor Works Program employment in December in all States
except Iowa (appendix table 14). The extent of unemployment among
heads varied somewhat in accordance with the industrial composition
of the closed case load in each State, owing to the fact that farm
operators who had retained their farms were reported as employed.
In North Carolina, where nearly one-half of tho worker heads of
households were farmers, only 6 percent of the heads were reported
unemployed, whereas in Iowa, where there were very few farmers
among the closed relief cases, nearly one-fifth of the heads of families
had failed to find employment by December 1935 either on the Works
Program or in private industry.
From 30 to 40 percent of the workers other than heads were idle
in most of the States sampled (appendix table 15). Such large proportions of secondary workers without jobs would be expected since
most of these workers were youth or housewives, who, even if working
on tho home farm, did not qualify (in this study) as "home farm
laborers" unless they regularly spent most of their time on farm duties.
Furthermore, Works Program employment was generally limited to
the head of the household.
·
Unemployment was more severe among farm wage laborers than in
any other group of beads of households in all but one of the States for
which data were available 2 (appendix table 14). About one out of
five or six farm laborer heads of households (by usual occupation) in
2 The numbers of farm laborer heads of households included in the Montana
and West Virginia samples were not great enough to warrant detRiled analysis.
D1g1t zed by
Goog Ie
EMPLOYMENT IN DECEMBER 1935 •
33
Tattle 18.-lndustry and Employment Status in December 1935 of Heads 16 Through
64 Years of Age, Working or Seeking Work, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through
November 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States]
s0
Industry and employment
status, December 1935
~
-=
s
~
.Cl
~
rr,
C
0
:i0
,:
a .
-~ ll:
~
~
"
'E
"E>
North Carolina
:i
~E-
>
~
E
:a
~
.,g
z
Georgia
~
~
.Cl
~
E-
------------------ --
482 1,006
fl35
Number .••••••........•.•. 380
850
588
752
855
696
314
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Peccent •••••••.•.......•... 100.0 100.0 ,__
Private employment•···········
Agriculture.••.•.•.•.........
Forestry and fishing .........
Extraction ofmlnerals.... _. _
Manufacturing and mechanteal. ..••.....••............
Transportation and com•
municatlon•.•.•.••........
Tra<le .•...•.....•.•.........
Public service .....•••.•.....
Prole..sslonal service ..•.• _. ___
Domestic and personal serv·
Ice .........................
Worlrs Program employment
only• ..........•••••.•...•.....
Unemployed •••...•.•.....•.•...
Unknown'······················
0
.,ti,
z
---70. 9 56. 8
159
100.0
--- --2 -21.4
57. 7 27.
37. 7 12.6 13. 5
8.8
0.3
0. 5
0.6
-0.
2
0.1
- -
53. 7
23.3
0. 5
15. 6
57. 7
29.3
2. 3
17. 4
72. 7
51. 5
0.5
79. 2
57. 3
o. 7
0. 3
3.9
0.3
42. 7
27.4
2. 5
o. 2
4.2
l. 9
6.4
4.1
2. 3
14.3
18. 8
8.3
8. 4
9.3
4. 4
1.3
1.6
1.6
2. 5
0. 2
0.9
1.6
2. 0
5.1
2. 9
0.2
0.5
2. 7
I. 2
0.5
1. 2
0.1
6. 5
0.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
1. 5
1.8
0.1
0.5
1.6
2.0
o. 2
0.4
1.3
o.8
66. 7
-
0.5
'6.8
-
0. 2
-
0.6
-
-
0.5
7
29.
-
o.8
2. 4
1.6
:u
1. 5
1.9
4.1
1. 9
9.6
2. 2
1. 4
5. 7
19. 7
8. 6
0.8
35.6
7. 2
1. 4
48.0
8. 9
0. 4
:I>. 7
19. 2
6. 4
32.6
9. 5
0. 2
:I>. 4
6. 2
o. 7
15. 8
4. 6
0.5
31.3
10. 2
0.8
61.0
9.6
I. 7
59. 5
9.9
1. 4
87. 3
8.2
3.1
1 Including ~Jar government employment and business on "own account." Some of these cases also
had Works Program employment. For cases which had private employment only, see table 19.
• Including the Civilian Conservation Corps.
• Known to be nonagricultural.
Tattle 19.-Works P!o,ram 1 Employment Status in December 1935 of Heads 16 Through
64 Years of Age, Working or Seeking Work, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through
November 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States]
...11
.
:s
0
Worlrs PrOl?l"Bm status,
December 1935
"
,:
11,:
0
::al
"
/:.
&.
:i0
er.,
~C
j
.
>
~
~
~
"'
North Carolina
Georgia
]'
i
30
E-
!
.c,
~
.,g
z
iE-
!
.c,
~
i
z
---- -- -- -- ---- ------
635
482 1,006
752
855
314
S50
588
696
Number .....••••..•••••••. 3~0
Percent. ••••••••...••••.•. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
159
100.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -73.-6
Employed on Works Progrl\ID ... 36. 0 39. 7 62. 3 22. 6 47. 5 40. 4 39. I 43. 4 68. 7 67. 5
oni. -········ ....•• --••••..
An !arm operator ••••.......
And farm laborer .....••.... _
And nonagricultural employmenL ...•............
And private employment
together with aid from
Resettlement Administra•
tion •·-·······-·······-····
Not employed on Works l'roi;ram .•........••....•.••••...•
Other employment ..•...••. _
Farm operator ••••.••••..
Farm laborer ......•••• _.
Nonagiiculture ....•.•..
Private employment tn~ther with aid lrom
esettlement Admin•
l<tration • ...••........
Unemployed ......••••..•..
19. 7
14. 7
48. 0
10. 5
0. 7
:I>. 7
0.9
0.6
32. 6
13.9
0.4
20.4
16. 4
1.3
15.8
:I>. 5
I. 2
31.3
6. 7
1.6
61. 0
5.4
0.8
W.5
5.6
0.9
67. 3
-
35. 6
2.1
0. 2
I. 3
0.9
0. 7
0.5
0. 4
]. 2
LI
I. 8
1.4
1. 4
I. 3
4. 4
0.6
0.3
0.9
2. 4
-
0. 2
I.I
0. 5
2. 2
0. I
o. 1
-
64.0
65. 4
40.0
0. 5
13. 7
60.3
53.1
18. 7
1. 3
9.1
37. 7
52. 5
43. 0
13. I
I. 2
28.2
59.6
5:l. 4
27. 7
3.9
:I>. 7
60.9
66. 4
31.9
2. 4
21.3
66.6
46. 4
2. I
14. 4
77. 4
Ii!!. 2
8. 0
13. 9
36.3
17. 5
7. 7
19.3
31. 3
21. 7
4.9
I. 4
15. 4
32.5
22. 6
6. 5
1.4
15. 7
26. 4
18. 2
2. 5
1.3
I. 2
8.6
24.0
7. 2
4. 7
8.9
-
0. 5
11. 5
I.I
6.2
0.8
19. 2
1.9
10. 2
9.6
28. 8
7. 6
4. 5
-
-
9.9
14. 4
-
6. 2
Including the Civilian Conservation Corps.
• With few exceptions, this private employment was that of larm operation.
1
Digit zca oy
Goog IC
34 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
the sample counties of most of the States had no private employment
and had not been placed on the Works Program. In Iowa nearly 3 out
of every 10 farm laborer heads of households had no work of any kind
in December 1935. At the same time many heads of households who
had previously farmed rented land were now working as wage hands
on Iowa farms.
PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
The proportions of worker heads of former rural relief households
who had private employment in December 1935 ranged from onefifth among Georgia Negroes to four-fifths among North Carolina
whites (table 18). As already noted, the proportion of heads employed in private industry depended to a great extent on the proportion of farm operators in the closed relief load. Since few Negro
farmers had been on relief in Georgia in June, few appeared in the
closed relief sample, and employment for the entire group in December 1935 was low. On the other hand, farm operators were in the
majority in the North Carolina white sample and consequently the
December employment rate for this group was high.
Excluding the farm operator group, whose employment·was often
of a nominal nature, less than one-fifth of the worker heads had
employment in private industry in four out of the seven States surveyed (appendix table 14). Iowa and West Virginia, where workers
benefited from a seasonal upturn in coal mining, were exceptional
with 37 and 29 percent of the worker heads employed in nonagricultural industry. In North Carolina, also, a seasonal upturn in
textiles and a revived demand for domestic workers were reflected
with more than one-fifth of the worker heads employed in nonagricultural industry.
The employment in private industry of other members of the
households followed in general the same broad industrial groupings
as that of the heads of households (appendix table 15). Where the
heads of households were employed predominantly as farm operators-Montana, South Dakota, and North Carolina-the secondary
workers had employment principally as farm laborers, probably on
the home farm. In Iowa, where nonagricultural private employment was predominant among heads of households, other members
of the households also found employment principally in nonagricultural work.
Domestic service provided the principal nonagricultural employment of secondary workers in all States outside of the South. In
West Virginia mining was more important. In North Carolina and
Georgia the Negroes outside of agriculture were most likely to be
employed in domestic service, but textile employment was predominant among the whites who were not engaged in forming.
Digit ,,,rJ oy
Goog IC
EMPLOYMENT IN DECEMBER 1935 • 35
In general the boys and young men who found work in the sample
counties of all seven States were employed as laborers and the women
were engaged in domestic or personal service. 3 The white women in
North Carolina were an exception since in that State the housewives
and daughters, like the heads of households, were predominantly
employed in agriculture in December. These women were working
on the home farm.
Duration of Private Employment
Heads of households employed in December 1935 in nonagricultural
private industry had had their jobs, for the most part, for 5 months
or less. In Georgia such employment was of even more recent origin;
more than one-half of the nonagricultural workers had had their jobs
for less than 4 months (appendix table 16).
Some of the workers in nonagricultural industry had evidently
been receiving relief as a supplement to inadequate earnings. This
is indicated by the fact that about one-fourth of the heads of households engaged in nonagricultural industries in South Dakota and
North Carolina and one-fifth in Iowa. and Montana. had been employed at their current jobs for from 7 months to 3 years or more.
The agricultural workers, most of whom were farm operators,
naturally showed much longer periods of employment at their current
jobs, the great majority reporting more than 3 years of consecutive
employment. Iowa was an exception since most of the agricultural
heads among closed cases in that State were farm laborers. The
majority of agricultural workers in Iowa with employment in December reported that their current jobs were of only 3 to 9 months'
duration.
Eamln91 In Private Employment
Income from farm operation in December 1935 was not tabulated
in this study, but earnings from farm labor and nonagricultural
employment of heads of households employed for the full month can
be presented for the sample areas in six States. 4
The average earnings nowhere exceeded $70 a. month. The highest
average amount was reported in West Virginia where workers formerly
on relief, many of them coal miners, were receiving an average of $67
a month. Elsewhere earnings ranged from $15 a month among North
Carolina Negroes to $50 a month in Wisconsin. In four out of six
States the average was from $29 to $34 a month (table 25, p. 44).
Negroes in North Carolina received less than half as much as the
whites, $15 as compared with $35 a month. So few Negroes in the
1 Data on file in the Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.
• The number of heads employed in private industry for the full month of
December in the Montana sample was not great enough to warrant detailed
analysis.
Diglizerl
byGoogrc
36 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Georgia sample were employed in private industry for the full month
of December that comparisons could not be made between the earnings
of Negroes and whites in that State.
Occupational Shifts In Private Industry
Comparison of the current and usual occupations of the heads of
former rural relief cases employed in private industry in December
1935 shows considerable shifting from agricultural to nonagricultural
occupations and vice versa. Workers who had lost their farms tried
to support their families from odd jobs, domestic service, commission
sales, etc., while workers who had lost their jobs in mills, mines, and
stores moved into the poor land areas in the hope of growing enough
food to maintain their households.
The shift toward nonagricultural private employment was relatively
pronounced in Georgia. where displaced Negro farmers or farm laborers
had entered domestic service (appendix table 14). More than onetenth of the Negro heads of households usually engaged in agriculture
reported nonagricultural occupations in December 1935. The drought
in South Dakota was responsible for a similar shift toward nonagriculture in that State. About one-eighth of the farm laborers in
South Dakota had found nonagricultural work in private industry.
Shifts toward agriculture predominated among North Carolina.
whites and in Wisconsin, involving in each case about 1 out of every
12 heads of households usually engaged in nonagricultural work.
This shift was probably related to the presence of much easily obtained
poor land and numerous part-time farmers already on the land in
certain sections. Skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled workers shared
in this movement back to the land, many of those in Wisconsin
reporting themselves as farm owners. Some of them had probably
resided on these farms while engaging in nonagricultural employment in
nearby industries, but when their nonagricultural employment failed
they turned to the land for a. livelihood. In North Carolina the greater
part of the nonagricultural workers who shifted to agriculture reported
themselves as croppers or other tenants (appendix table 14).
In Iowa and among North Carolina Negroes there were important
shifts both to and from the land which largely tended to balance each
other. Interindustrial mobility was at a minimum in Montana and
West Virginia.
WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT
The Works Program 6 provided the only employment in December
1935 for the greater part of the worker heads of households in the sample counties of Georgia and for from 20 to 61 percent of the total in all
1 Including the Civilian Conservation Corps.
This was an unimportant factor,
however, since in most States less than 1 percent of the heads of households were
enrolled in the Civilian Conservation Corps in December and the highest proportion in any State was 2 percent (appendix table 22).
Dig 11,ed by
Goog IC
EMPLOYMENT IN DECEMBER 1935 • 37
States (table 18). The proportions of heads of households who had both
private employment and Works Program employment at some time
during the month of December ranged from 23 percent in Iowa to 69
percent in Georgia (table 19). Works Program employment of other
workers in the households ranged from 11 percent in Iowa to 27 percent
in West Virginia (appendix tabla 13).
The wide range in proportions of heads of households with Works
Program employment indicates the irregularity of the development of
the program in the various States at the time of the survey. Georgia
and Wisconsin, where employment on the program had begun during
the summer, were the only States in which the sample counties reported that more than one-half of the worker heads of former relief
households had Works Program jobs by December 31. Even in these
States the program had not yet absorbed all unemployed formerly on
relief since about one-tenth of the heads in the sample counties of
both States had no employment of any kind (table 19).
The three States with predominantly agricultural relief loadsMontana, South Dakota, and North Carolina-showed approximately
the same development of Works Program employment, with 36 and
40 percent of the heads so employed. Most farmers formerly on relief
in these States did not have Works Program jobs. From 6 to 9 percent
of all worker heads in the three States were jobless persons not yet
employed on the Works Program.
In Iowa, where the Works Program developed most slowly, only a
little more than half of the heads without private employment had jobs
on the program in December; one-fifth of all heads who were workers
had no employment of any kind. In West Virginia 48 percent of all
worker heads had been given jobs but 10 percent were still without
employment (table 19).
DupllcatlOft of WOJb Pro9ra• and Other E.ployment
In all States some of the heads had both Works Program and other
employment in December 1935 (table 19). Practically all of this
duplication was between farm operation and the Works Program. In
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Georgia more than one-half of the
operating farmers had jobs on the Works Program.
In Wisconsin a few heads of households who were operating forms
and were employed on the Works Program were also clients of the
Resettlement Administration in December 1935. The Resettlement
clients, while under care of the Resettlement Administration, had not
necessarily received either loans or grants during that month.
The proportions of form operator households with Works Program
jobs were also fairly high in North Carolina and Montana, the two
States in which agricultural households predominated in the sample of
closed relief cases but in which the rural rehabilitation program had
Digitized by
Google
38 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
removed few households from the relief rolls since June 1935. In
South Dakota, where most of the farmers were clients of the Resettlement Administration, very few had Works Program employment in
December.
U1ual Occupations of Heads of HouMholcls With Worlcs Pro1ra111 Employment
Households with farm operators or farm laborers at the head had
more success in obtaining Works Program employment than did those
dependent on nonagricultural workers in four of the seven States surveyed (appendix table 11). These States-Iowa, West Vuginia,
Georgia, and North Carolina-were all experiencing some seasonal
upturn in rural nonagricultural industries, such as mining and textiles, in the sample counties surveyed in the fall of 1935. Consequently,
nonagricultural workers formerly on relief in the rural areas of these
States may have had less need for Works Program jobs than did the
heads of agricultural households, whose farms were often small and
unproductive, especially in the three Southern States, or who represented a. surplus farm labor supply, as did most of the agricultural
workers at the head of households in Iowa.
In Montana, South Dakota, and Wisconsin the opposite situation
was found. The households whose heads were nonagricultural workers were more successful in getting Works Program employment than
were those whose heads were farm operators. The Resettlement
Administration had extended aid to the majority of the farm operators
from relief rolls in the South Dakota counties and to about one-fourth
of those in Wisconsin (table 19). In Montana orders to transfer farm
families from relief rolls to the Resettlement Administration loan and
grant program, rather than to Works Program employment, were
issued in December 1935 8 but had not become effective in the counties sampled at the time of the survey.
Age and S.x of Worlc1 Prosram Worlcen
Considering the seven States as a. whole, women worker heads were
given an approximately equal opportunity with men in obtaining
Works Program jobs. In Montana, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and
among North Carolina Negroes, men were slightly overrepresented
among heads employed on the Works Program as compared with their
representation among all employable heads, but in South Dakota and
Georgia women had a slight advantage with respect to employment
(table 20, appendix table 12, and fig. 6).
Data on Works Program employment by sex for other members of
households were available for only four States. Men were overrepresented among those employed on the Works Program in all four States
(table 10, p. 17, and table 21). The difference was least marked in
Georgia where the Federal Emergency Relief Administration of Georgia
o See ch. VI.
Dig1w,
byGoogle
EMPLOYMENT IN DECEMBER 1935 • 39
-Male
E!!IFemale
MONTANA
Working Or seeking work
Certified for Works Program employment
Employed on Works Program
SOUTH DAKOTA
Working or seeking work
Certified for Works Program employment
Employed on Works Program
WISCONSIN
Working or seeking work
Certified for Works Program employment
Employed on Works Program
IOWA
Working or seeking work
Certified for Works Program employment
Employed on Works Program
WEST VIRGINIA
Working or seeking work
Certified for Works Program employment
Employed on Works Program
NORTH CAROLINA-Total
Working or seeking work
Certified for Works Program employment
Employed on Works Program
-White
Working or seeking work
Certified for Works Program employment
Employed on Works Program
-Negro
Working or seeking work
Certified for Works Program employment
Employed on Works Program
GEORGIA
Working or seeking work
-Total
Certified for Works Program employment
Employed on Works Program
-White
Working or seeking work
Certified for Works Program employment
Employed on Works Program
-Negro
Working or seeking work
Certified for Works Program employment
Employed on Works Program
FtG. 6- SEX OF HEADS OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS* 16 - 64 YEARS OF AGE
WHO WERE WORKING OR SEEKING WORK, CERTIFIED FOR
WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT, AND EMPLOYED ON
WORKS PROGRAM
* Receiving relief In June and
December 1935
~losed prior lo December 1935.
Digit zca oy
Goog IC
40 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
had made a. special effort to find suitable jobs for women on Works
Program projects.
When a.ge distributions of male heads of households employed on the
Works Program were examined, it appeared that old and young
received a.n opportunity to work much in accordance with their
representation among all age groups (appendix table 17).
Table .20.-Sex of Heads16 Through 6" Years of Age, Ems:,loyed on the Works Program 1
in December 1935, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935
171 counties representing 7 States]
Total heads employed on Works Program
State
Number
Montana--------------------------·-----------·-·-·····
South Dakota........ -·····························-···
Wisconsin ...•....••. ·- ..•.••••••••.••••.•.••••••••.....
Iowa .. ·-----·-···-················-··---····--···----·West Virginia __ .. _•.•.........•..••......•.•....•......
North Carolina •• -···-· .•.••. ····--··-·--··············
. White--···-··-·····-···-·-···--····------··-···-·-·
Negro_·---···-···-·····-·-·-···-·--··-··--·····---·
Georgia ...•••.••...••••.•.••..•.... -· ... _····-·········
White ...•.••....................................•••
Negro .•...•.....•.....••.•......... ···-···-·-·-···1
Percent
136
243
615
128
219
423
288
135
669
454
115
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
JOO. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Female
Male
97.8
94. 7
99.0
96.9
99. 6
81.3
83.3
77.0
74.9
76. 2
119.6
2. 2
6. 3
1.0
3.1
0.5
18. 7
16. 7
23. 0
26. l
23.8
30.4
Exclusive of the Civilian Conservation Corps.
Among boys and men other than heads of households, however,
there was a tendency for the 18-24 year age group to obtain Works
Program employment in preference to older workers (appendix
tables 5 and 18). In this connection it is interesting to note
that the Works Program provided the first employment experience
for many of the young workers. More than two-fifths of the
inexperienced secondary workers in West Virginia, for example,
found their first employment on the Works Program (appendix
table 15).
Table .21.-Sex of Members 16 Through 64 Years of Age, Other Than Heads, Em_ployed
on the Works Program in December 1935, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through
November 1935
(44 counties representing 4 States]
Total members employed on Works Program
State
Number
Wisconsin .....••..••..•••••..•...•..•........ -·-··-···West Virginia_.-·•-······-·········-·--·------·------··
North Carolina_······-··--··-···-·-·····-·---··---·· __
White .•... ·-············-··-·-····-·-···-----·-··-·
Negro ............................. ·-··-.·-·-· ..... •
0eo~l'~ite···················-·············-···-···-·-Negro .... ····-·····--···· ·- -········· .....•........
Percent
61
58
186
]17
69
113
101
12
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
Male
Female
85.2
100.0
73. 7
69. 2
81.2
48. 7
49.5
t
t Percent not computed on a base ol lewer than 50 cases.
01911 zca by
Goog Ie
14.8
26.3
30.8
18.8
51.3
60.5
t
Tcrl,le .2.2,--Cunent Occupation on the Works Program 1 and Usual Occupation of Heads of Rural Relief CaMS Closed July Through November 1935
(71 0011Dtles representing 7 States)
i
Montana
South
Dakota
Wlsoonsln
N ortb Carolina
West
Vlrg!Dia
Iowa
Total
'°
r
Occapatlon
c,,
~
::,
e
~~
.....
ts"'
:t:
e
';!
::s
p
~~
~
...
0
t.
>
- - -- - -
';!
::s
~
e
~~
.....
ts ..
::
e
';!
iil
::,
~~
ts ..
';!
e
~~
.....
ts"'
White
e
~~
.....
ts ..
Georgia
Negro
.0
e
~~
.....
ts"'
';!
::s
]
]
p
::,
;:,
:t:
:t:
:t:
:t:
- - -- -- - - - --
;l
::,
Total
~~
.....
ts ..
~
.
e
]
;:,
~~
:;
.
:t:
Negro
White
0
~
p
~~
~Iii,
:t:
';!
;1
::,
~!
t
~
- - - - - - --
29,1
136
247
526
Number ••• •••. •·.••• •• .•.•. . 136
247
526
430
430
133
133
229
2114
229
136
136
587
!1117
470
470
117
Percent •••• •••.•.•.• . •...... 100.0 HJO. O 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. U 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0
117
100. 0
-- ---- -- ------ ------ -- - - - -41 .-7 -- - -6.-7 -54.-9 -4.-5 -Jll.-3 - - -Agrlculture .•.... . • ..... .. __ .... . . 56. 6
0. 4 39. 0
64. 9 15. 3 67. 7 11. 6 58. 8 23. 5 49. I 27. 1 61. l 27. 7 41.0
24. 8
Farrn operator or supervisor t. 47. 0
1
o. 4 21. 7 o. 4 12.8 - 30. I - 4-19 I. 3 55. I 2.1 22. 8 - 211. 3 I. 9 27. 7 2. 4 :.ll. 5
-- 23.
Farm laborer .•. ... .. •........ 9. 6
18. 6
- Ii. 3 6. 3 42. I 4. 5 0. 2 - 21) 0 14 .0 12. 6 9. 5 36. 0 23. 5 22.8 25. 2 23. 4 25. 3 ~-5 24.-8
Nona~rlculture . .••. ..•••. •••..... 43. 4 100. 0
White collar ••••.•..•.•....... 2. 2
I. 5
Skilled ... . • • • .. • ••.•••.•.••..
5. 2
Semiskilled . •••• •• •.•......•.. 8.8
Unskilled ......• ••••••.••..... 27. 2
No usual occupation .• . .• .•.••....
Unknown .... •••••....... ........
--
6. 6
11.0
80. 9
--
51 . 4
3. 2
99. 6
4. 8
II . 3
6. 3
5. 3
84. 2
5. 7
31. 2
6. 9
-
--
60. 5
4. 2
13. I
11 . 8
31. 4
0. 5
93. 3
2. 3
6. 7
3. 6
81. 7
-
Includ!Dg tbe Civilian Colliervation Corps.
• Operator as usual occupation; supervisor on the Works Program.
1
--
44. 4
3.0
9. 8
6. 8
24. 8
0. 7
-
95. 5
0. 8
2. 2
3.8
88. 7
--
54. 6 100. 0
2. 2
I. 7
6. 6 13. 1
3. 0
3. I
42. 8 112. 1
ti.I
-
34 . 0
4. 0
3. 7
6. 5
19. 8
I. I
-- -
84. 2
2. 1
6. 3
17. 7
511. 1
-
0. 5
30. 6
4. I
4. 8
8. 8
12. 9
1. 7
-
87. 7
2. 4
6. 8
15. 6
62. 9
-
0. 7
41. 2
3. 7
1.5
1.4
34. 6
--
76. 5
I. 5
2. 2
22. I
60. 7
-
44. 6
3. 5
4. 1
8. 0
29. 0
6. 3
72. 7
2. 5
9. 4
22.1
38. 7
41.1
4. 5
4. 9
9.G
22.1
7.8
- - 0.2
72. 1
2. 6
ll.5
21. 5
36. 6
-
o. 2
511. 0
75. 2
0. 9
I. 7
24.8
!i6. 4
47.0
-
--
2. 6
0.8
--
~
~z
m
-I
z
C
C
<ft
N
~
m
~
m
!a
"
...;g
0
0
00
-
[T
C")
~
UI
•
.Iii,.
42 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Type of Employment on Worlo Progiam
More than 80 percent of the heads employed on the Works Program
in five out of seven States were working at unskilled labor although in
most of theso States not more than half of these workers had usually
been employed in unskilled nonagricultural work or as farm laborers
(table 22). Unskilled work on farm-to-market roads and other construction projects was the major type of work available to farmers on
Works Program projects. A few were employed as supervisors on
agricultural projects, such as soil erosion control, but the number of
such jobs was limited. Some could and did qualify as foremen or
skilled or semiskilled workmen on construction projects. On the
whole, however, farmers joined the ranks of the unskilled laborers
when they went on the Works Program.
North Carolina and Georgia, as usual, presented a different picture
from the other States, owing to the large numbers of broken families
and women heads of households among both Negroes and whites in
the Cotton South. Here considerable numbers of Works Program
workers were classified as semiskilled, much greater proportions, in
fact, than were usually engaged in such work. A partial explanation
was found in the type of work to which women heads of households were
usually assigned on the Works Program. Some of the sewing work,
in which the majority were employed,7 was classed as semiskilled,
whereas the women engaged in this work had usually been employed
in domestic service or farm labor, classed as unskilled.
The proportions employed in agricultural work were also much
higher in North Carolina and Georgia than in the other States.
Erosion control projects wero well under way in the South by the fall
of 1935 under the Soil Conservation Service. Land utilization
projects launched by the Resettlement Administration about the
middle of November were largely concentrated in the Southeast. 8
Duration of Worlo Progiam Employment
Most of the Works Program employment reported by the heads
of households employed on December 31 had been of short duration
(table 23), as would be expected in view of the recent development of
the program. In most States the majority had had their jobs for
less than 2 months.
In Iowa the greater part of the workers had been employed for 5
weeks or less. Only in Wisconsin and Georgia had the majority of
the workers been employed for 3 months or more.
'Report on Progre&s of the Works Program, October 15, 1936, Division of Research, Statiutics, and Records, Works Progress Administration, Washington,
D. C., p. 36.
8 Report on the »rorks Program, Division of Research, Statistics, and Records,
Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., March 16, 1936, pp. 53--55
ar:d 63--65, and table 2.
Dig tizncJ by
Goog Ie
EMPLOYMENT IN DECEMBER 1935 •
43
Table .23.-Duration of Works Pro\jram I Employment of Heads 1 16 Through 64 Years of
Age Employed on the Works Program, December 31, 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States]
Total em•
ployed De•
cember31 1
Number of we~ks • or Works Program employment
State
Nam•
ber
Montana .•.••••••••••
South
Dakota
..••••..
\\'isconsin_
___________
Iowa .........•.•••..•
West Virginia ..•••••.
North Carolina ..•••..
White .••.••.•••••
Negro ••••••••••••
Georgia ...•.••••••.••.
White .••••••••...
Negro •••••••••.•.
123
199
498
121
214
402
274
128
537
426
111
Per•
cent
10
12 or
more
' - - -- -- -- -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - -100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
l
2
-
2. 4
2. 5
- 0.6
0.8 10. 7
0.6
1.0 1.0
I. 5 0. 7
-- 0.1.62
-- 0.9-
3
5
-
8.1 26.0
8.0 4. 5 28. 3
2.0 1.0 1.8
14. 8 19.8 25.0
4. 7 2.8 10. 7
I. 7 3. 2 3. 2
I. 5 3. 6 3.6
2. 3 2. 3 2.3
0.4 0. 7 o. 7
0. 2 0. 7 0.9
0.9 0,9
-
6
20.3
4. 5
2. 2
9. 9
11. 2
JO. 7
JO. 11
10. 2
0.8
0. 5
0.9
7
8
9
11
4.1 4. I 1.6 I. 6 2.4
6.0 4. 5 10. 6 2. 5 6.0
3. 6 a. 2 8.8 12.4 12. 2
I. 7 0.8 4. I o. 8 I. 7
10. 3 9. 3 3. 3 3.3 5.1
32. 1 14. 2 7. 5 3. 5 5. 5
31. 8 17. 5 6. 2 4.4 5.1
32.8 7.0 10. 2 1.6 6. 3
4.8 7. 4 20.9 1.3 I.I
4. 7 7. 0 21. 4 0. 7 1.4
5. 4 9.0 18.9 3. 6
-
29. 4
24.6
62. 2
9,g
38.8
16. 4
13. 2
23.4
61. 7
62. 5
59.6
I Exclusive of the Civilian Conservation Corps.
• or rural relier cases closed July through November 1935.
a Exclusive or cases for which number or weeks or employment was not known and those employed leas
than 1 week.
• Not necessarily continuous.
South Dakota not only showed relatively brief employment of those
employed on the Works Program but it also showed the highest
separation rate of any State. One-fourth of the heads ever employed
on the Works Program in the South Dakota counties had left this
employment before December 31 (table 24). A similar situation was
found in the Montana counties where one-fifth of the heads ever
employed on the Works Program had left their jobs by the end of
the year. Difficulties in keeping rural projects going in inaccessible
regions after winter set in probably accounted for these high separation
rates.
Table .24.-Separation From Works Program Employment of Heads 16 Throug_h 64 Years
of Age, Ever Employed on the Works Program, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July
Through November 193 5
[71 counties representing 7 States]
State
Montana .................................................. .
~~~~':ik.~~.·.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Iowa....................................................... .
West Virginia ...........•.........................••..•.•..•
North Carolina .••.••.•.•...........•.........•..•..........
White .•........... ·-···································
Negro ..•.••••.•..•.•..•..........................•..•...
Georgia ....••...•.•••.•••••........•....•.....•••....•...•..
Whit•··•··························-····················
Negro .................................................. .
Total heads,
N
be
16 through 64,
um r sep•
ever empioyed
araterl pnor
on Works
to December 31,
Program ,
1935
1,57
268
546
31
68
43
144
17
221
6
48
458
319
139
639
500
130
Percent
of total
38
JO
96
78
18
19. 7
25. 4
7. 11
11. 8
2. 3
10. 6
11.11
7.2
15.0
15. 3
13.8
1 Prior to December 31, 1935. Owing to the fart that enrollees in the Civilian Conservation Corps enlist
for a definite term or service and are therefore not comparnblo to other Works Program workers in respect
to duration or employment, they have heen exduded lrom this tabulation. Out or a total or 02 heads of
households ever employed in the Cl,·ilian Conservation Corps in the sample for the 7 States only I, a Georgia
Negro, had been separated from this employment prior to December 31, 1935.
Digit zca oy
Goog IC
44 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
In the sample counties of the other States from 2 percent (West
Virginia) to 15 percent (Georgia) had lost their Works Program jobs
before December 31.
Eamln,s on the Worlcs Prot,am
Earnings on the Works Program for the full month of December
1935 corresponded closely, of course, to the security wage rates established for unskilled labor in rural parts of these States (table 25).'
Four of the States at that time were in Wage Rate Region I where
unskilled labor in rural counties was assigned at the rate of $40 a
month and other grades of labor up to $61 a month. In these StatesMontana, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Iowa-the actual earnings
of workers employed for the full month of December ranged from an
average of $40 in South Dakota to $48 in Montana. In the latter
State more workers were employed at skilled and semiskilled occupations, with their higher wage rates, than in the other three States of
this group. In South Dakota. the low average earnings probably
reflect the wage scale of Region II which was in effect in South Dakota
until the State was transferred to Region I in December 1935. 10
To&le 25.-Average 1 Monthly Earnings of Heads 16 Throu~h 6-4 Years of Age,
Employed for the Full Month of December 1935 on the Works Program 2 and in Private
lndustry,1 of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935
(71 counties reprasentlng 7 State.,]
Average monthly
earnings
Total employed
State
Works
Program
Montana ______ ------··· ..••••••••...•...•..............
South Dakota .... ··-··· .•...•..• _.• ······-·· .......... .
Wisconsin ..•.•.... _.. ·--···· ............ ··- ........... .
Iowa·---·-·····--····-··-·······-········-·············
We.st Vlr1lnln._ ... -.. ·---····························-·
North Carolina.··-····-··············-········-······
White .. ·-·······-·-·············-··············-···
Negro····-······-····················--···--·······
Georgia ........•....... ·-···· ..•. -·· ..... ·-·· .•........
Whlte .... ·---··-····-·····························Negro ..... __ .....•••.•.•....... _•... ___ ...•... _..•.
Private
industry
Works
Program
Private
industry
t
41
$48
153
58
40
$32
362
59
97
43
44
50
32
110
208
38
67
22
211
142
66
109
92
24
35
56
135
196
107
89
476
376
100
200
17
19
21
22
20
15
34
31'
t
t Average not computed for fewer than r.o ca.ses.
Mean.
• Owing to the fact that Mmings In the Civilian Conservation Corps were fixed 11t II uniform rate o! $30 a
month for almost all enrollees throughout the country, they have been excluded !rom thi• tabulation.
• Exclwive or farm operation.
1
In West Virginia., which was in Region II, the monthly security
wage rates ranged from $32 for unskilled workers to $48 for professional
and technical workers. Actual earnings averaged $38 a month.
• Report on Progress of the Works Program, kfarch 1937, Division of Research,
Statistics, and Records, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., p. 49.
10 Iowa, also, was originally in Wage Rate Region II but was transferred to
Region I somewhat earlier than South Dakota.
Dig,t zed IJY
Goos le
EMPLOYMENT IN DECEMBER 1935 • 45
At the time of the survey North Carolina and Georgia were in
Region IV where the security wage rates for rural areas were from
$19 to $39 amonth. 11 Workers in this survey received, on the average,
$21 in Georgia and $22 in North Carolina. Negroes received $20
and $19 in the two States, as compared with $22 and $24 for the whites.
As the security wage rates were the same for whites and Negroes for
the same grade of work, these differences in earnings are related to the
greater proportions of whites employed at skilled occupations which
commanded higher wage rates.
When Works Program earnings were compared with the earnings of
those workers who secured private employment, it appeared that private
earnings were almost twice as great as Works Program earnings in
West Virginia and among Georgia whites. Also in Wisconsin and
among North Carolina whites, private earnings were greater than
Works Program earnings. On the other hand, average Works
Program earnings were greater than average private earnings in South
Dakota and Iowa and among Negroes in North Carolina (table 25). 12
11 On July 1, 1936, all States in Region IV were transferred to Region III where
the security wage range for rural counties was from $21 to $42 a month.
u The numbers of heads of households employed in private industry for the
whole month of December in the Georgia Negro and the Montana samples were
not great enough to warrant detailed analysis.
Dig,t zed tJy
Goos le
o,,
11z
1tyGoogle
Chapter VI
RELIEF IN DECEMBER 1935
F1NAL GRANTS of Federal funds for direct relief were determined
in December 1935, and final payments were made to many States
during that month. The care of all households in need without
persons able to work and the care of needy unemployed persons
not given jobs on the Works Program or aided by the Resettlement
Administration became the responsibility of the State and local
governments. Federal funds for aid to the aged, to the blind, and
to dependent children did not become available until February 1,
1936.
Although the intention of the Federal Government to return the
full responsibility for unemployable relief cases to the States had been
forecast as early as January 1935, a number of States were not prepared to take over this burden when the Federal Emergency Relief
Administration announced its final grants in December. Among the
States included in this survey, Georgia and North Carolina had made
no State provision for relief, and the entire burden of direct relief
reverted to the counties and towns. Montana, Wisconsin, and South
Dakota had established permanent State welfare departments to
administer or supervise general relief and other types of aid and had
made some State funds available for relief. Iowa and West Virginia
had not yet established permanent State welfare departments but
were continuing the relief administrations on an emergency basis with
State and local funds. The termination of Federal direct aid reduced
available relief funds sharply in most States although the need continued to be heavy.
RELIEF AGENCIES IN THE STA TES
As a background for interpreting the findings of the survey,
brief descriptions are given here of the agencies responsible for the
administration of relief in each of the seven States at the end of
1935.
47
Oig112cd by
Google
48 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Federal Emersency Relief Administration of Georgia
The local offices of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration of
Georgia. were closed on November 15. The only relief available in
rural areas in December, therefore, was county poor relief for unemployables (in most cases in county poorhouses),1 a. limited amount of
private charity, Federal surplus commodities, and some medical aid
provided by the F. E. R. A.
The F. E. R. A. remained in Georgia. in an administrative capacity,
using the final Federal funds to encourage counties to establish public
welfare departments or to appoint commissioners of the poor with
relief training and experience for distributing what local funds were
available. The F. E. R. A. offered to help pay the salaries of such
persons. In December 1935 the plan had not become effective in the
counties surveyed.
Georgia. had had Federal administration of emergency relief since
April 1935 with funds remaining Federal property instead of being
transferred to the Governor of the State as was done elsewhere. 2
Since the beginning of the E. R. A. in July 1933, a. Federal appointee
had served in this State, first, as executive secretary of the relief
administration, and, since January 1934, as relief administrator with
full powers.
The effects of direct Federal control in Georgia are seen throughout
this report. Federal policies were carried out with a. promptness and
precision that were not seen elsewhere. Transfer of employable
persons to the Works Progress Administration began in July and wa.s
almost entirely accomplished by November 15 when the relief offices
were closed. Cases for which the counties or landlords were considered
responsible had been removed from relief before the Works Program
was inaugurated.
A study of rural cases removed from E. R. A. rolls in May and
June 1935 in the same Georgia. counties that were included in this
survey showed that most of the households were seriously in need of
assistance when visited in August 1935 by survey enumerators.
Few sharecroppers had received aid from their landlords and the
majority interviewed had had no cash income during the month of
the survey. Only 1 of the 17 counties was providing for any of the
unemployable cases that had been removed from E. R. A. rolls and
in this 1 county the aid provided amounted to an average of but $3
a month per case. Only three other counties indicated that they
1 Williams, E. A., "Legal Settlement in the rnited States," Monthly Report of
the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, August 1 Through August 91, 193,lj,
Washington, D. C., table C--2, p. 34.
1 Bartlett, F. S., "Financial Procedure in the Federally Operated Relief Administrations in Six States," Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, June 1 Through June SO, 1986, Washington, D. C., p. 134.
C1g1t zea by
Goog Ie
RELIEF IN DECEMBER 1935 • 49
might eventually provide care for these cases.3 In the entire State
of Georgia. only 249 unemployable cases, including 422 persons, were
receiving direct relief from local public funds in November 1935.
All of these cases were rural. This relief averaged $2.93 per case
and $1.73 per person per month.'
North Carolina Department of Public Welfare
The North Carolina Emergency Relief Administration was officially
closed on December 5, 1935. Although the liquidation of all local
units in the State was not accomplished for several weeks, the entire
case load included in this study had been closed out by December 31
in the counties surveyed.
The North Carolina Department of Public Welfare, which had
existed in the State for some time, assumed the only remaining Statewide relief function, that of distributing Federal surplus commodities
to a certain percentage of former E. R. A. cases. The State had appropriated no funds for general relief and assumed no responsibility
for the former E. R. A. cases not absorbed by the Works Program.•
Likewise the counties, which had been unable to care for the unemployable cases turned back to them from E. R. A. rolls in January and
February of 1935, had nothing to offer those employable persons who
had not been given Works Program jobs when Federal relief ended in
December.
South Dakota Department of Public Welfare
All Emergency Relief Administration funds were exhausted in
South Dakota by December 15 and the entire case load was closed
by the end of the month. The old County Relief Offices were continued as County Welfare Offices. The State Public Welfare Commission, a permanent body created by the State legislature as of
July 1, 1935, began to organize county welfare boards to act as boards
of review and in an advisory capacity to the directors of the County
Welfare Offices. 8 The State was to reimburse the counties for part
of their relief expenditures, using beer, liquor, and sales tax revenues
1 McGill, K. H.; Hayes, Grant; and Farnham, Rebecca: Survey of Case,
Removed From Relief Rolls in Seventeen Counties in Georgia for Admini&trative
Reason, in May and June 19Sl;, Research Bulletin Series II, No. 8, Division of
· Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
Washington, D. C., November 1935.
4 Monthly Review of Relief Statistics, Vol. II, No. 2, Federal Emergency Relief
Administration of Georgia, Atlanta, Ga., December 1935, table IV.
6 The only aid ever provided by the State was in the form of an allocation of
$1,500,000 from the highway fund, effective July 1, 1935, for employment of
relief persons on highway construction and maintenance. Source: Emergency
Relief in North Carolina, North Carolina Emergency Relief Administration,
Raleigh, N. C., 1936, p. 45.
• Annual Report, South Dakota Department of Public Welfare, Pierre, S. Dak.,
July 1, 1935, to July 1, 1936, p. 4.
Dig tizncJ by
Goog Ie
50 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
as sources of funds. 7 The counties had full administrative powers,
but in order to receive State funds they were required to accept a
certain amount of supervision from the State Public Welfare ComID1SS1on. All nine counties included in this survey had County
Welfare Offices giving relief under county welfare boards in December 1935.
Montana Relief Co■mllllon
The Montana Relief Commission, established in the spring of
1935 for the purpose of developing a social security program for the
State, became the permanent State relief agency when the Emergency
Relief Administration was officially closed on December 1, 1935.
State funds for relief to employables not given Works Program
employment were made available by means of license, income, and
other taxes.• The State Relief Commission administered this aid
directly through district offices, staffed largely by the old E. R. A.
personnel. Counties able to care for their unemployables were held
responsible by the State for this type of relief. When the unemployables had been transferred from the E. R. A. to the county boards
of commissioners in September 1935, the counties had been directed
to establish a 6-mill levy in the poor fund to finance this care.11 The
State assumed responsibility for the unemployables for whom the
counties could not provide.
State funds were so limited in Montana, however, that orders were
issued by the Montana Relief Commission in January 1936 to transfer
unemployable as well as employable farm cases to the Resettlement
Administration and to transfer "any and all people" to the W. P. A. 10
Assignment of workers to Works Program projects did not get
well under way in Montana until November, and about half of the
employables on the relief rolls of the State had not been transferred
at the end of the yeo.r. Transfer of active cases to the Resettlement
Administration, ordered on December 18, was also proceeding slowly.U
Wat Virginia Relief Administration
The West Virginia Relief Administration continued in December
to operate under the same system as before, although with reduced
1 Digest of Public Welfare Provisiom Under the Laws of the State of South Dakota,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
January 15, 1936, p. 3913.
8 Digest of Public Welfare Provisions Under the Lau•s of the Sta~e of Montana,
Division of Social Research, Works Progreas Administration, Washington, D. C.,
December 30, 1936, p. 2418.
9 Letter to chairmen of the Boards of County Commissioners from the Montana
Relief Commission, September 10, 1935.
10 Memorandum to all county administrators from Administrator, Montana
Relief Commission, January 7, 1936.
11 Telegram, December 18, 1935, and memorandum, December 31, 1935, to
all county administrators from Administrator, Montana Relief Commission.
Digitized by
Google
RELIEF IN DECEMBER 1935 • 51
funds. 12 Local offices remained open, granting relief to a limited
number of unemployed as well as to unemployable cases. The fine.I
Federal allotment, which was not expended until January 1936, was
supplemented by State money appropriated from the general fund. 13
Of the four counties surveyed only one was making any county funds
available or had any private charity agencies. It appeared that the
State would soon become the sole source of relief funds for much of
rural West Virginia.
WlecoMln Depalfment of Public Welfare
Wisconsin, like Montana and South Dakota, had a State public
welfare department to coordinate general relief and the special types
of aid to be made available under the Social Security Program. This
department was established by executive order of the Governor on
December 7 when the Emergency Relief Administration was liquidated. It immediately took over the responsibility for general relief
of the same type that had been granted under the E. R. A. As long
as funds were available, counties were reimbursed by the State for
at least 50 percent of their relief expenditures out of remaining Federal
funds and State funds raised by income, dividend, and other taxes."
County welfare departments for distributing this aid succeeded the
E. R. A. local agencies in most counties. Others returned relief to a
township basis as the prospect of curtailed financial assistance removed the incentive to meet Federal and State relief standards.
Iowa Emer,ency Relief Adminimation
The Iowa E. R. A. continued to administer general emergency relief
after the Federal Government withdrew. State funds, raised by a
retail sales tax, a business tax on corporations, and an income tax, 16
were advanced to counties which met certain requirements for financing and directing relief activities. Counties were required to make the
maximum poor levies permitted under the law and, when these were
exhausted, to borrow up to their respective constitutional bonded
11 A permanent public assistance and relief program was established in West
Virginia in 1936. Source: Wells, Anita, "The Allocation of Relief Funds by the
States Among Their Political Subdivisions," :Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, June 1 Through June 30, 1936, Washington, D. C.,
p. 77.
11 "Digest of State Legislation for the Financing of Emergency Relief," Monthly
Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, May 1 Through May 31,
19S5, Washington, D. C., p. 87.
u Wells, Anita, op. cit., p. 82, and "Digest of State Legislation for the Financing of Emergency Relief," op. cit., p. 88.
16 Digest of Public Welfare Provisions Under the Laws of the State of Iowa,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
November 15, 1936, p. 1314.
Diglizerl
byGoogrc
52 •
EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
debt limits. 19 They also were required to combine the offices of
overseer of the poor and of county relief director and to employ a
trained social worker for the job. This worker, under the"lowa
Plan," was responsible for carrying out the programs of any private
welfare organizations in the county as well as the public welfare
work. 17 Throughout the depression counties had been expected to
finance the relief of unemployables if they were able; the State advanced them no Federal funds for this purpose. The effect of the
termination of Federal funds was seen in the withdrawal of several
counties from the State plan.
In view of the fact that Iowa was the one State of the seven surveyed
which had a system of combined State e.nd county financing of general
relief together with direct State administration of this relief, it is
interesting to note that the number of cases receiving emergency
relief in the entire State increased slightly between November and
December, whereas in e.11 other States surveyed there was a sharp
decrease between the two months. 18
EXTENT OF DECEMBER RELIEF LOADS
Against this background of varied types of State and local relief
administration, it is not surprising to find that less than 2 percent of
the rural relief cases closed since June were again receiving some type
of direct aid in the Georgia counties in December, whereas in the Iowa
counties, at the other extreme, 47 percent were again receiving relief
(appendix table 22 and fig. 2, p. XVIII). The proportions of the
June closed cases again on relief differed according to the adequacy of
the provisions for relief. In South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin,
and Iowa, where State-financed general relief was continuing along
with county aid, from one-sixth to nearly one-half of the former cases
in the counties surveyed were back on relief. Where either the State
or the county had sole responsibility, as in West Virginia and North
Caroline., the case load was small with only 8 to 9 percent of the former
relief cases again receiving aid. In Georgia, where final Federal relief
funds had been spent and where no State funds were available, an
insignificant proportion of cases received help from county poor relief
or private charities.
Since the States were responsible for relief to unemployables in
need of assistance and to needy unemployed not absorbed by the
Works Program, it may be more significant to analyze the relief
Wells, Anita, op. cit., p. 78.
Actitities of the lowa Emergency Relief Administration, 1935, Iowa Emergency
Relief Administration, Des Moines, Iowa, April 7, 1936, p. 8.
18 Statistical Summary of Emergency Relief Activities, January 19S!l Through
December 1985, Division of Research, Statil'ltics, and Records, Federal Emergency
Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., table 4.
11
17
Dig1tzedoyGoogl ~
RELIEF IN DECEMBER 1935 • 53
status of these groups alone (table 26). In Georgia less than 4 percent of the unemployable cases and the cases without either private
or Works Program employment, among the cases closed since June,
were receiving relief of any kind in December. Again the other
extreme was Iowa with 78 percent of such cases receiving aid, followed
by Montana with 68 percent and by Wisconsin with 56 percent. In
the other States from one-third to more than two-fifths of the unemployables and unemployed were receiving aid.
Tal>le !d.-Relief Status in December 1935 of Rural Relief Cases Closed July_ Through
November 1935 and Without Works Program or Private Employment in December
1935
(71 counties representing 7 States]
Ca.se., without
employment 1
State
Percent
receiving
relier
Total
Montana ..................................................................•.....
~~~~i~~~~: :::::::: :::::::: :::: ::::::: :: ::::::: ::::::: :::::::: :: :::: :::::::::
Iowa __ -------------------------------------------------------------------------Weeit Virginia ...................•..............................................•
North Carolina ........................................•...••....................
White .•••.•.•.........................•...............................•.•...
Negro .•..............................................•....•..........••.....
Georgia ..........•.......••••.................................•.........•.•......
White ........•..................•.........•..............•.....•.....••.....
Negro ••.....•.•.•...................................................•.......
132
82
119
120
68.2
64
79
47
35. ll
43.0
32
79
62
17
32. 9
65. 5
77.6
f
3.8
3.2
t
t Percent not computed on a base or rewer than 50 cases.
Including those with no workers and those with all workers unemployed, that b, with neither private
nor Works Program employment.
1
SOURCES AND AMOUNTS OF RELIEF
Federal money was still the most important source of relief funds in
December 1935 in four out of the five States for which sufficient
data were available (table 27). Only Montana showed the majority
of relief funds coming from State and local sources. Federal funds
accounted for more than nine-tenths of the relief funds in Wisconsin,
for two-thirds in South Dakota and North Carolina, and for more
than one-half in Iowa.
The average amounts of relief granted per case from Federal,
State, or local sources in December were for below the amounts of
E. R. A. relief grants made to needy rural households during June of
the same year (table 28 and fig. 7). 19
Iowa, which had the greatest proportion of its June c1osed cases on
relief, also was paying the largest average grant in December, $16,
19 The two periods may not be entirely comparable since most of the December
cases had some other income besides relief (hble 29). Many of them received
relief for only part of the month pending receipt of their first pay check for Works
Program employment. Some of the relief extended in June also was supplementary to other income but probably not to so great an extent as in December.
Dig 11zerl by
Goog IC
54 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Tobie 27.-Source of· Relief Received in December 1935 _l:,y Rural Relief Cases Closed
July Through November 1935 and Reopened Within the Same Period
[71 countl8!1 repr8!1entlng 7 States]
CB!'8!1 .-lvlng relier In
December 1935
Source or relier
Number
MONTANA
Total............................................................................
144
Percent
100.0
State or local only........................................................... l - - - l M - l - - - 6 5 - . - 2
Federal only.................................................................
45
3L 3
Both Federa.! and State or loca.l..............................................
6
3. 6
SOUTH DAKOTA
Total............................................................................
121
100. O
Stateorlocalonly........................................................... ---33-'---27-,.-3
Federal only.................................................................
82
trl. 7
Both Federal and State or loca.l.............. ....•....... ......... ... ........
6
6. O
W18CONSIN
Tota.I............................................................................
i~~r ~~~only······.....................................................
JIM
100. O
vt
1----1-----
1~
Both Federal and State or local..............................................
3. 1
'NI
100. o
IOWA
Total............................................................................
~
6
State or local only ..........•................................................ ,___ _
127_, _ _ _4-2.-8
Federal only................................................................
168
56. 5
Both Federa.l and State or loca.l............................ ........•.........
2
o.;
WEST VIROINli
Total............................................................................
NORTH CAROLINA
40
__104_, ___100._0
l----l----'-
Total............................................................................ ,_
State or local only...........................................................
Federal only.................................................................
Both Federal and State or loca.l ..........................................•.•.
34
70
___,_____
White........................................................................... ,_
State or local only...........................................................
Federal only................................................................
Both Federal and State or local.. ..................•.................•.......
Negro.........................................................................
OBOBGIA
32. 7
67. 3
83
100. O
18
45
28. 6
71. 4
41
t
----1------'-
Total............................. ··· · · · ·· ·· ···· · · ·· · ···· ·· · ·· ··· · · · ····· ··· · · ···
15
f Percent not computed on a base or fewer than llO ca.ses.
and had made the smallest reduction from the average grant in June,
$17 (table 28). Most of the cases in Iowa received from $10 to $30 a
month (appendix table 19). In South Dakota and Wisconsin the
December average grants-$8 and $11-were about one-half the
amounts of the June benefits. The majority of December relief cases
in these two States received from $5 to $15 a month. In North
Carolina the average December relief grant was only $3, as compared
with $13 in Juno. More than three-quarters of the North Carolina
cases received less than $5 a month. Montana had reduced the
average grant from $16 to $12 since June, and most cases received
from $5 to $15 in December. In that State there was a concentration
of single aged persons on relief in December with a consequent reduction in the average size of relief household since June (see ch. VII).
Oig112cd by
Google
RELIEF IN DECEMBER 1935 • 55
To&le 28.-Average 1 Amount of Relief Received by Rural Relief Cases I in June and
December 1935
Average amount or
relief
State
June
December
193.; I
Montana ______ -······· ......•........• __ ·--···--·--·- ___ --·- ___ ----·-- _________ _
South Dakota _____ • _____ ···-----·----------·---·--------··---··-·----·-··------W i.sconsin.-. -· - _- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - -· .. - - - - . - • - - . - • -·- - • - ••. - -.• - - - · - - - • -
1935'
$16
$1:l
15
23
8
11
16
12
13
3
17
Iowa ___ ··------··------·--------··-··--··--····------·--···--·------·--------··West Virginia _____ ---···--- ___ -··--····-··--·- ___ -··-_··--·---·---·--···- _____ ._
North Carolina_··---·--·--·-·--·-·-----··-·-----_------------··--------·--·---Georgia ••..••• ·-· .. -------·---- ----------···-----·---·- _______________________ _
t
t
11
t Medlan not computed for fewer than 50 cases_
Median.
• Exclusive of cases for which this Information was not available.
• Only from Bl!encie., using Federal Emergency Relier Admil'lstratlon fund,. Sample Included 69 countie.,
representing 7 State.,.
• From agencies ming Federal, State, or local, public or private fund,. Sample Included 71 counties
representing 7 States.
I
0June 1935
0
5
10
-
Dollars
15
December 1935
25
20
30
MONTANA
SOUTH DAKOTA
WISCONSIN
IOWA
NORTH CAROLINA
FIG. 7 - MEDIAN AMOUNT OF RELIEF RECEIVED
BY RURAL HOUSEHOLDS
June and December 1935
ASSISTANCE TO THE AGED, TO THE BLIND, AND TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN
Although enactment of Federal Social Security legislation in 1935
placed a. premium on enactment of State laws for a.id to tho aged, to the
blind, and to dependent children, 20 only four of the seven States surveyed had assumed responsibility by December 1935 for any of these
20 In order to receive Federal Social Security funds for aid to the aged, to the
blind, and to dependent children, States were required to enact legislation which
would make such assistance State-wide, administered or supervised by a single
State agency, mandatory (if administered by local subdivisions), and financed
in part by the State.
Dig lizncJ by
Goog Ie
56 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
three types of aid, and Wisconsin was the only one of the seven that
had statutory provisions for all three types of assistance.
State financial contributions for old-age assistance were provided
by statute in Iowa, Montana, and Wisconsin. All sample counties in
Iowa, for which data were available, reported old-age assistance cases
in December 1935, and the majority of the Montana sample counties
also reported that such aid was being extended. 21 In Wisconsin,
which was in the process of transition from an optional to a mandatory
old-age assistance program, only two of the eight counties surveyed
were actually providing old-age assistance in December 1935.22 In
West Virginia, where old-age assistance was also optional with the
counties, 23 no cases were receiving old-age assistance in the counties
studied in December 1935. At that time North Carolina, Georgia,
and South Dakota had no statutory provisions for either State or
local contributions for old-age assistance. 2'
Tal>le 29.-Cascs 1 With Relief Income Only and Those With Relief and Other Income in
December 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States)
Total cases •
State
Number
Montana ...•.•.•..•...•......•.•.............•.........
South Dakota..••••....•...............................
Wisconsin ••.............•..............................
Iowa .................................•.....•...........
West Virginia .......................................••.
North Carolina .........•..............................
White .........••.....•.....•••..•.....•.•...•••••..
144
121
192
297
JI/Pg,O •••••••••.••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••
41
15
Georgia ...........•••..•.•....•........................
PerC<'nt
40
101
60
Relief and
other in•
come
Reller
only
100. 0
38. 2
100. 0
10. 7
al.8
26.6
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
t
61.8
89.3
79.2
73.4
t
29. 7
31. 7
70.3
68. 3
l
f
100. 0
t
Percent not computed on a base or fewer than 50 case,,.
Receiving relier from E. R. A. a~encies In rural areas in 1une and closed Inly through November 1935.
• ExclUS1ve or caaes Cor which this information was not available.
1
State financial assistance to dependent children in their own
homes, often known as "mothers' aid" or "mothers' pensions," was
provided by the statutes of Wisconsin and North Carolina, but only
small amounts were appropriated for this purpose in either State. 26
No data were available for two counties each in Iowa and Montana.
n No data were available for one county in Wisconsin.
n Lowe, Robert C. and Staff, Digest of Old Age Assistance Laws of the Several
States and Territories, a& of February 1, 1936, Division of Social Research, Works
Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.
14 Lowe, Robert C. and Holcombe, John L., Legislative Trends in Public Relief
and Assistance, December SJ, 191!9, to July 1, 1936, Division of Social Research,
Works ProgreRS Administration, Washington, D. C., 1936, p. 39.
16 Lowe, Robert C. and Staff, Analysis of Current State and Local Fumla Specifically Assigned to Various Welfare Activities, March 16, 1936, Division of
Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., April 25,
1936, pp. 19-20.
21
Cig1t zea by
Goog re
RELIEF IN DECEMBER 1935 • 57
In North Carolina, where mothers' aid was optional with the counties,
such aid was being extended in about half of the rural counties surveyed in December 1935. In Wisconsin, where the law was mandatory, practically all of the counties surveyed were granting some
mothers' aid in December. In Iowa, where aid to dependent children in their own homes was optional with the counties and entirely
a county financial responsibility, all counties studied were granting
such aid. In South Dakota and Montana, where the law was mandatory but the localities had entire financial responsibility, most of
the counties surveyed reported some cases receiving such assistance.
The West Virginia counties reported no aid of this type although in
that State mandatory legislation making the counties financially
responsible for such assistance was on the statute books. Georgia
had no statutory provisions for this type of aid. 28
State assistance to the blind was provided by law only in Wisconsin,27 where such aid was mandatory. All but one of the Wisconsin counties, for which data were available, reported that some
assistance to the blind was granted during December 1935. Most of
the Iowa counties reported some blind assistance cases although, as
in the case of aid to dependent children, the State assumed no financial
responsibility and made the extending of such aid optional with the
counties. No special assistance was granted to the blind in the
sample counties of the other five States.
11 Lowe, Robert C. and Staff, Digest of State and Territorial Laws Granting Aid
to Dependent Children in Their Own Homes, as of February 1, 1936, Division of
Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.
rr Lowe, Robert C. and Staff, Digest of Blind Assistance Laws of the Several
States and Territories, as of February 1, 1936, Division of Social Research, Works
Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.
44269°-38---6
Dig tizncJ by
Goog Ie
Dig1w,
byGoogle
Chapter VII
CHARACTER/ST/CS OF DECEMBER
RELIEF AND NONRELIEF HOUSEHOLDS
AN
ATTEMPT was made in this study to learn in what respects, if
any, the families on relief in December differed from those no longer on
the rolls in that month. Because of the small number of cases found
on relief in the Georgia and West Virginia samples, the December
relief and nonrelief 1 households could be compared for only five
States. These comparisons show that although the Federal objective of placing employables from relief rolls on the Works Program
or under care of the Resettlement Administration and of leaving the
unemployables to the care of State and local relief agencies had not
yet been fully achieved, the process of separating former relief cases
into a group of workers receiving their income from wage payments
and a residual load of unemployables dependent on direct relief was
well advanced.
SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS
One-person households were relatively more numerous among
December relief cases than in the group of cases no longer receiving
aid in four out of the five States for which comparisons could be made
(appendix table 20).
The concentration of one-person households on relief was not great
enough to affect the median sizA of households except in Montana.
In that State the average relief household was 1.5 persons smaller
than the nonrelief. The unemployable problem in Montana was
largely one of aged persons living alone. The large proportion of
one-person families (36 percent) on relief in that State corresponded
1 Where the term nonrelief appears in this chapter, it refers only to the December
status of the households. All households studied had been on relief in June and
had left the relief rolls in the months July through November. Those which
returned to relief rolls and remained on relief in December are the relief households of this chapter; those which did not return to relief or which returned and
left again before December are the December nonrelief households.
59
Dig tizncJ by
Goog Ie
60 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
exactly with the proportion of aged heads on relief m December
(appendix table 21).
AGE OF HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS
Relatively more aged persons were found among heads of hous6holds
on relief in December than among those not on relief in that month.
In all five States heads 65 years of age or older made up a larger proportion of the relief than of the nonrelief group (appendix table 21 ).
The difference was especially noticeable in North Carolina where 14
percent of the December relief heads and only 2 percent of the heads of
households not receiving relief were 65 years of age or older. With
general relief being rapidly eliminated in North Carolina, there was a
tendency to limit the case load more and more to the aged and other
unemployable persons. In Montana the concentration of aged heads
on relief was almost as striking: 36 percent of the relief heads and 8
percent of the nonrelief heads were 65 years of age or older. In these
two States heads 55-64 years of age were also overrepresented in the
relief group as compared with the group not receiving relief. All
younger age groups were underrepresented on relief. On the average,
heads of relief households were almost 13 years older than December
nonrelief heads in Montana and 5 years older in North Carolina
(table 30).
Tobie 30.-Average 1 Age of Heads of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November
1935, by Relief Status in December 1-]35
(71 oounties representing 7 States!
Total
State
Relief re•
No relief
cei\·ed in
reooived in
December
Montana .....•••••..............•..•.••....•...
t~~~i':i~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Iowa ..•.....•..........•...............•.......
Wes! Virginia ..........••.•.•..•.......••......
North Carolina .....•..........................
White ........•........•.•.......•.........
Oeo~ff~::
:: :::: :::::: :: :::::::: ::::::::::::::
White .••..•...•.•.••..••.•.................
Negro •........••....•....•.••••.......•.•..
A versge age of heads
December
144
Relief re•
ceived In
December
511. 8
354
568
121
1114
38. 7
42.0
40. 2
745
297
40
104
41
15
334
486
I, 053
739
314
922
14
746
I
176
63
t Median not computed for fewer than 50 cases.
t
45. 9
43.4
I
1
No relief
received in
December
44. ll
40. 2
39. 7
39. 7
39. 7
40.11
39. 7
44. 2
39. 0
38.
~
40.9
Median.
Heads of December relief households in Wisconsin were also somewhat older than the heads not receiving relief, reflecting the underrepresentation of persons 16-35 years of age on relief in that State
(table 30 and appendix table 21 ). In Iowa, however, there was no
difference in the average age of the two groups, and in South Dakota
the relief heads were slightly younger on the average than those not
receiving relief.
Digit zca oy
Goog IC
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS•
61
FEMALE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS
In all five States for which data were available, female heads of
households were relatively more numerous in the December relief
group than in the group not receiving relief. In Montana and Wisconsin the proportion of female heads of households was about three
times as large in the relief group as in the group not receiving aid. The
North Carolina relief group showed twice as many female heads as
did the households not on relief (table 31).
Tal,le 31.-Percent of Females Among Heads of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through
November 1935, by Relief Status in December 1935
[71 counties representing 7 St.ates]
Percent or females
Total
State
Reller received in
December
Montana_______________________________________
South Dakota__________________________________
Wisconsin .•• __________________________________
Iowa___________________________________________
West Virginia _____ . ___ •• _____ ._________________
North Carolina .• ___ . _____________ . ___________ •
White______________________________________
Negro •••.••••• _____________________________
OeorJ[ia .. _________________________ . ______ ____ __
White______________________________________
Negro ___________________ • ___ . ______ • _____ ._
No relier
received in
December
144
121
Relief received in
December
354
568
194
7.3
6.0
21. 5
7.4
9.3
6.1
745
334
486
1, 0-'i.1
297
40
104
63
41
15
14
NorelieC
received in
December
3.-1
4.11
t
739
314
6.4
j
43.3
21.8
81.
16.5
:14.4
922
22.3
20.6
29.11
746
1
li6
t Percent not computed on a base or fewer than 50 cases.
EMPLOY ABILITY OF HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS
Households on relief in December in all States, as compared with
the nonrelief households, not only showed larger proportions of heads
65 years of age or older and larger proportions of female heads but also
greater proportions of heads who were unemployable for any reason
(table 32).
Ta&le 32.-Employability Status of Heads of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through
November 1935, by Relief Status in December 1935
[71 counties representing 7 States!
Employability status
Relief received in December
State
Total
Number
Montana ___________
South Dakota•.• ___
Wisconsin __________
Iowa _______________
West Virginia ______
North Carolina _____
White __________
Negro. _________
Georgia_----------White __________
Negro __________
Percent
No relief received in December
Unem- Unem- Employ- ployed ployed
able
Total
Number
Percent
Unem- Unem- Employ- ployed ployed
able
- -- -- -- -------- -- 144
- -100.0
54.2
II. 1
34. 7
354
100.0
11.3
4.8
83.11
121
194
297
40
104
63
41
15
14
1
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
12. 4
19.1
10.8
27. 2
73. 6
59.8
62.0
100.0
100.0
29.8
25.4
7. 7
ll.5
62.5
65.1
t
t
I i
14. 0
21.1
t
t
i -i
-
568
745
334
486
1,053
739
314
922
746
176
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. o
100. 0
6.11
7.0
3.3
7. 2
5. 7
4. 6
I
8.2
8. 3
8.0
II. 7
5.1
4. 7
ll.6
6.6
5. 6
3. 8
ll. 6
8.8
ll. 1
7.3
88.0
88.3
87.1
88. 2
88. 7
Ill.II
82. 2
82.11
82.11
83.0
t Percent not computed on a base or fewer than 50 cases.
Diglizerl
byGoogrc
62 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
In Montana and North Carolina there were proportionally five
times as many unemployable heads on relief as in the group not on
relief. In Wisconsin, Iowa, and South Dakota the proportions of unemployables were two to three times as great in the relief as in the
December nonrelief group.
EMPLOY ABILITY OF MEMBERS OTHER THAN HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS
The presence of members, other than heads, who were 16-64 years
of age and working or seeking work was a contributing cause in keeping
families from remaining on the relief rolls through December. In all
five States for which data were available, a greater percentage of the
December nonrelief than of the relief households contained one or more
employable persons besides the head (table 33).
The difference was again particularly marked in Montana. A fairly
large difference in South Dakota possibly reflects the relative youth
of families on relief in that State.
Tol>le 33.-Worken 1 Other Than Heads in Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through
November 1935, by Relief Status in December 1935
[71 co•Jntle.• repre31!ntlng 7 States!
Percent with 1 or more worlt•
ers other than the head
Tot"1 cases
State
Relief re•
oolved In
December
Montans ..... -------------·-·····-·-·-··-·-····
South Dakota .•.• ··-··-·--····-----·········••·
Wlsoonsln ••.... _.. ··--······· ····-·············
Iowa ........... ··-···---···---- ••••••••••••.•••
West Virginia ...... ---·-·-·---·-·--·-··········
North
Carolina._-------·-·-·-·-·-·--·····----White
..•. _____ . _____ • ____ . ________ •••••..••
Negro .. ·-·······---------·------·-·········
Georgia .... _... --·-_. __________ .. ___ ·- ........ .
Wblte ...... ·-···-··-··-·················••·
Negro .. ····-·· ..........•..••...•••.•...••.
No relier
received In
December
N'o relief
received In
Deoomber
Relief reoolved In
Derember
354
II. I
568
745
15. 7
26. 3
22. 5
194
Z/7
334
2'J. 2
23.'
40
486
104
1,053
144
121
739
63
41
314
15
14
922
746
I
176
21.U
t
48.1
65.6
!
27. 5
2U. 2
57. 3
53. 2
66 g
42. 2
40. 2
50.6
f Peroont not computed on a base or fewer than 1;0 c,,SM.
1
Peri,cms 16 through 64 years of age, working or seeking work.
NORMAL DEPENDENTS
The number of categorically unemployable members in the households-those under 16 and over 64 years of age-apparently was a
determining factor in causing families to receive relief in December
1935. Data on this point are available for six States. 2 These show
that the households again on relief in December contained larger percentages of children under 16 and of members over 64 years of age
than those households which were no longer receiving relief (table 34).
1 The number of members of December relief households in the Georgia sample
was not great enough to warrant detailed analysis.
Dig lizncJ by
Goog Ie
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS •
63
North Carolina had the largest proportion of young children in
the December relief group, especially among Negroes, and, next to
South Dakota, the greatest difference between the relief and nonrelief
groups in the proportion of children. The exceptional position of
South Dakota may be explained by the age composition of the December relief load in that State. Younger heads, who necessarily
would have younger children, appeared more frequently among the
December relief cases than in the group not receiving relief in
December.
Tol>le 34.--Memben Under 16 and Over 64 Years of Age, Other Than Heads, in Rural
Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935, by Relief Status in December 1935
(71 counties repr-.ntlng 7 St.ates)
Relief received In December
State
Total
No relief received In December
1:i"~ct';,~t Percent Percent
1:i•~~~t Peroent Peroent
I 6 and under over 64 Total 16 and u nd •r over 64
16
16
over 64
ov8r 64
--------------------------Mont.ana............................
South Dakota.......................
Wisconsin...........................
Iowa................................
West \"irginia.......................
North Carolina •••••••••••. _. ____ -·-White .•••.•.•.•.•••••.... _.. __ ..
290
406
683
1,083
131
3111
Negro ••••••••••••••••• ·····-··--
242
149
Georgia.··-· •. - ••••• -•• - -•• -· -. - -- . - .
White...........................
Negro...........................
48
46
2
65. 5
67. 5
66. 8
64. 2
61. 9
72. 9
70. 6
76. 5
li8. 6
61. 5
64. 3
62. 0
62. 6
M. 0
6-t. 9
67. 8
ft
f
8. 9
3.0
2. 5
2. 2
2. 3
6. 9
6 7
8. 7
l
I, 118
1,854
2,550
I, 139
1,857
4,265
2,965
1,300
3, 112
2,476
636
61'.2
69.1
~2. 9
68. 8
59. 8
62. 6
62. 2
63.6
61.1
59.6
66. 7
55. 7
65.7
61.0
55 g
66.9
59. 1
59.0
59. 8
58.0
66.8
62.6
2. 5
3. 4
1.0
2. 0
2.0
3.4
3.2
3.8
3.1
2.8
'-1
t Peroont not computed on a ba311 of fewer than 60 cases.
On the other hand, Montana, with relatively large proportions of
aged heads on relief, showed the smallest proportion of children in
the relief group.
Digit zca oy
Goog IC
D1g1tzcobyGoogle
Appendixes
65
Dig tizncJ by
Goog Ie
[' 11zCC'byGooglc
Appendix A
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
To&le 1.-Secondary Sources of Income in December 1935 of Rural Relief Cases Closed
July Through November 1935, by Principal Source of Income
(71 counties representing 7 States]
Total cases
with income 1
i
i
Principal source of Income
..,
.c:
8
::,
~
l\lONUNA
8
a iii. _
~:. .,
i.~
.- ~!
-"
~8
f"'
::, 8
~
f
_..,
.i. .8
; ,:o.
.."'""
8
." ~., ·r
0
z
<
"'
i
::,
;"
;;
.,~
p..
~
a
1 secondary source
0
z
0
30
::,"
0"
-::,_
o
.. 9
C"'
c:,.,
~~
§ ..
f0
.c:
0
0
------ -- -- -- ----
TotaL ________ ---- --- -- -- ----- ---- ___ _ 484 100.0 58.1 29. 5
6. 9
2.1
4. 8
I. 9 14. 8
--- - - t - - t - - t
--t --t
27
Agricultural employment __ ---·--·
t --t
NonagricultureJ employment _____ _ 70 100.0 65.8 27. I
17. I
4. 3
6. 7
Works Program employment• __ .. 144 100.0 61. I 26. 4
6.9
I. 4
4.2 13. 9
General relief' ________________ ··-I.I
23.9
88 100.0 62. 6 2.5.0
Resettlement loans and grants ___ _
6
t
t
t
t
8.1
2. 7 11. 4
1. 3
Other sources•----------·--·-· ___ _ 149 100.0 61. 6 33.6 10.1
Bourn DAKOTA
8. 6
2. 3 10. I
2.8 13. 9
Total_---------------- -- ---· ____ ------ 646 100.0 46. I 37. 6
-- -100.
-- - - - - - 1. 9 14. 8
Agricultural employment .. ______ _ - 54
0 77. 7 16. 7
Nonagricultural employment _____ _ 68 100. 0 5-1. 5 32 3
2. 9
4. 4
4.4
20. 6
Works Program employment• ___ _ 245 100.0 48. l 39. 2 18. 4
I. 2
3.3 16. 3
General relief'. ___________ .. ____ ..
20
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Resettlement loans and grants ___ _ 161 100. 0 32. 3 40.4
0.6
1. 9 28. 0
0.6
9. 3
7. I
8. 2 14. 3
98 100.0 36. 8 45.9
6. 1 11. 2
Other sources•-------------------W1sc,ossrN
4. 4
0
3. 0
2 14. 7
Total. __ ------------------------------ 881 100.0 M.5 31. 3 -7.-2.--t
Agricultural employment._. _____ _ 2~
t
t
t
t
t
t
4. 5
3. 7
15. 7
Nonagricultural employment.··--_ 134 100.0 67. 9 25. 4
I. 5
Works Program employment• ___ _ 509 100.0 59. 6 30. 7
3. 7
2.0 16. 5
8. 5
General relief•. __________________ _ 79 100.0 50. 6 31. 7
8.9
6.0
3. 8 14. {)
Resettlement loans and grants __ ._
5.0
60 130. 0
8. 3 45. 0
8. 3 13. 3 18. 4
100.0
42.
3
38.
0
5.
6
4.
2
7.0 12. 7
71
8.
5
Otller sources•------------------._
--
--
-12.-4t
i.1
12. 6
12. 5
t
14.8
- - - - -16.3
5. 6
- - --- - -
IOWA
Total ____________________ . ___ . ______ ._
6/lfl
100.0
-- - -100.0
Agricultural employment .... ____ _ 86
Nonagriculturnl employment. ____ _ 214
Works Program employment a___ _ 114
General re lie fl. __________ . _______ _ 153
Resettlement loans anrl grants ___ _
39
Other sources•--------------------
100.0
100.0
100.0
58.1
72.1
i0. 2
23. 7
51. 6
Agricultural employment. __ ._ .. __
Non&J!riculturnl employment. ___ _
Works Program employment• __ ._
Genernl relier•- __________________ _
Resettlement Joans and grants ___ _
Other sources•-----------· _______ _
t
27.3
17. 3
- - -13.-2t
----
6. 7
9.8
17. 7
4fl. 7
19. 7
n 6. 3 2. 3
-35.
-5 -19.-R -3.-1 -4.-7.0- - - - 6.4
2-J. V 13. 0
7. 0
21. 5
65. 8
39 9
13. 6
64.0
11. I
80. 6
16. R
13. 7
16. 4
0.9
2. 8
0. 9
9. 2
li.0
4. 2
0.9
2. 6
2. 3
10. 5
8. 5
2. 5
2. 0
I. 2
1.8
9. 3
2. 7
1.2
3.8
0.6
1. 2
0.9
i
I. 4
JO. 3
I. 2
3. 3
l
t
t
WEST VIRGINIA
Total_--------- _____ . ___ .• ___________ _
13. 2
12. 7
100. 0
508
-------t --t - - --t - - - - --t - 7
t
168
213
23
3
100.0
100.0
8.~. I
80.3
94
l
t
100.0
75. 5
l
20. 2
t
3.2
8. 5
l
1.0
10.
4. 3
t
3. 2
4.3
See footnotes at end or table.
67
Diglizerl
byGoogrc
68 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Table 1.-Secondary Sources of Income in December 1935 of RurGI Relief Cases Closed
July Through November 1935, by Principal Source of lncome---Continued
[71 counties representing 7 States]
Total cases
with lnrome 1
Principal source or Income
~~
-;.
13
t.c
..0 "e -c.,
~ »
~
White•••••••.. --- --- •••.•••••••••••.
Agricultural employment._ ..•••••
Nonagricultural employment ...••.
Works Pro~ram employment' ..••
Genernl relie l' . . . . ··· ·· ·----·-· -· Resettlement loans anJ granta •...
Other sources• •.•••.•• ·······-··-·
0
E-<
59. 5
27. 5
3. 6
5. 8
45. 4
72. 7
58.5
39. 5
21.0
26. 8
6. 8
1.8
4. 2
15. 2
8.8
100.0
50.6
3i_l
716
100. 0
63.5
21.8
311
21
10
128
100.0
62.8
au
271
450
33
23
188
l
-t
t)
»
-o
f0
':LS?
0
0
100. 0
86
3. 4
6.6
8. 1
13.0
8.1
15. 1
6.3
14. 7
-t
1.5
3.1
-
4.3
8. 9
--
10.4
10.4
8.9
II. I
11.8
7.4
3.2
18. l
3. I
4.1
3.6
2.9
8.1
14. 7
2. 9
-t
l
28. 1
7
t
t
3. 2
-- 5.--1 II.-3t
9. 3
3. 9
3.9
16. 7
t
l
t
l
t
-t
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 60- -100.0
6. 0 12.0
M.0 32. 0
18.0
- -- 14.0
2.0
I. 5
196 100. 0 76. I 17. 3
6.1
1. i
6.8
Negro••.••••.•••••..•••••••••• •••• • _ 335
Agricultural employment . ••••••••
Nonagricultural employment. ...•.
Works Program em ployment• . •..
General reliel' .. ... ••... ..... . ...•
Resettlement loans and granta .•..
Other sources• ...••••••••••••••••.
0
~8
o<»
100.0
100. 0
100.0
Total_------ - -- - -• -- -- •••••••••••••••. 1,051
Agricultur11l employment. ••......
Norn1grirultural employment. ....
Works Program employment• .•..
General relier• - _______ ... •. . .•.•..
Resettlement loans and granta __ ..
Other sources •••.. •••••••••...••..
~
. ~= . "'"
. !J a ~ I
fe .,c, s~
..8 ;; i"
~
boo.
1:p. g.,
I 3 ..
a
"e .,,.
a
.
" ::' < z 0 ..
z I z
- - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - - - -- - ------ -- -- - - - - - - - - -::,
CAROLIN~
l!
i
l!
2
0
Noam
8
1 secondary source
8
--36
75
139
12
13
60
t
t
100.0
-t
51.6
4.
6. 3
-t
21. 3
100.0 50. 7 39. 7
3.0
9. 6
4. 8
8. 1
- - - - -- - - -- - - - - ---t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
14. 2
9. 8
16. 0
- - --3
l - l 3.-3 8. 3t 10.0- 16.0t
100.0 48.4 38. 3
100.0
100.0
64.0
48.9
t
30. 7
41.0
2.7
7. 2
2.11
12. 0
8.6
22.
J
5. 3
10. 1
-t
1. 7
13. 3
17. 0
14. 3
O11:0BGlA
Total. __ --·· •••...••. •. •••••••••.•••..
Agricultural employment._···-·-·
Nonagrlrnltural employment. ....
Works ProtITam employment•- ...
General reliell.
Resettlement loans sod grants. ••••
Other sour res •.....•••••••••..•...
White .••••.•..••••••••..••••••.••.•.
890
100.0
58. 7
27. 0
0. 6
4. 3
1.2
- - - - - -- -- --18
t
t
t
- 2.1t
146 HlO. O 63. 0 23. 3
6.2
0. 7
684 100.0 64. 7 23. 8
0. 3
-- 1.0
2
t
I
- - I--. 4
l 139 100. 0 31.6 43. 9
0. 7 20. 9
710
100.0
1511. 6
2jl_8
0. 7
5. I
I. 3
3.9
t
-t
-9.4
14. 3
18. 11
3. 6
-
2.6
t
t
13. 7
11. 5
-
t
11 . 6
24.6
17. 1
13. 6
- -t --t - -t --t - -- - -- - ---t
16
t
t
123 100.0 II.~. 0 22.0
2. 4
0. 8
II. 6
7.3
13.0
454 100.0 66. 5 23. 6
0. 4
2.2 20.1
-- 0.9
I
t
t
-- - - - - 9.-9t
I
l
124 100.0 30.6 43. 6
1. 6
0. 8 22. 5
25. 9
6.6 12.1
o. 6 I. 2 9.4 16. 3 17. 0
Negro••••••••••••••••••••• ·····-·· .. 167 100.0 65.5 27. 5
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - Aimeulturnl employment .•.•• •••.
2
t
Nonagricultural employment .•.•• .
23
l -t -tt --- 1.6-- 8.--5 14.-6t Ill.IIl
t
Works ProlIT!lm employment•- ••• 126 100.0 68. 5 24. 6
Oenernl relier• __ ___ ._._ .•.... _•••.
1
Re.settlement loans and ~rants . •...
-16 -tt -- -t -- -- -- - -t -Other sources • •••.•.•••• • _•••••• _.
t
t
t
t
t
t
i--
Agricultural employment • .• ......
Nonnvril'ultural employment. ...••
Works Program employment• .....
Genernl relief• .•. .. .•. .. .•... __...
Resettlement loans and granta .•••
Other sources •••.••••••••.•••••••.
t
t Percent not computed oo a base or fewer than 60 cases.
F.xeluslve or cases for which this lnform11tlon "B! not avaUable.
• From Federal, State, or local souroo•.
• Exclusive or the C'i\'llian Conservation Corps and the N•tlon•I Youth Adminlstrntlon.
• The Civilian Conservation Corps, the Nalional Youth Administration, credit. bank reserves. relltlv111
1111d rrieods. pensions, surplus commodities. sale of personal belongings, elc.
1
01gt1z
lbyGoogle
To&le J.-Amount of Income in December 1935 of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935 1 by Size of Case
(71 counties represenlln1 7 States)
Total I
Amount of lnoome •
Number of pen10ns In case
Number
I
Percent
I
I
$1-$10
$11-$20
I
$21-$30
I
$31-$40
I
$41-$60
I
$61-$80
I $81-$100 I $101-$125 I$126-$160 I •~~~: 11
Median
-----------------1----1----1----1----1-- --1----1----1----1----•----1----1----11 ---MONTANA
TotaJ___________________________________
1 person._____________________________
2persons _____________________________
3persons_________ ____ _________________
4persons _____________________________
5 persons. __ ____ ;_____________________
6 persons .. ---- - ---------------------7 persons or more__ _________________
484
100. 0
7. 4
13. 6
9. 7
17. 6
18. 1
9. 9
6. 6
6. 8
3. 3
7. O
$·12
18.5
U.9
12.9
-
I. 1
12. 3
16.2
14.3
10. 7
17. 8
18.6
21.5
11.4
21. 4
:al. O
17.3
:al.3
17.1
17. 9
6.;
7.4
2.7
14.3
12. 5
2. 2
3.7
5. 4
14.3
10. 7
3. 3
3.7
5.4
2. 0
10. 7
l. 1
3.7
4.1
5.7
1. 8
7.4
6.8
5.7
10. 7
31
37
38
52
57
---- - -25.-6 - -22.-2
00
100 0
81
74
70
56
45
68
lOd.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
t
100. 0
7. 4
2.7
1.4
3. 6
I
t
t
t
I
t
I
I
-
t
ft
11
8. 8
16. 2
13. 2
la. 2
4. 4
16. 2
6. 11
H. 7
67
6. 7
H. 2
15. 8
22. 6
23. 4
7. 0
4. 3
l. O
0. 7
2. 5
36
I
t
t
t
t
t
t
-
-
I
tt
a.s
1. 5
~
SOUTH DAKOTA
TotaL___________________________________
1 person____________________________
2pcrsons ____________________________
3 persons.---------------------------4persons _____________________________
lip,•rsons _____________________________
6persons _____________________________
7personsormore_____________________
WISCONSIN
TotnL __________________________________
_
1 person . ____________________________ _
0
persons.---------------------------_
32 persons
____________________________
4 p.•rsons •• __________ . _______________ _
;;;
6 pt.•rwns _---- - --- - ---------- -------6 pe rsons .. __ ... _. __________ --·--·--._
7 persons or more . __ _________________ _
.z
See footnotes at end of table.
'2.
(")
C
a(v
646
100. 0
-----411
t
~8
127
105
99
66
102
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
881
100.0
13.3
5. 5
3.8
3.0
6.1
2.0
5.1
---1---,---1
61
100. 0
109
167
157
148
82
157
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
23. 0
6. 4
4.8
1. 9
4. 1
4. 9
I.II
17.3
15. 0
14.3
14.2
13.6
2.9
6.1
17. 3
16.2
14.2
19. 7
22.6
27. 7
23. 6
25. 7
24.2
18.2
18. 6
22.4
27. 6
21.9
29.3
19.7
22.6
9.5
7.1
13.6
10.8
6. 6
7. 5
31. 8
27. 6
14. 8
10. 1
6. 0
Ii. 1
4. 1
3. 7
7. 0
13. 1
5. 5
7. 2
5. 7
7. 4
9. 8
7. 6
29. 4
44. 1
31. 7
37. 6
35. 1
26. 7
11. 8
13. 1
27. 5
32. 3
29. 3
30. 4
:al. 7
37. 4
7.1
4. 11
1.5
2.9
41
2. 4
3.0
4.9
6. 0
2. 7
1. 4
1. 0
40
3. 3
I. 8
3. 6
7. 6
4. 7
12. 2
0. 9
2. 4
1. 3
2. 7
3. 7
6. 4
l. 3
1. 4
l. 2
4. 5
0. 6
1. 3
2. 0
-
30
37
41
40
40
45
52
1. 0
3. 1
6. 7
3. 0
6. 1
7.8
1.0
0. 8
1.9
10. 3
3. 3
3. 7
II. 4
8. 9
8. 1
17. 1
10. 6
4. 7
8.11
2.0
1.5
1.11
36
37
38
36
44
~
~
r
~
m
~
)>
~
-<
-f
)>
a,
r
~
•
$
...,
Table 2.-Amount of Income in December 1935 of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935, by Size of Case-Continued
0
•
,,,
.,,
(71 counties representing 7 States)
Total
Number
Amount
1
or lnoome 1
or persons In caae
Number
I
Percent
I
I
$1-$10
$11--U,
I
$21-$30
I
$31-$40
I
$-11-$60
I
$61--$80
§
I $81-$100 I$101-$125 I $126-$150 I $~~~:
Median
----------------1----1----1----1----1----1----1----1----1----1----1----1---IOWA
Totlll•• __ -·- ••••.••••.• _••••••• _•••••• _·-.
1 person.··············-··············
2 l)('rsons •••.•.• ---·-----·········-···
3 persons .• ··-·····-···-···· .•••••••..
4
·······-··· ·-·· ·-··········
6 !)<'rsons
persons ••
_____________________
---- ___ _
6 pPTSODS. ___________________________ _
7 persons or more .••••.... ·--·········
006
21
77
110
121
92
65
111
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
HIO. 0
JOO. 0
JOO. 0
100. 0
9. I
4. 2
5. 8
6. 4
I. 6
5. 4
20. 8
16. 0
14. 9
14. I
18. 5
6. 3
26. 0
23. 5
24. 0
21. 7
16. 9
12. 6
13. 0
II. 8
16. 5
16. 2
20. 0
19. 8
28. 5
33. 7
32. 2
31. 6
26. 2
36. I
508
100. 0
8. I
JO. 0
15. 9
29. 3
!~85
l
100. 0
f
JO. 6
f
12. 9
f
18. 8
87
62
55
127
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
10. 3
3. 2
I. 8
6. 3
9. 2
ll. 3
12. 7
6. 3
]. 051
35
118
100. 0
15. 1
100. 0
100. 0
HIO. 0
100. 0
HKl. 0
100. 0
16. I
11. 9
18. 7
12. 0
W6
12. 6
t
6. 4
t
15. 3
t
20. 5
t
15. 3
-
31. 3
t
I
9. I
I. 3
I
I. 0
I
I
0. 2
I
0. 2
I
-I
0. 8
1. 3
0. 7
9. 2
5. 0
12. 0
12. 3
16. 2
0. 8
0. 8
3. 1
1. 8
0. 8
1. 5
I. 8
w
cg·
N
"0
!l
0
0
an
Total._.·-··---- .• ·--· .••••••••••••••••••.
I person ...•.....••..•.•..•..•.•..••..
2 l)('rsons ....•...••.••....••......•••.
3 r>ergons .• ____ • ____________________ • _
4 !)<'rsons .••.•...•....................
5 persons.
6 persons. ___________________________ _
12. 2
12. 4
6. 3
3. 0
1. 6
I. 2
f
30. 6
f
7. 1
l
7
l
3. 5
t
1. 2
..!
1. 2
13. 9
21. 0
20. 0
14. 2
31. 0
30. 7
27. 4
25. 3
13. 9
9. 7
12. 7
20. 5
4.
9. 2
16. 1
12. 7
16. 5
f
9. 4
II 2
4. 8
I. 8
3. 9
I. I
I. 6
7. 3
3. I
1. 1
3. g
1. 1
1. 6
3. 6
7 persons or more •.•••••..••..••••....
29.9
21. 2
12. 5
II. 9
4. 6
39. 8
32. 0
31. 2
28. 6
22. 0
27. 3
16.1
17. 0
18. 2
17. 4
26. 3
28. 4
16. 3
15. 7
10. 8
16. 2
8. 5
11.5
6.~
9. 4
14. 2
16. 8
10.1
3. 4
6. 7
4. 0
4.8
5. 1
6.0
26. 1
19. 6
13. 4
13. 5
NORTH CARCJ.ISA
Total•••••••.•••••••••••••••..••••••••.•..
I J)<'rson .••..•••••.•.•......•...••....
2 J>crsons. ___________________________ _
3 persons .••••••••..••.......•.•.•.•..
4 persons .••..••••...•.•...•••....••..
5 persons .••••••...•....••..••..••....
6 l)(•rsons .•...........•.....••••....•.
7 persons or more •.•...............•..
278
White ______ -· ...... -· ................. _
716
I person .........•....................
19
77
2 persons ..•....••..•.......•.•.....•.
3 persons ••.••••.•....•.••••.••••.•••.
4 persons .•••••...•••.....•••...••.••.
-----······--·------------6 J)Crson..q_
JX_'rson~ •••.
________________________ _
7 r,crsons or more •••••••••••••••••.•••
159
176
167
]18
no
125
116
82
187
t ---t ---t ---t
100. 0
t
JOO. 0
100. o
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
14. 8
t
15. 6
v. 1
16. 0
12.1
19.6
15. 5
f
33. 7
29. 1
26. 4
24.1
24.5
22. 5
t
11. 7
13. 6
20. 0
18.1
18.3
27. 8
-
22. I
rn. 4
12. 0
14.7
8.6
11 8
---t
14. 4
t
9. 1
11. 8
16. 8
19.0
14.6
10. 2
6. 1
-
5. 2
8. 2
4. 8
6.0
7.3
6. 4
--4
$36
---tt
28
36
34
36
37
44
WEST VIRGINIA
-
33
36
35
36
40
1. 0
0. 6
I. 7
I.I
0.8
1. 3
1. 2
-
1. 3
0.6
1. 7
1.8
19
24
21
26
24
24
3. 1
I. 3
0. 6
I. 5
26
-
-
-
2. 7
0.9
2.4
I. 6
1. s
1.7
-
-
-
-
t
1. s
0. 8
2.4
2. I
;g
,0
I. 7
3. 8
2.3
2. 4
I. 7
2.2
2. 6
6. 5
3. 2
3.4
2.4
2. I
~~
36
---t ---tt
-
,,,J:
-n 8>
,. . .
1
- - _ - ---_-
0
.,,
tt
21
211
24
28
24
26
~
0
z
,0
C:
,0
>
I""
,,,
,0
I""
m
.,,
Necro ••••••••••••••.••••••••••• •• ••••• .
I J)el'llOD .•••••• •••••••••••••••••• •• ••.
2 persons ••••••• •.••••..••••••..••. •• •
3 persons • •••••• • •• .•.••••••. ••• ..••• .
4 l)('l"SODS •.•••••.•.•••••••••.. .... •• ••
6 persons ••••••••• • .•• •••••• • .•.•• ••• .
6 person, ..• •••....•••••..• • •• ••.. •• ••
7 persons or more • •••••••• ••. • •• • ••• ••
011:oaou
Total •••••••••••••....... . .••••••••• .• • •• •
l)('rsoo ..••••. • •. ...•••....•.. ••• •• . .
persons .• ••• • ••• •••.......•.••. .•••.
persons • .••• ••... . . ..... . ... ... . . • . .
llt'r50DS •. •• • . . ..... ..... ... • . .. .••..
persons ... • ••. ... . .. ... .•.. ... •• ••• .
6 per so ns __ ____ ____ ___ ____ __ ___ ___ ___.
7 persons or.more •.. ...... . • ••....• •• .
I
2
3
4
6
White •••..• . ••• •..•.. .• ••.. ••••...•.• ..
I
2
3
f.
5
6
7
person . ••••••• •• . . .• ....... . . •.•• • . .
l)('rsoos ... . •.• . . . . . .. .. ... . •..... •..
l)('rsons ..•••. • ...... ... .. • .•... . .• .
J)('rsons. __ . • . __-- - - __ ____ _.• _... • . ..
Jlt'rsons .••••.•.. .. . .. ... . .. .... . •. . .
J)('rson, .. . ...• .. . .. ... ..... . .. .. . . . _
persons or more • •... ... •. .....••• ...
335
100. 0
15. 8
38. 2
24. 8
10. 4
-----t - - - ------- - - UI
41
49
51
51
36
91
t
100. 0
100. 0
t
l
25. 6
11.8
t
i
f
43. 2
39. 1
l
13. 7
15. 7
7. 8
19. 6
7. 8
11.8
t
t
l
8. 4
t
I. 2
0. 6
--2
-
2. 2
2. 0
2. 0
---
(')
0.
~
11J
890
100. 0
4. 9
33. 7
27. 0
11.8
6. 3
1.3
1.6
0. 7
1. 3
26
t
t
I
- -- t
12. 6
40
t
t
t
t
I
I. 3
0. 6
0. 8
-2.-
24
23
176
1[>4
12'J
91
151
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
100. 0
100. 0
5. 4
4. 5
5. 2
11. 4
2. 2
5. 3
34. 9
39. 8
33. 2
29. 4
33. 0
25. g
ilO
100. 0
~- 3
30. 6
.~
117
lH
129
100
11 2
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
JIJO. 0
JI)() 0
100. 0
171
100. 0
I
0
0
r2
( i)
t PerC'tlnt not computed on s hs.se or fewer than &O c&585.
=~•
2.
11.0
30. 2
t
5. 1
4. 2
6. 2
5. 7
I. 3
1.8
7. 6
;,
14. 3
16. 3
8. R
16. 6
4. 7
6. 8
5. 2
5. 4
5. 5
4. 6
-
0. 7
1. 7
0. 6
I. 6
0. 6
28. 0
12. 7
12. 7
6. 0
t
I
27. 4
37. 5
29. 5
21i. 4
28. 7
27. 4
2-1. 0
!
46. 2
I
1
12. 1
11. 9
9. 7
12. 4
12. 1
J;.9
30. 7
25. 5
30. 3
.
9. 4
2.
25. 0
27. 3
26. 4
3S. I
22. 5
- --35 - - -I - - - - - - - -- - - - t
t
t
lO
111
29. 7
HO
ft Median not romputed for !ewer tban
0. 3
37. 3
p('fS(JDS • •••• •• •• •••• • • ••• • • • •••• • •• •
J.)(' f ~O US •• • ••••••• ••• __ - • __ ••••• • •• • •
0
0. 3
6. 6
3.S. 5
25. 8
15. 4
9. 7
8. 5
13. 2
H.5
17. 9
12. 0
8. 3
15. 5
16. 0
~- 2
17. 0
5. 1
8. 3
6. 2
6. 6
5. 3
4. 5
1. 3
2. 3
1.9
22. 8
11. 7
8. 2
I
2. 3
6
3. 3
-
1.3
2. 3
2. 2
2. 0
I. 7
1.6
0. 8
1. 7
t
t
I.I
1. 7
2. 8
2. 3
-
1.3
0. 9
- - -5 - - -1 - - - - - - - - - --- - - - --- --I l)('rsoo • •.•• • •. •. ..• • ....• . . .. . . •• •. .
2 Jier,,ons .•.• • ••.•. . .. . .... . •. .• . •.• •.
32
tt
t
J
32
-4
25
l
l
5 persons . •..• . . __ .. .. . ______ __ . __ .. . .
23
-t
--6 µt•rs ons . _.. _. . ____ _____ . _. _____ _•• • .
I.~
ff
; persons or more _____ ________ __ ______
-tt
39
t
<5"
;cc.·
;;;
-- ----4 --- ---tiIt
--- ---- ---- 2016ttti
-- - J.
23
100. 0
---
Negro .• ••.• ••••. • •.. . •••.. •.. .. .. • . .• . .
-
-
0. 9
2. I
1. 9
3. 6
I.2
--t
--t
tt
25
26
25
211
211
--- --- ---tt
1. 7
o. 7
0. 9
1. 8
---
--
3. 1
2. 8
2.6
2. 7
211
24
211
27
211
30
- ----II
20
--
n
cases.
1 Exelmllng
with no loeome.
1
Inrluding F'ederal, E'tnte, or loral relief, earnings lrom employment In private Industry and on the Worb Program,ald from relatlve,s and friends, sale of farm produce, baolt
reserves, loans, vete1ans" compensatiou, pensions, etc.
en
C
=8
rlTI
~
l'TI
z
-4
)>
~
-<
-4
)>
a,
r-
i;::
......,•
72 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Ta&le 3.-Reasons for Not Seeking Work of Members 16 Through 64 Years of Age,
Other Than Heads, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States)
Reason for not working or seeking work•
Total mem bt>"' 16
through 64 not
working or seeking
work.•
State
House•
Student
wife
Number
Percent
Chronic
Illness or
.flhysicRI
isability
Feeble•
minded
or insnne
Other
reasoru
--- -----Montana ........••.•.••....
South
Dakota
..••..........
Wisconsin
__________________
Iowa ...................••..
West Vir~ioia ...•........•.
North Carolina •...........
White ..•.•••.•.••..••..
Negro ....•.•...•••.•••.
Georgia .........••..•••....
White •••.•.•...........
Negro ...........•.•....
100.0
100. LI
IOU. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
423
674
862
643
575
691
53~
153
677
500
87
73. 8
77. 4
4. 7
1.9
3.5
3.9
4. 5
14. 2
12. 6
19. 6
13. 7
12. 4
23. 0
16. 5
12. 9
7. 5
8.9
84. 6
82. 7
71. 7
62.0
67. 4
43. 2
67. 4
8. 7
11. g
9. 7
19. 6
7. 2
6. 6
11. 5
118. 8
57.6
0.5
o. 7
0.5
0.5
1.0
2. 3
1.9
3.9
2. 4
2. 4
2.3
4. 5
7.1
3.9
4. 0
14. I
9. 6
8. 4
13. 7
9. 3
9. 8
5. 7
Exclusive or !I'ernhers for whcm this Information was not a,·aileble.
• As determined by enuwerators from case records and lrom interviews with households.
1
Ta&le .f.-Age of Head:1 16 Throu9h 64 Years of Age, Working or Seeking Work, of
Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States)
Total
Age In years
otate
Number
Percent
l&-24
35-44
25-34
-----------1---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---Montana ..............•....•...
South Dakota.•............•...
Wisconsin .••...•.•...•......••.
~:.~·v;rginiii::::::::::::::::::
North Carolina .......••....•.•
White •••••••••.••••......•.
Negro______________________
•.••.............•...._
OeorJ!ia.
White ..•..••.•...••........
Negro ••..•.•••••.•.•...•.•.
380
63.S
850
588
4~2
··~
314
855
000
159
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
5. 3
7. 7
8. 1
7. 7
13. 3
9. 4
10. 2
7. 3
11.8
12. 6
8. 2
23.9
30. 7
31. 7
29. 2
27. 2
26. 2
27. 6
23. 2
29.6
29. 2
30. 8
Diglizerl
26.1
27. 4
25. 3
29. 2
22. 4
25. 3
26. 7
22.0
26. 3
26 9
23. 9
27. 3
20. 2
24. 0
21.1
23. 0
23. 2
21. 5
27. 1
19. 6
17. 4
Ill. 5
II. 8
17.0
20.1
byGoogrc
14. 0
10.9
12. 8
14. 1
16. g
14. 0
20.4
12..,
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 73
Ta&le 5.-Age of Members 16 Through 64 Years of Age Other Than Heads, Working
or Seeking Work, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States]
State and sex
Total members 16
through 64 working
or seeking work •
Number
Perrent
Age in years
16-17
18-24
U-34
35--44
45-54
M-64
--- --- --- --- --- --- --MOMTAIU
Total ___________________ ----- --- .
143
100. 0
M._Je _______________________ _
Female. ____________________ _
113
30
100.0
214
100.0
14.0
156.0
14. 5
6. 1
4. 7
4. 7
100.0
16. 0
10. 8
61.1
48. 3
12. 2
18.1
3. 8
9.6
3. 1
7.2
3.8
6.0
100.0
21.6
54. 9
9. 7
7. 7
4.8
I. 3
10e.o
23.6
41.9
10.0
12. 7
10. 9
0.11
6.6
1. 9
14. 6
3. 7
SOUTH DAKOTA
Total_ __________________________
_
Male. ______________________ _
Female_____________________ _
t
14.0
55. 2
18.2
4. 9
4.9
2.8
15.0
61. 9
18. 6
0.9
2. 7
0.9
- - - - - - --- --- - - - - t
t
t
t
t
t
- - - - --- - - - - - - --- - - - -131
--100.0
83
WISCONSIN
Total________________ -- -- -- --- -- -
310
Male _____________________ - - - - -200
Female. ____________________ _
110
- - - - - - - --- - - - - - ---100.0
20. 5
62.0
II. 5
6.0
1. 5
1.5
IOWA
212
100.0
16. 5
Total•• ______ -- -------- -- -- --- - -14. 6
3.3
57.1
M~Je _______________________ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 130
100.0
20.0
611.1
10. 8
0.8
Female _____________________ _
100.0
82
11.0
42. 7
20. 7
7. 3
----I. 5
0.8
WRT VJB0INIA
Tot!IJ___________________________
_
218
100.0
16. 1
59.2
14. 2
6.0
2. 3
M&Je _______________________ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 184
14. 7
62.9
13.6
100.0
3.3
2. 2
Female _____________________ _
34
t
t
t
t
t
t
3. 2
--3.3
t
Noam CAROLUU -- -- . Total ______________________
1,009
100. 0
18. 7
45. 5
17. 2
10. 8
5. 5
2. 3
Male ________________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Female______________________
436
100. 0
26. 1
61. 7
9. 4
I. 6
0. 5
0. 7
573
100.0
13.1
33.2
23.2
17.P
9.2
3.5
White._ - -- -- ----- ------- - -- -- 6156
100. 0
18. 3
45. 3
18. 1
11. 0
5. 3
2. 0
Male _______________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FemaJe______________________
286
100. 0
24. 8
63. 4
8. 7
2.1
0. 3
0. 7
370
100. 0
13. 2
31. 4
26. 4
17. 8
g, 2
3. 0
Negro.------------------------
35.1
100. 0
19. 5
45. 9
15. 6
10. 5
6. 7
2. 8
Male _______________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Female______________________
150
100. o
28. 7
68. 5
10. 7
0. 7
0. 7
0. 7
203
100. 0
12. 8
36. 5
19. 2
17. 7
9. 4
4. 4
OJCOROJA
Total ___________________________ _
553
100. 0
18. 4
43. 3
19. 2
9. 9
6. 5
2. 7
Male ________________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Female.,_____________________
231
100. 0
26. 8
63. 8
10. 8
3. 0
3. 9
I. 7
322
100. 0
12. 4
35. 7
25. 2
14. 9
8. 4
3. 4
426
100. 0
19. 0
45. 7
1-9. 0
8. 5
~- 9
I. 9
199
27. 6
11.5
M. 3
38.3
II. 1
26.0
3. 0
13.2
3. 0
227
100. 0
100.0
8.4
I. 0
2.6
127
100. 0
16. 5
34. 7
19. 6
15. 0
8. 7
5. 5
95
100. 0
H. 7
29. 5
23. 2
18 9
8 4
5 3
Male ________________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Female______________________
Negro_------------------ ------
Male . _______________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Female______________________
32
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t Percent not computed on a base ol lew.er than 50 cases.
I
Exclusive ol l member lor whom this lnlorrnation was not available.
ff269°--38--7
Dig 11zerl by
Goog IC
74 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Ta&le 6.-Usual Industry of Members 16 Throu9h 64 Years of A9e, Other Than Heads,
Worlcin9 or Seekin9 Work, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Throu9h November 1935
[71 counties representing 7 States)
s
. ....
j
.!!I
C
0
Usual Industry of members
"
0
::s
A
.c
~
>
"
j
Qeorda
North Carolina
J!l
J!l
:a i 3 :a i
!
z
z
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --
j
~
j
1i
~
0
~
~
£:-<
Number ____ -------------- 143 214
310
212
218 I, 009
6M
353
6M
421!
128
PeroenL ·- ·--------------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Agrlrulture _____________ .•.•.•... 64.5 45.0 27.8 23.1 18. 3 61.6 65.0 M.2 36.1 36.0
36. 7
2. ~
Forestry and fishing ..••••••••... 2. 1 0.5
2. 8
1.1
1. 2
0.8
o. 2
0.8
Extraction of mlnerals __ .. _. __ .••
o. 3 7.1 10. 1
11. 1
3. 7 12. 9 16. 3
5.4
Manufacturing and mechanical.. 2.8
2. 3 13. 2
6.8 20. 8 24.4
Tran;portatlon and communl·
2. 3
3. 2
3.3
3. 7
1.1
0.9
1. 4
1. 1
1.4
cation._--··--···-··· __ ...•••.. 6.3
2. 3
4.2
3. 8
0.11
1. 5
1. 4
1. 7
1.8
1. 9
1. 6
Tnde ..........•••.........••... 3.5
I.
4
o.
4
o.
2
0.8
Public service._--···········-•·2. 8
2. 4
1. 4
1.1
0.9
I. 4
3. 6
4. 0
Professional se"lce ......... _••.. 1. 4 4. 2 1. 0
41. 4
2. 1 23. 0 10. 8
1. 6
Domestic and personal 1111"!00 ... 5.6 11. 2 13. 2 20.8 6.5 9.4
4. 7
4.0 18. 4 22. 5
No usual lndu•try••.••••• -.••.•• 18. 8 22.4 21.9 21. 7 52. 2 7.9 10. I
7.
()
12.
6
11.3
1.4
11. 2
5.6
11.8
3.
4
2.
1
5.
7
11.
8
Unknown_.··············-······
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
----- - - -
Ta&le 7.-Usual Occupation of Members 16 Throu9h 64 Years of A9e, Other Than
Heads, Workin9 or Seekin9 Work, of Rural Relief Casn Closed July Throu9h November
1935
(71 counties resn--ntlng 7 States)
Usual oocupatlon or memben1
JI!!
)?
s0
1
.s
:I::,
j
.
~
~
~
A
.!!I
a
IS
-a
North Carolina
.!:I
>
~
~
30
£:-<
::
.d
~
0
zf
Georgia
30
£:-<
!
.d
~
-64.5- - 44.11
Non~\<;::1:~:::::::::::::::::
Skilled .. ····--··--·-····-···
Bemiskllied••• -·····----·-·-Unskllled .•...•.......•... -..
No usual oocupatlon .....••.•... _
Unknown.-··-------- ...•.•.....
28.0
7. 7
0. 7
7.8
11.8
16.8
0. 7
z
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
214
310
218 1,009
564
4211
Number ...••.•..•....•.... 143
212
6M
353
Percent •..•••••••••••.••••• 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Agrlcnlture.....•..•••• -·-·······
Farm operator.. ·-·-········· 4. 2
Farm laborer ••.•..••••...... 50.3
0
.,t.
1. 4
43. 5
32. 7
11.3
1. 4
1. 9
20. 1
22.4
-
---- -----------27.8
1.0
21!. 8
liO. 3
4. 2
3. 2
8.1
34. 8
21.11
-
23.1
I. 4
21. 7
64. 7
8.6
1. 4
6. 7
39.1
21. 7
0.5
18.3
1.8
16. 5
29. 4
2. 8
1.4
0.11
24. 3
52. 3
-
61. 6
1.0
60. 5
30.0
2. 7
0. 5
10. 5
16. 3
8. 0
0.5
Cig1t zea by
64.9
1. 4
63. 6
24.8
3. 2
0.6
14. 4
6. 6
10.1
0.2
65. 2
0.3
36.1
2.9
64.9
33. 2
39. 7
I. 7
0.3
3.1
34. 6
4.0
1.1
45. 3
6.1
1.3
18. 6
19.3
18.4
0.2
Goog re
36.0
3.1
32. 9
41. 3
7. 3
1. 6
22.5
9.9
22. 5
0.2
128
100.0
-7
36.
2. 3
~-4
58. 6
2. 3
-
6. 6
liO. 8
4 7
-
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 75
Tal>le 8.--Number of Periods January 1932 Through December 1935 Durin9 Which Relief
Was Received ~y Rural Relief Cases Closed July Throu9h November 1935, by Usual
Occupation of Head
l71 ooantlel N1J>N8lltln1 7 Btateal
Total
Number of relief periods
I
Usual o«"upatlon of bead
Number
Peroent
4411
100.0
18.6
23. 0
:JOO
141
100.0
16. 6
111. 6
100.0
100.0
16. 7
K.4
22.
1110
I
2
3
6or
more
4
Medlan
- - - -- - - - - - - MOKT.UU,
Total••.• - ••• ______ ------ ·--·. - .
Parm operator ______________
Parm laborer......... ______
Other DDSktlled •••••••• ··--·
All CKIJm'____________ ··--···
70
t
t
i
30.0
111.8
18.11
18.11
---26.0
--18. 6
20.6
t
t
21.4
20.0
20.0
18. 8
18. 7
8.1
-
a.4
8.8
tt
3.6
2.0
8oUTH DilOT.t.
To&al •••• -· •••••••••••••• ··-· •.•
all7
100.0
20. 7
33. 2
26.2
11.8
8.1
=~:::::::::.-:::::
338
81
103
147
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
23.6
14.8
10. 7
24.6
34.2
37.1
31.0
211.11
35.6
22.2
30.1
26.2
11. 3
11.9
13. 6
12.11
4.6
16.0
14.6
7.6
TotaL••••••.••.. ..•...... ·--· ..
BOIi
100.0
20.0
31.6
K.3
14. &
=
r.i=::::::::.-::::::
Oiberunskllled ........ _ ....
Ill&
14.9
20.2
22.8
21. &
30.3
37.9
26. II
33.0
23. 6
26.8
27.0
22. 6
18. 4
12.0
12. 2
14.1
-12.9.-87 -
124
1811
2117
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total. ............... ···-.·-·· ..
692
100.0
22. 8
31.8
21.8
13. &
10.1
Farm operator....... . ·-· ...
Farm laborer ................
80
161
178
173
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
26. 0
16. 8
19.1
31.2
37.4
32. 3
32.0
28.3
20.0
20.&
21.11
23. 7
8.8
16. 8
16. 2
11.0
8.8
13.6
11.8
6.8
7.6
1.8
Oilm1llllkllled ...... _ ......
AD otbm'................ _ ..
2.11
--2.8
2.11
a.a
2. 0
WIIIOOKl!lJII
All otbm'............ _ ......
low.a.
Other unu:llled..•..... __ ...
All other ....................
a. 2
12.1
8. 8
8.0
8.2
2.8
8.0
2. 9
2.11
-2. 7
3.0
8.0
2. 7
War VDIGINIA
-
100.0
35. 3
30.8
26.0
100.0
26. 7
38.9
26.5
38.0
42.&
26.11
27.4
24.&
24. 8
8. 7
6. 3
2. 4
ll3
100.0
100.0
7W
100.0
26.8
21.&
20.2
14.0
18. 6
3.1
126
153
243
100. 0
100.0
100.0
13.6
23.5
38. 7
20.8
28.1
20.2
17. 6
111. 0
17. 3
16.0
14. 4
10. 2
32. 0
17.0
13. 6
a. 9
All othlr ••••••••.... -·-····
White.••••••••.. -· ... ·-··· .. -
&17
100. 0
30.9
=r~.-::::::=.·_-_·.-.-::
213
46
62
106
100.0
23. &
100.0
100.0
22. 6
43.4
282
100.0
79
100.0
100.0
Total•••••••• ______ .--·.·-·· ••••
Fanno~····--··----·Parmla
··········-···Other unall:Wed.... • .. -· ...
All other•••• ···-··-·····--·
No•m CilOLIIU
Total •••.•••••••••••• - ••••.. ·-·.
Farm o~·········-····
Parmla
··········--··Other UD11ll:IIJecL •..•. --· ...
Other UDllll:flled ..... ·-- .•...
All other.......... _ ...... __
Ntlll'O. ················-·--· ..
Parm operator........... _ ..
Parm laborer .......... _____
448
- -113
14
208
t
t
t
----8. 0
0.11
t
-
2.6
2.6
atl
2.3
-17.6
- --- -278- - - -21.2
- -20.5
- -24.6
- --16. 2
3.3
100.0
t
3.0
2.6
18. 2
13. 0
14. 7
21.6
16.0
18. 8
2. 8
--a. 3
32. 2
21. 4
2i.&
14.8
11.3
10. 7
12.11
II. 7
2. 0
2.3
16.3
18.4
23.8
16. 0
26.6
a. 6
7.6
24.1
16. 4
22.0
20.4
17.6
16. 4
16. 5
39.2
19.8
4.3
3.2
t
23.2
--21.1
t
t
t
tt
-13.8
- --- ---18.-& -33.11
- - 65- - --13.3.6
20.0
100. 0
8
Ill
Other unskilled ••.... __ ----47
All other •••..•...... -·---- See footnotes at end of table.
t
t
t
t
t
t
Cig1t zea by
tt
Goog re
76 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Tobie 8.-Number of Periods January 1932 Throu!jh December 1935 During Which Relief
Was Received ~y Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935, by Usual
Occupation of Head---<:ontinued
[71 counties reprMentlng 7 Statel']
Total
Number of relief periods
I
US11al occupation of head
Number
Percent
1
a
2
6or
more
4
- - - - - - --- --- - - - --0BOB.OU.
Tota] ___ .----- --- --- --- --- ---- - Fann operator _______________
Fann laborer _______________
Other unskilled _____________
All other ___________________
White. _______________________
Fann operator ______________
Fann laborer _______________
Other unskilled .• ____________
All other ___________________
Negro _______________ ----- ____
Fann operator _______________
Farm laborer ________________
Other unskilled _____________
All other ___________ ------ ...
1119
1()().0
47.5
217
171
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
61. 1
44.6
51. 4
43. 6
225
306
32.0
14.1
27.6
29.8
31.4
36. 8
12. 0
16. 1
13. 6
14.8
- - - ---
742
100.0
49.0
31.3
!86
138
140
62.3
278
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
64.0
44.4
28.2
29. 7
29.5
36. 6
177
100.0
40. 7
33
85
28
100.0
l
46. g
--31
48.11
t
l
4.11
1. 6
2.1
- - - ----6. 7
2. 7
1. 0
7. 7
2. 3
4.2
14.4
4.0
---1 --13.3
1.8
1.3
0.6
2. 2
1.0
2. 2
1. 3
--1. 0
14.8
13. 7
16.2
as
6.9
1. 4
3.1
o. 7
1.4
0.4
34.11
12.8
11.3
2.3
l
13. 6
f
1. 2
34. II
t
t
6.
f
t
a1
t
t Percent not computed on a base of fewer than 60 cases.
tt Median not computed for fewer than 60 cases.
1
Exclusive of C898S for which this Information was not available.
D1g1t zed by
Median
---
Goog [e
l
t
2. 0
2.0
0.11
2. 2
2.3
---
H
2.1
tt
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES•
77
Table 9.--Number of Weeks January 1932 Through December 1935 During Which Relief
Was Received~ Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935, by Usual
Occupation of ead
(71 counties representing 7 States]
Total
Number of weeks
1
t' sua1 occupation of head
Num•
ber
Per•
cent
1-12
13-24
25-36
37-52
105
63-78
79--104
or
more
-- -- ---- -- -- ---MONTANA
Total. ...••........•......•...
Farm operator .•.....•....
Farm laborer ...•... ··-· ..
Other unskilled ..•........
All other .•••.•.•....•....•
SOUTH DAKOTA
Total. •••••••••••••...•.•..•..
Farm operator •• ··--· ... _
Farm laborer-·----·--._ ..
Other unskilled.·----····
All other •••.•••..... - .•..
Wl!!OO!ilSIN
Total ••••••••..••......... - ..
Farm operator .. ···--·-·.
Farm laborer. ...•.. - .....
Other unskilled.···-····All other ..•.••••• ·-·····.
450
100.0
2. ll
10.4
11. 6
15.6
21. 3
Farm operator .• ···--·-··
Farm lllhorer ...••.• - .....
Other unskilled.···-·····
All other.••........... _ ..
WEST VIRGINIA
Total ••••••••••••••.•..•......
Farm operator .• ···-· ....
Farm laborer ..............
Other unskilled .... - .....
All other.•...•.........•..
NORTH CAROU!ilA
Total ••••••••••••.•••....•....
Farm operator .. ·····-···
Farm laborer ...... ···-··Other unskilled.···-·· .. _
All other .•.......... - ....
White ...••••••.•••...... _ ..
Farm operator ••• _.... -·.
Farm la borer .. _.. _.. _.....
Other unsl<illed. -········
All other••••••..•.•.......
Negro •. ·-········-········
16. 2
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
-64.6
69. 8
tt
Ill
71
160
100.0
100.0
5.6
l.ll
15.5
11. 2
16. ll
11.2
12. 7
15.0
23.ll
18.8
15. 5
22.5
ll.ll
lll. 4
52.0
67. 7
867
100.0
2.5
4.2
10.6
17.1
37. 5
22.3
6.8
63.ll
81
103
147
100.0
100.0
100.0
I. 2
2.ll
4.8
4. ll
4. ll
8.8
11. I
ll. 7
10. 2
13. 6
12.6
20.4
33. 4
Ill. 4
25.8
22. 2
35. 0
25. 2
13.6
16. 5
4.8
62.4
67.8
79. 2
68.8
805
100.0
4. 2
8. 7
13. 5
15.8
24. 2
lll.ll
13. 7
61.3
124
IR9
297
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.8
6. 3
4. 7
7.3
10. 1
ll.l
17. 7
12. 7
16.8
17. 7
11. 6
18.ll
21. 0
25. 4
24. 3
19. 4
Ill. 0
13. 1
12.1
15. ll
13.1
73. 4
66.0
63.6
63.6
692
100.0
6.1
10.8
15. 4
lll. 8
33. 2
11. 7
3.0
51. 4
161
178
173
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.1
5.1
7.5
ll.ll
13. 5
8. 7
10. 6
16. g
20.8
24. 2
Ill.I
16. 7
35. 5
29. 7
35.3
12. 4
13. 5
8.1
4. 3
2. 2
2.ll
61.ll
64.6
49. 2
49.4
448
100.0
8.ll
ll. 4
13.4
14.3
21. i
10. 3
22.0
- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -336
-100. 0
1.8
1. 7
11. 0
17. ll
48. 8
17. 3
1. 5
-195
--31.3
- -- -2.1- ----100.0
25. 1
13.3
7. 7
6. 7
13.8
IOWA
Total ••••••••.•••....... - ....
22.0
- - - ---- - - - - - - - -200
-6. 5
10. 6
100.0
3. 0
14. 5
24.0
24. 5
17.0
Median
-- - - - -11.-3 -10.-0 -18.8
- -- -32.-3 -13.8
2. 5
80 100.0 11.3
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -113
-4. 4
12. 4
17. 7
27.4
12. 4
23.9
100.0
1.8
14
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
208
113
100.0
100.0
14.4
7.1
13.0
8.8
13. 9
13.3
JO. 6
15. l
Ill. 7
15.9
9.6
JO. 6
18.8
29. 2
7llll
100.0
14.4
17.6
19.1
16.8
19.6
8.0
4. 5
- -- - -278
- -100.0
- -13.-17.-3 -18.-7 -18.-7 -23.0
6.8
2. 2
3
125
l.'>3
243
517
-213
46
62
196
282
67. 7
66.0
tt
00.0
62. 4
38.3
100.0
100. 0
100.0
8. 8
15. 0
18.1
18. 4
15. 7
18. 9
15. 2
18. 3
22. 2
19. 2
16.3
13. 6
22.4
19.6
14.0
11. 2
ll. 2
7.0
5.9
6. 2
37.6
43. 4
38. 0
32. 0
100.0
16. 4
19. ll
20.3
15.1
17. 6
6.4
4. 3
33.0
4. 8
-100.0
- -14.-0 -18.-3 -18.-3 -15.-5 -23.-6 ---7. 5
2.8
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
36.5
tt
100.0
100.0
14. 5
20. 4
17. 7
20.ll
21.0
23. 5
16. I
12.8
19. 4
12. 2
4.8
4.6
6. 5
6.6
100.0
10.6
13. 5
17. 0
19.9
23.0
11. 0
5.0
44.0
6.3
5. 5
39.ll
50. I
40. 7
- -20.-0 -29.-3 -21.-5 -4.-6 -- - - - -10.8- -13.8
(15
100.0
Farm operator .. ···-·····
Farm laborer ..... _•...... _
79 100.0
Other unskilled_ .....••...
91 100.0
All other..................
47
t
See footnotes at end ot tuhle.
6. 3
15. 4
t
13. 9
14. 3
t
15. 2
16. 5
t
17. 7
16. 5
t
29. 2
19. 7
t
11. 4
12. I
t
Cig1t zea by
t
35. 2
29.4
tt
Goog re
78 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Table 9.--Number of Weeks January 1932 Throu9h December 1935 Durin9 Which Relief
Was Received ~y Rural Ralief Cases Closed July Throu9h November 1935, by Usual
O'ccupatior: of Head-Continued
(71 oountlea reprellllDting 7 States]
Total
Usual oocupatloo of '-cl
Number of WMb
I
Number
oeot
Per•
1-12
11117
100.0
6.6
3.1
1.8
2. 7
13-~
~38
37--62
17.2
16.4
26.11
53-78 'IIHO.
105
or
more
Me-
dlao
0JIOa(IU.
Total •••••• - ---·· -· •• -••••••• -
Farm operator ••.••.•.•...
Farm laborer.·-··········
Other unskilled. •••.•.... All other••. ·-···········White ••••••...•••••.•...•..
218
171
227
321
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
7IIO
100.0
Farm operator••••.•••.•••
Farm laborer.·-·······-·
Other unskilled.._ •••••..
All other-••..••••••••.•..
187
138
142
2U3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
177
100.0
Necro.·-·········-·······Farm operator .••.•.•..••.
Farm ;laborer..._ .•••...•.
Other UIUlklUed ......•....
All other..• ·--·-··-······
-H.11
- --17. 7
211. 7
10.9
1.0
43.8
22. II
11. g
0.4
1.2
1.3
0.11
«.8
51. 2
42. II
40.0
-43.11
45. II
16. 6
20.3
13. 2
21.4
2U.3
22.6
33.11
21. 2
Ill
13. 7
16. 2
21.6
:ii.o
12. 6
11.0
10. 8
11.6
16. 8
16. I
24. 6
23. 4
11.6
1.0
3.1
13.8
10.4
14.11
22. 6
16. 3
15.6
23. 3
12.8
3L 1
70. 7
22.0
22.9
22. 4
12. 8
14. 1
12. 1
9.4
0.6
0. 7
2.1
1.0
19.2
17.4
8.1
0.6
2. 2
4.3
12. 1
36.3
21.3
19.2
0.6
30.8
- - - - -- -- - -31
33
l -t 18. 6l 14.8l 42.!
85 100.0
28
23.4
t
t
not computed on a base of fewer than 60
Median not computed for fewer than 60
1tPercent
t
t
t
23.3
l
21.0
t
l t
t
3. 7
CUM.
C88M.
1 Exclusive
of CUM for which this Information wu not available.
Dig 11,ed by
t
t
Goog IC
63.5
42.4
38.8
43.11
H
43. 4
tt
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 79
Tcrltle J0.-Year of First Relief of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935,
by Usual Occupation of Head
(71 counties rein-ntlng 7 States]
Year or ftr.;t relief
Total•
Usual occupation or head
Number
Percent
1932
1935
1934
1933
MOMT.UU
Total. _____ --- -- -- --- --- -- ---- ---- --- -- - --
4M
100.0
20.9
~-0
20. 4
Farm operator--------·········-·-··-Farm laborer ... _._ .. -.. ········-·---·
Other ullllllled_ ••.••••• -··---·- -··- -·
All otber•• -·····-···· -·-···-····-··· -.
3)0
100.0
:K. 6
47.0
18. 0
10.6
19
71
160
100.0
100.0
18J
18. 1
52. I
43. 8
14. 1
26. 0
16.6
13.1
667
100.0
10.6
40.2
43. 5
6. 7
81
103
147
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.0
13.6
20.4
8. I
... 3
34.6
311.8
34.7
45. 3
46. g
32. I
46.6
2.4
4.11
8. 7
11.6
795
100.0
12. 3
43. 5
28. 8
15.4
10. I
17.0
10. 5
52. 3
41. 2
36. 2
43. 4
24.9
30. 2
30. 3
29.8
JO.II
18. 6
16.6
16. a
t
t
12. 7
t
t
SOUTH D,lltOT4
Total. ••••••• _••••••.••... -- -· ••· -- · · --·· -
Fann open,tor•. _. ___ . ___ ·······-··-··
Fann IRborer. ····--·--·····--·--··-··
Other unskllJed._ ••.• _.•.••. -···- .....
All otber•• ·-·-·-···-··-·····- -·-·· ..•.
- -336- - 100.0
Wl!CO:Nllll'I
Total ••• ·-·······--·-·- -- .• -- ·• -- -- · · · -· · Farm operator_______ .--·-·· __ ....... .
Fann laborer .•. -·-····--············Other UllllkllJed_ ....... --········· ·-··
All otber.---·········--·-··-····· .....
- -193
- -- - -11.-9
100.0
119
188
295
100.0
100.0
100.0
592
100.0
411.5
Ml
16.4
178
173
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.1. 7
M.3
52. 3
48. 6
47.5
:14.2
32. 0
30.0
18.8
10.5
15. 7
21.4
«8
100.0
25.9
26.3
24. 6
23. 2
113
14
208
113
100.0
25. 7
29.2
:14.5
10.6
100.0
100.0
24.0
32. 7
27.9
20.4
15. 9
25. 7
32. 2
21.2
799
100.0
16.1
29.2
25.8
28.11
278
12.~
153
243
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
12. 6
21.6
19.0
15.6
:17. 4
34. 4
26. I
18. 9
23. 2
26.1
26. 4
20.8
28. 8
39.1
617
100.0
12. 6
28. 6
25.3
33. 6
213
46
fi2
l!HI
100.0
II. 7
39. 5
24. 4
24. 4
100.0
100.0
20.9
II. 2
2.~. 8
17. 3
19.4
28.1
33.U
43. 4
282
100.0
22. 7
30.1
26.6
20.6
65
79
91
100. 0
100.0
100.0
15. 4
27.8
17. 6
30.8
36.8
26. 4
32.3
21.5
30. 7
21.5
13.V
25.3
47
t
t
IOW4
Total.-··-····--·-·---· - -· ·--· - -·· -- · --- -Fann operator_·-···.--·---·-·--·---·Farm laborer __ ·---·---··-··-----·-··Otber urukilled.---·----··---···---- ..
All other•••• ·-·--·-·····-·--·····-·•··
- - 80- - 100.0
lffl
WEST VIROOOI.
Total.._ •••••••• -· •••.••. -·· -••..••..•••...
Farm operator••• ·--·······-···-····-·
Farm laborer·····--·--·--·····-··--··
Other unskilled •••.••••.....• -·-·---··
All otber .•••••• ·-···-·· ······--·····-·
Noam C4ROLl:NA
Total •••••• ·-·····-····· ..•...•..•.•.••••.
Fann orerator ••• -·-··················
Farm laborer .. ·-············---······
Other Wlllkllled .•• ·- -· .• _••.••. _.• -·. _
All otber•••••••••••. ·-·······--···-··.
White.·-···-····· .. -·· - ..... --... · · · -· Farm operator .•. ··-··---·-·· ...•.....
Farm laborer.··-······----··--·--··-Other unskilled •• - •• ···-··-····••-·- ••
All otber••• ·-·······-· -· .. ·- ·······- •.
Negro•..•........... --·····-·····-·- -- ..
Farm operator_·······-····--··----·-·
Fann laborer·-···-···-··-·····--·····
Other un.•kllled •••••••• - •• ·······-·· -All other--·······-·--···-··········- -See footnotes at end of table.
-----t
---- - - -
t
t
t
- -26.-3 - -23.-7
--- --------------t
t
t
t
t
--------- ------ --t
t
Cig1t zea by
t
Goog re
80 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Ta&le 10.-Year of First Relief of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935,
by Usual Occupation of Head-Continued
r;i countie!I representin, 7 States]
Total
Year of ftrst relier
I
U soaJ oocupatlon of head
Number
Percent
1136
100.0
1932
1934
1933
1935
O1:0BGL\
Total. •••••••• _________ . __________ . ______ .
Farm operator...•.. _________________ _
Fe rm la borer_ . ___ . __________________ _
Other unskilled ______________________ _
All other_____________________________ _
White_------------------------------ - -Fann operntor _______________________ _
Ferm laborer_. ______________________ _
Other unskilled ______________________ _
All other _____________________________ _
Negro. - --------- - --- - -- - -- --- -- -- - - --- Fann operator _______________________ _
Fann laborer.-----------------------Other
unsttlled ______________________ _
All other_____________________________ _
28. 7
40.8
30.15
31. 6
30.3
24.0
39.6
48. 2
40.3
38. 6
29.8
~-3
29.4
37. 5
------- -218
- -100.0
30. 7
171
321
100.0
100.0
100.0
760
100.0
27. 7
40.1
32. 2
187
138
142
293
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
32.1
29.6
31. 2
22. 2
38. 3
411.6
311.11
38. 4
29. 6
:aJ.8
31.11
39.4
17ft
100.0
33.3
43. II
22. 8
31
33
84
100.0
f
4fl.l
25.0
226
28
f
t
28. 7
t
t Percent not computed on a base of fewer than 50 cases.
I
Exclusive of cases for which thla Information was not available.
Digliwd
byGoog[c
t
f
t
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 81
Tobie 11.-Works Pr!?_gram Certification and Employment Status of Rural Relief Cases
Clo,ed July Through November 1935, by Usual Occupation of Head
(71 counties rep-ting 7 States]
Total
Usual occupation of head
Number
C111181 with oertlfted members
Cases
with no
certlfted
Percent members
1 or more Nomemben
membersem- employed
on
j,,loyed on
Proorks Pro- Works
gram I
Total
gram
I
-----MONTANA
TotaJ _____ ---- ----- ----- ---- -----Agriculture_ -- __ --- -- -- ---- --Fann operator _______ --- - .
Owner________________
Tenant _______________
Fannlaborer___________ ...
N~culture _______________
bite collar ________ -- . -· Skilled.-·- -----. --- --- - -- .
Semiskilled.--------_____.
Unskilled ________________
No usual occupetlon __________
Not a worker•---------------So'OTII D.tltOT.l
TauJ _____________________________
Agriculture_
- - . -- • ____________
---- -- - - --- Fann operator
Owner
...
----------··Tenant_ ______________
Fann laborer_
- - -- - . -- . - -.
No~culture
_______________
4118
411.6
50.4
30.11
111.6
34. 7
100.0
100.0
100.0
46.3
40.11
61.3
67. 3
63. 7
611.1
48. 7
ne
311.4
28. 7
:11.a
22. 7
20.0
100.0
27.3
72. 7
47J
26.7
-
e&f-
47.6
11.0
6.1
21.l6.11
100.0
---- -248
--100.0
42. 7
225
no
116
23
132
II
22
21
80
t
i
-
31.3
100.0
811.0
8811
100.0
M.1
46.11
37.3
s. e
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ffll.6
80.6
87.11
77.2
23.6
111.2
30.6
111. 4
12.1
22. 8
76.6
80.8
25. 2
17.0
11. 2
111. 7
611. 2
64.S
6.8
2. 4
0.11
100.l
12. 6
100.!
77.8
22. 2
100.0
211. 2
70.8
68.3
12. 6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
29.5
36.5
34.8
37.0
20.3
20.2
70. 6
64.6
66.2
63.0
711. 7
711.8
611.1
65.6
66.0
64.8
64.6
66.1
11.4
8.11
11.2
8. 2
16. 2
14. 7
100.0
100.0
100.0
22.6
18.6
111.6
77.4
81.4
80.5
61. 7
64.11
15. 7
16.6
116. I
14.4
100.0
78. 7
21.3
16.11
4.4
100.0
46.8
M.2
20.8
33. 4
100.0
5:l.11
M.6
47.1
211.4
111. 6
77.1
27.S
100.0
100.0
100.0
61.3
38. 7
4:l.4
48. 7
61.3
57. e
2d
34. 6
27.S
211. 8
40.6
33
113
100. 0
41.6
68. 4
48
1116
3
21.1
100.0
39.8
IIO. 2
l
l
l
335
107
228
81
198
23
46
17
112
21
M
1139
- -362
214
141
73
138
4115
32
115
117
251
3
89
Iow.t.
Total. •.•••••••••••• -- -- -- - -- -- --Agriculture ___________________
Fann operator____________
Owner _____________ . -Tenant._--------·-··Fann laborer._----------Non~culture.
bite collar.-----·-··----__ . ___ . ___ .-'SkilJed ______ -- -- - . -- --- --Semiskilled __ ._. _____ ... __
Unskilled
... - . ---- --· --·.
No usual
oocupetlon
__________
631
t
t
i SJ
t
t
t
- -255- - - - -43.5
100.0
Not a worker•---------------See footnotes at end of table.
l
t
100.0
WIBOORSilf
Total_ - ----- -----. -- -- . -- -- - . -. - -.
Agriculture _______ - --- -- ... -·.
Fann operator ___ --------Owner. _____ -----····Tenant_---·-···-·---·
Fann
laborer_--·-·····
___
N~culture
_______________
bite
collar_.----·.-·
....
Skilled. __________________ .
Semiskilled_. _____________
Unskilled ___ .-------·-·--·
No usual oocupetlon. --------Not a worker•---------------·
i
t
118
- -416
- -100.0
bite collar_.------- -- --·
Skilled ________ .--------- -Semiskilled.-------------Unskilled _________________
No usual occupation_. _____ ...
Not a worker•---------------·
t
~-4
87
11
76
168
330
43
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
i
70.6
t
14.8
t
t
17.0
16.'l
Dig tizncJ by
3.1
11.a
18.2
lJ1.l
t
t
t
36.'1
...
l
Goog Ie
82 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
To&le 11.-Worlcs Pro9ram Certification and Empl~ment Status of Rural Relief Cena
Closed July Throu9h November 1935, by Usual Occupation of Hea~ontinued
(71 oountlel rein-utlng 7 Btatee)
Total
c- with certifted members
c.-
with
DO
1 OI more Nomemben
membersem- employed on
Wo,lta~
cenHled
Ulllal ocoupatlon of bead
Number
Percent
members
Total
l:c1i!:!
punl
pun I
--Wur Vnr.0DQA
Total ••••.••••••••.•••. -..........
All'lcolture .•.........•••...•.
Farm operator•.....•.•...
6311
- -167
-
100.0
27.11
72.1
42. 4
211. 7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
111.1
22. 6
26. 9
17.3
80.11
77.6
74.1
82. 7
67.3
61.11
48. 2
IS7. 7
21.8
25. 8
26.11
26.0
100.&
ao.o
10.&
100.!
211.l
10.l
.It
.J
~~tu::io,'=r.~~::::::::::
133
81
62
24
11'11
18
13
16
243
18
44
N0IITII CAB0UJIA
Total •••••••••••••••• -•••.•.••... -
1,167
100.0
111.8
80.4
46. 3
36. l
868
4114
1117
110
187
164
31111
33
68
1315
173
II
Ill
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
18. 3
18. 2
111.8
17.3
17. l
10.4
18. 3
81. 7
81.8
80.2
82. 7
112.11
89. 8
81. 7
411.6
48.8
80.8
48. 2
41. 7
67.11
48.4
34. 2
36.0
211. 4
34.1
4L2
31. 7
as.a
100.&
100. 0
100. 0
16. 6
21.6
17. 3
84. 6
78. 6
82. 7
21-7
68.4
48. 3
64. 8
lN. 3
100.!
60.6
411, 6
111J
211. 7
OW'Dtl'••••••••.••.••..
Tenant .•.•...•...•.•.
Farm laborer .. .... -... -..
N~culture...•...•.....•.
bite collar ..•.•.......•.
811:flled......••..••..•.....
Bemlaldlled .•••••.....•...
Ulllldlled .•••••.•.•.•...•.
All'lculture •••••••••..•.••.•..
Farm operator......•.•.. _
Owner..•.•.•...•.•.•.
Tenant .•.....•.•.•...
Cro~..............
Farm la rer••.•.........
Non~culture..••...........
bite collar •••.....•...•.
Bldlled ....•••...•...•.•.•.
Remlakllled ••••.•.....•.•.
'Unakllled .•.•.•.........•.
:~iU:':!=r.~~~::::::::::
t
-
-t
t
t
t
t
t
.J
.,
ao.1
t
t
t
White •••••••••••••••..... --····
80'J
100. 0
111. 7
80. 3
44. 3
18.0
All'lculture •. _ •••••..••••••..
Farm opentot••••.••.•...
Owner.•..........•.•.
Tenant .............•.
Cro~·-···········
Farm la
.........••••
N~culture..•..•........•
lte collar •••.•........•
Bldlled .....•••...•....••••
Bemlsldlled •.•...... -.•.••
Unakilled .•.......•••.•.••
No usual ocoupatlon ....••...•
Not a wo,ker 1••••••••••••••••
461)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
17.1
18. 7
~8
18. 1
18. 1
7.4
111. 3
82.11
81. 3
711. 2
83.11
81.11
112. 8
80. 7
411.0
60. 3
48. 4
42.3
81. 7
811.1
33.11
34.4
28.11
100. !
100.0
100.0
18. 7
22. 8
16.11
77.2
84.1
ea.s
24. 4
36.'
48.1
62.8
100.0
48.
62.t
22.t
ao.&
Necro ... .......................
Alrlculture ...................
Farm operator......•••.. _
Owner•..•......••....
Tenant ........ _......
Cro~·············
Farm la
.............
No~oulture ..•.. _........•
bite collar ............••
Bkllled•....•••.•....•..••.
llemlskllled ••..•.....•..•.
Unskilled ...........•.....
No usual occupation......•...
Not a wotker •.•...•..••.••••.
Bee footnotes at end of table.
401
lliU
113
1411
es
274
28
64
123
611
II
t
t
&
sa l
48.11
36. 6
311. 8
ao. II
41.8
t
~a
355
100.0
Il .
4
80. 8
47.8
aa. 0
189
113
38
17
38
100.0
100.0
14.3
18. 1
85. 7
83.11
60. 8
48. 3
14.11
37.8
100.
100.0
IJ
18. 0
87.1
84.0
aJ
100.l
1sJ
SJ-
l
IJ-
60
---
96
125
l
6
4
12
llM
-41
-
t
;
-t
Digliwd
t
66.
62.8
t
byGoog[c
31.2
28.I
-t
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 83
Ta&le U.-Works Program Certification and Employment Status of Rural Relief Cases
Closed July Through November 1935, by Usual Occupation of Head-Continued
[71 oountiell reprMentlng 7 Statll.'I]
c.- with certlfted members
Total
U IUA1 ocoup&tlon of bead
Number
Percent
Cues
with no
cert111ed
members
1 OI more No members
membersem- employed OD
Worts Prollo{ed on
01' s ProIJ'&ID'
Total
gram•
Gao.au
Total •••••• -.-·--·-·-· -- -- -- ------
1137
100.0
11.2
88.8
1111.2
111.8
Asrlculture.
------------ --Fann open&or
________
. __--.
3811
218
38
88
118
171
100. 0
100. 0
9.0
7.3
111.0
92. 7
78. 4
78.0
12.8
U.7
100. t
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
6. 2
11. 1
8. 2
6.11
9'.8
88.11
111.8
9'. l
81J
78. 4
79.0
811. 11
M.11
10.1
18. 4
II.II
24. 11
311. 2
100. &
100.0
8. t
7.11
100.t
42. 7
92.0
92.1
100.0
11.1
100.0
11.2
8.8
100.&
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.8
8. 1
10.1
8. 2
Owner--------·-·----·
Tenant
_________ ......
C~---····-·····
Fann
----·····--··
N~culture •• _. ___ •...••..
bite collar •• --•·········
Skllled.••••••• ---·········
Semlslrllled •••.•..••••.•.•
UDllkllled.. ...•.•••••••....
No umal ocoupatlon •••.•.....
Not• worker•--·········--·--
426
61
47
100
227
41
82
Wblte •••• ·-·-·········-·- .. -· ..
7ft0
Asrlmlture •••• -- •• - • - . - ••••..
Parm operator •. _•.••••. -Owner •••.••••••....•.
Tenant·--····-·······
Cro~-···-···--····
Parm la rer _••..••......
N~colture. _-·····-····-·
bite collar •••••.. -....•.
Slcllled••••••••.•••• -·- •...
l!emlstllled. -•• - •..• -• -•..
UDllkllled ...••..•... -- ....
- -325
--100.0
187
31
67
1111
138
330
47
44
w
f
1J
t
l
nl
t
61.t
77.8
41.t
14. 6
6d
28.t
211.l
88.11
118. 7
20.2
90.8
111. 4
78. 2
78. 6
12. 8
14. 11
111J
113.11
811.11
111.8
80. 7
77.8
80.4
84.6
10. 6
18.1
11.6
27.3
l
t
t
f
f
100.0
100.0
8.2
7. 7
91.8
112. 3
60.6
78.8
41.3
16.6
:~t':1:1.ir~~~~~~::::::::::
142
41
M
100.0
42. 2
67.8
211. 7
28.1
NlllfO--•-···-·················-·
177
100.0
11.11
88. l
71.2
18. 11
112. 2
711. 7
12. 6
t
-
- - M- - - - -7.f100.0
31
6
--11
17
33
96
s.1
4
3
3
-t
100.0
86
8.0
-IA
:~t'::1or~~~~~::::::::·:
Agrtt'lllture. ___ . _--· .. ·- •.....
Parm operator •••.•••.••..
Owner.·-·············
Tenant·--·····-······
Cro~·--···········
Parm la rer •.••••.•.••.•
NOlllll!l'lculture ••. - ••...••....
White collar ••••.•.......•
811:flled••••••••• - •.•••••••.
Semiskilled .... ·- •.•••....
UDllkllled .•.• __ .•.•.••.•..
.Jl
t
t
t
t
t
I J
l
l
111,6
112. 0
-t
-t
f
-
18.11
711.1
12. 11
-
t
-tt
-t
t Percent not computed on a baae of fewer than 60 cases.
1 Exclusive
of the Civilian Conservation Corpe.
• Under 18 or over M years of age, or 18 through M years of age and not working or -1c1n1 wort.
Oig112cd by
Google
84 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
To&le 72.-Sex of Heads Certified for Works Program and of Heads Worlcing or Seeking
Work, 16 Through 64 Years of Age, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through
November 1935
[71 counties representing 7 States]
Heads 16 through 64 years of age
State
Total certified for Works Program
Number
Percent
Male
Total working or seeking work
Female
Number
Percent
Male
--- --Montana ________________
South Dakota ___________
Wisconsin _______________
Iowa ____________________
West Virginia. __________
North Carolina __________
White _______________
Negro.---·---------Oeonria
.. _____ . __________
White _______________
Negro_--------------
230
297
633
335
353
845
592
253
773
629
144
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
116. 1
94.6
118. 4
118. 2
97. 4
80.0
84.8
68.8
77. 4
79.0
70.1
Female
---
3.9
5. 4
1. 6
850
1. 8
588
2.6
20.0
15. 2
31. 2
482
1,066
752
380
635
314
2'l.6
85.~
21.0
29.9
696
159
C1g1t zed by
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
93. 2
95.6
97. 4
00. 6
97.1
79.0
84. 0
66.9
78.<l
80.0
71.1
Goog IC
6.8
•••
2.11
3.•
2.11
21.0
UI.0
33.1
21. 6
20.0
28.11
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 85
Ta&le 13.-Em_ployment Status in December 1935 of Members 16 Through 64 Years of
Age, Other Than Heads, Working or Seeking Work, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July
Through November 1935, by Sex
[71 counties representing 7 States!
Employed
Total
State and sex
Number
Percent
Agricul•
lure
I
Works
Nonagri•
Prowam
culture and
other
unern•
ployed
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - · I - - - - - - - - - - - - ----1----1---IIONTANA
Total ...•.••••..••..•.•.•.......•........
Male .............................•..
Female ...•.....•.•.•.....•..........
143
100. 0
32.9
- -113- - - - -40.-7
100. 0
16. 1
20. 3
30. 7
10. 6
23.0
25. 7
30
t
t
t
214
100. 0
37.11
131
83
100. 0
100.0
60. 3
2. 4
310
100.0
17.1
t
t
15.4
12. 1
34. 6
4.6
32. 5
9. 9
15. 7
25.2
49.4
26. 1
Ill. 7
37.1
0.9
21. 0
35.4
26.0
8. 2
27.0
65.6
eoum DAKOTA
Total ••......••....................•...•.
Male ..••••••••••••••.•..•...•.•..•..
Female .•••..........................
--- ------
WlllCONSIN
Total •.••...•...•.....•.•.......•........
Male ......•.....................••..
Female ..•...........................
- -200
- -- - -211.-0
100. 0
110
100.0
212
100.0
9.11
38. 7
II. 3
40.1
130
82
100. 0
100. 0
16. 2
28. 4
16. 9
54.9
2. 4
38.6
42. 7
218
100.0
15.1
15. 6
26.6
42. 7
34
t
t
t
t
t
1,009
100.0
39.0
21.1
18.4
21.ll
436
5i3
100.0
100.0
3
39.4
17. 9
23. 6
31. 4
8.6
28.4
6/i6
100.0
46.0
18.8
17.8
17.4
2!!6
44. 8
370
100. 0
100. 0
47. 0
19. 2
18. 4
28.3
9. 7
7. 7
24.11
353
100. 0
25.8
25.5
19. 5
29.2
150
203
100. 0
100.0
26. 0
25.6
15. 3
33.0
37. 4
6. 4
21.3
35.0
654
100. 0
9.4
20. 2
20. 4
60.0
23. 8
18.0
45. 9
52.11
IOWA
Total. ••••••••••.••....•••...............
Male ....•....•.•••..••...•.•.•....••
Female ••••.•..•.......••............
------
WJtST VIRGINIA
Total .......••.••••.............•..••..•.
Male ...•............................
Female .•.•.•••.......•.•••...••....•
- - - - - - - ---- - - - -184- - 100.0
18.0
II. 4
39.1
31.5
Noam CAROLINA
Total ..••.•.......................•......
Male ...•..•.•.•.••••.••.•.....•......
Female ••••.•.•.•...•.......•........
White ....•.....••••••••.•..•..•...•...
Male ....•.................•..........
Female ........................••....
Negro ••••.............•.............•..
Male .......•.•.•.•.•••••••.•••••••.•
Female ••••.•••...•••.•..•••••••••...
--------------
38.
---------
12.4
GEORGIA
Total •............•...........•.•......••
Male................................ .
Female .•.•...••........••...........
White ••••...•••••.•...•..............•
Male....•••..••..•••••....• · •...•••••
Female ••••••••••••.••••••••••••.•...
Negro................................. .
Male ........•...•••..................
Female .........•.............•......
t Percent not computed on a
---- -231- - 100. 0
15. 2
323
100. 0
5.3
15.1
23.8
426
100.0
9.1
16. 7
23. 7
50.ll
14. 6
45. 7
54.6
---- -199
--100.0
14. 6
227
100.0
<l.4
18.5
25. I
22. 6
121!
100. 0
10. 2
32. 0
II. 4
48.4
t
t
1J
411.0
------32
100. 0
96
100.0
7.3
36.4
t
base of fewer than 50 cases.
t The percentages In the different est('!!orles are not the same as those In appendix tahle 15 he<,ause cases
having both Works Program and private employment during the month have hN.'n tabulated here under
"Works Program and other," whereas lo appendix table 15 they were tabulated under agricultural and
nonagricultural categories.
Oig112cd by
Google
Tot.le 1.f.-Occupation and Employment Status in December 1935 of Heads 16 Through 64 Years of Age, Working or Seeking Work, of Rural Relief
Cases Closed July Through November 1935, by Usual Occupation
(71 counties repreaentlng 7 States)
I
Agrlcul tnre
N onagrlcultnre
Usual occupation of head
Number
Farm operator
Percent
Total
Total
Owner
Tenant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -M01'~A.NA..
Tot.aL . ___ . _____ .. ______ ------ - --- -- -- -- --- -
380
100.0
56. 7
56. 2
Tl. 7
- - - - - - --- --- --Agrlcultu.re __ --------------- ____________
248
100. 0
86. 3
85. 5
42. 3
m 100. 0 93. 8 93. 8 46. 2
Farm
operator
__ -------------------Owner
__ ____________________
. ___
110
100.
0
94.
6
94.
6
W.6
Tenant _____________ _________ . ___
I 15
100. 0
93. 0
Farm laborer __ ______ . _______________
23
0
co·
,,""
No~~.;,'i'i!;.:::::::::::::::::::::::-:
Sk.llled __________ ___ _--- -- -- -- -- --- __
Semiskllled- __ -- -___________________
Unskilled- _____ ____
-- ----- ------ --- -- No usual
occupation
________________
(1)
Q_
~
0
0
-
r2
ro
SOUTH DAKOTA
Tot.al ______ ______________________
___________
Agriculture _____ _____________ __________ _
Farm operator ____________ __ ________
Owner ___ . ______ .. ___ ___________
Tenant _____________ . ____________
Farm laborer ________________________
No~~~~ut-_::::::::::::::
:::: ::::::
Skilled ______________________________
Semiskilled. - - - --- -- --- ------- ------
u nskllled- - -- - ------ ---- -- -- --- -- ---
No usual occu!llltlon. _------------------
132
9
22
21
80
-
t
100. 0
t
t
100. 0
-
t
0.8
t
-
t
0. 8
--
-
t
---
Cropper
Farm
laborer
-
0. 5
43. 2
47. 6
--
0.8
-
Wh.tte Skilled SemiU ncollar
skllled skilled
Works
Program Unememploy- ployed
ment
only I
---
-
-
--
t
--
15. 0
- -1.6
I. 3
0. 9
1.8
t
I. 3
0. 4
0. 4
0. 9
-
40. 2
3. 0
t
-f
t
42. 5
-
-
1.8
2. 4
-
--
-
5. 3
-t
1. 3
-
-
6.8
-
t
t
5. 0
-
@
0
..,
:c,,,
~
------ --- --- --- ---
28. 5
93. 0
0.8
-t
Tot.al
°'..,,,,•
r::I
Employed In private Industry
Total
00
;l!ll
9.5
8. 6
19. 7
I. 2
0. 9
0. 9
o. 9
4. 0
1.8
1.8
1. 7
8.
3.
2.
3.
25. 1
17. 4
41. 6
t
l
-
36. 2
t
f
15. 0
-
1
1
7
5
t
~
'"ti
;l!ll
8
;l!ll
)>
I:
f 0z
-
42. 5
;l!ll
C
635
100. 0
416
335
107
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
228
81
198
23
46
17
112
21
f
100. 0
t
46. 8
45. 2
16.1
29.1
70. 4
68.
83.
93.
78.
24. 3
30. 1
93. 5
0. 4
43. 9
53. 2
0.5
LO
84. 5
93. 5
80. 3
12. 4
2. 0
--t
2
3
5
5
6. 2
1. 5
--t
-
t
--
-
78. 1
6. 2
-
t
---
-
---
1.6
10.4
3.3
I. 7
0. 8
4. 6
7. 2
35. 6
- - - --- - - - --- - - - - - - --2. 2
1. 2
o. 5
2. 6
21.0
4. 8
0. 5
3. 8
I. 2
3. 0
2. I
12. 2
0.6
o. 3
0.3
6. 5
4. 4
1.8
o. 9
0. 4
3. 1
0. 4
14. 9
6. 2
0.5
-t
--
12. 3
23. 2
l
-
18. 7
3. 7
8. 1
-
t
0. 9
-
l. 2
4. 5
2. 5
1. 5
-
1.8
-t
1.8
-
t
-
4_9
9. 1
-t
14. 2
-
18. 5
13.1
t
t
13.4
t
56. 8
61. 7
f
67. 9
t
;l!ll
,...)>
,...m
;l!ll
m
..,
Total
WlllOONMN
-------------------------------------
Agriculture- - - --- --- ---- ---- ---- --- - --- .Farm operator_
Owner __ _._---- --. __ ___________ _
Tenant_· ·- ------··-·-·--······-·
Farm laboror .•• -··· ····· ··-···· · ....
Nonm\i~~t'i:;.~::: :: ::::: ::::::::::::::
Skilled_·-.·-·-.......
-.... ·---·-... .
Somlskllled • . _
Unskilled . . - ·-·· ..... _....... - ·- ---No usual occupation . .
850
352
214
141
73
138
495
32
115
97
251
3
I
100. o
Agriculture • .•. -· ·· ......... . ---·- ..... .
Farm operator •.
Owner ... ...... ....... ... ... ... .
T enant ......................... .
Farm laborer ............. . · ·-··· ····
No°mll~~u:r:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Skllled
...................... ·-······
Sem lskilled.
Unskilled .. _......... . . . ........... .
No usual occupatloo . . . __ · ··-·-·········
55. 7
24. 6
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
1()(). 0
JOO. 0
79. 9
88. 7
63. 0
18. 1
7. 5
49. 7
79. 4
88. 7
61. 6
3. 6
6. 9
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
9. 6
7. 2
6. 4
8. 7
6. 2
6. 0
t
t
I OWA
Total _- . --·--· ·- -- .... ... -- ·· · · · · · · -- -- · ··
27. 4
t
t
17. 8
34. 4
67. 4
87. 3
-
3. 6
4. 7
-
4. 3
4. 1
5. 6
6. 8
2.8
15. 7
I. 5
I. 7
3. 6
9. 0
8. g
13. 3
6. 0
4. 8
0. 5
o. 2
o. 6
22. 0
0. 3
0. 5
3. 7
2. 3
a.•
2. 1
2. 7
8. 0
2. 8
0. 7
6. 9
0. 8
5. 7
6.8
12. 7
15. 9
9. 7
7. 0
2(). 6
1.6
3. I
20. 7
14. 8
6. 2
9. 1
28. 4
10. 2
28. 6
14. 5
1.4
61. 6
1. 4
14. 6
2. 2
0. 6
4..
2. 1
0. 4
0. 9
1.0
0. 4
t
a. a
3. 6
2. 7
••t
3. I
2. 4
2. 9
3. 4
o. 4
-
--
0. 8
l. I
3. 9
10. I
59. 4
0. 6
5. 2
a3
8. 8
2. 2
6. 6
14. 5
36.8
18. 0
49. 4
3. 5
10. 3
14. 5
39. 1
24. 0
16.1
7. 8
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
as
MS
47. 4
1.8
1.8
2. 6
«. 8
18. 4
28. 0
330
33
53
48
106
3
t
100.0
t
100.0
t
482
JOO. 0
RI
t
a4
t
t
I. 2
t
3. 8
1. 9
~7
1.0
1.0
29. 3
27. 6
16. 6
1.8
0.6
7. 3
1.9
-
-
·- - - - - - --- -
--
-
4. 2
6. 7
64. 8
1.0
-
1.7
28. 6
I. 9
2. 5
t
45. 3
t
-
t
t
-
I. 3
0. 6
2-l. 5
t
--
t
5.6
t
t
8. 7
--
2'2. 7
42.0
~5
t
-
0. 5
0. 7
2. 1
o. 4
100. 0
t
2. 6
t
26. 8
100. 0
100. 0
t
2..
2.6
1.0
21. 7
255
t
-o. 7
--
7. 3
588
87
11
76
168
o. 7
Agriculture ___ -- -- · .. . __ . __ ....•.. ·-- .. _
.Farm operator.
Owoer .• _······-··········--·-··
T eoant_·· -· ·· ··---··· · ····--·· · ·
Farm laborer_··- ·· -- -·· .... ··--·· ·- -
0
co·
,,""
(1)
Q_
~
0
0
-
r2
ro
Noam\~~~:·.-~:
Skilled._
... ___.. ::::::::::::::::::::
__ .... -....----.....
Semiskilled .•.
Uoskilled .. ___ _.. •.... .... ·-·····- ··
No usual occupation_ .·-· ···· · -···- ····See footnotes at end of table.
157
133
81
52
24
307
16
33
16
243
18
100. 0
100 0
100. 0
100. 0
83. 4
80. 9
94. 0
93. 8
94. 2
94. 0
93. 8
94. 2
100. 0
3. 2
1.9
l
lt
t
t
t
100. 0
t
t
2. 4
-
t
l
0. 8
-
48. 4
57. 2
03. 8
-
32. 5
36. 8
-
94. 2
I. 3
-
11. 0
t
t
0. 8
-
t
0. 6
--l
------
2. 6
-
-
t
1.3
-
1.6
-
l
t
0. 8
l
I. 2
t
-
-6. 6- - -2-t.-7
17. 3
2. 3
t
14. 5
2. 6
8. 9
45. ~
t
t
t
1.9
18. 0
20. 8
0. 5
63. 3
-
11. 2
2. 0
2'2. 2
9. 5
-
1.3
l. 5
l. 2
1.9
t
-
- - - - - - --0. 6
o. 6
-0. 8
o. 8
--1.9
l. 9
3. 9
2. 9
2. 6
«. 3
t
t
t
45. 7
-
4. 5
WEST VtROTl'(JA
Total_ ._· --· __ · -·--- ._ ......... ... . . ··- .... .
-
l
1. 3
•
5
t
34. 9
t
t
-
42. 4
-
t
t
-
13. 4
t
l
12. 8
♦
VI
C
:g
r-
m
?:
m
z
►
::a
-<
-I
>
co
r-
Ul
•
00
.....
To&le 1.f.-OCcupation and Emploiment Status in December 1935 of Heads 16 Through 64 Years o~e, Workin9 or S.ekin9 Work,of Rural Relief
ontinued
ases Closed July Through November 1935, by Usual Occupatio
Employed In private Industry
Total I
Acriculture
Usual occupation or head
I
Number
Percent
I I
N onagrlculture
Parm operator
Total
Total
Owner
Tenant
Cropper
Farm
laborer
Total
Un-·
White Skilled Semi•
skilled skilled
collar
Works
Program
employ- Unem•
ployed
ment
only:
--- --- --- ----- - - - --- - - - --NORTH C.lROUN.l
20. 4
8. 4
2
8. 5
21.9
3. 1
1.9
17. 5
10. 1
6. 4
18. 5
46. 1
51. 6
100.0
Total •• ••.. • •. . ..... • .. --·-· __ ·- .•••. --- - . ·- 1, 066
- -- --- --- ----- -26.-6 --------0
6.
7
I.
2.3
0.6
8. 1
29.3
70.8
78. 9
100. 0
658
Agriculture .... _. _•••• ·- .. .... __ ·- ... . ..
-- o. 4 - 0.8 1.2 13.4. 6
I. 2
39.1
33. 8
6
0. 6
92. 5
93. I
100. 0
4114
F arm operator_-· - ·· ·· ···-··-·-·- - · ·
5
0.
5
96.
5
96.
5
96.
0
100.
197
-- o.- -- 1.-8 o.I. 85 6.2. 45
Owner.-··-·· · · · ·----·--··-··- ··
1.8
1. 8
87. 3
0. 9
T enant .....•..•••. . . ___ .... _. . __
89. 1
90. 0
JOO. 0
llO
5. 3
1.6
0. 5
89. 4
0. 5
I.I
90. 4
100. 0
187
-- o.I. 5 -- 4.1. 3I 16.1.65 42.0
5. 5
4. 9
0. 6
30. 5
36. 0
5. 5
100. 0
1114
F~~~f:'~:::::::::::::::::::::::: 399
ao. 4
7. 3
22. 6
64. 8
7. 3
2. 8
2. 5
I. 2
6. 3
I. 0
3
7. 5
100.0
Nonagricult ure .. . _. .. •• •. __ •...... . _. . ..
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
White collar .. . ·- · -· · · · ···· ·····-·· ··
24. 1
2
8. 6
5.2
1.7
12. I
100. 0
6. 9
-t 0.6. 72t 6.--2 69.55. 62t 3.6. 02t 39.6
S l<illed . ........ -·· · · · · ···· ··-·-··· ··
20. 0
611. 9
6. 7
6. 7
3. 0
1. 5
1. 5
3. 7
100. 0
3. 7
135
Semis killed .• ·--···- ..• • . •........ ..
37. 8
5. 2
7. 6
38.4
45. 9
0.6
3. 5
4.1
8. 7
100. 0
7. 6
173
Unskilled_ ..... -·-· ·· ····-·------· ..
t
t
-9
t
- I.I- - I.-7 - - No usual occupation.· · - · ····--·------··
15. 8
4. 5
7
10. 9
2. 7
22. 4
4.1
3. 7
19. 1
21. 7
53. 6
12. 8
57. 3
100. 0
752
White_----·-·-- ••••••••• • · · - - - ·-- -- . -·· •••
--- --- ---------------8. 5
1.2
o. 6
29. 3
34. I
100. 0
18.6
5. I
87. 1
82. 0
4611
- 0.0. 56 3.1.02 --Agriculture • •. . • . . . •••• · ·- · - ....•••• ••. .
-- --3.2
o. 7
0. 2
32. 9
40. 0
21 . 5
o. 7
95. 1
100. 0
94. 4
Farm operator . . •. •• • __ . _.. ••.. ••• •.
401
1.3
98. 7
98. 7
100. 0
98. 7
159
-l
--3
Owner .. . • --· · ·-·-· - ··-· · ··· · · · ·
1
1.
1.1
1
91.
1.
94.6
2
2.
J.
5
100.0
93.
Tenant .•.• ·-- ·· ···· · · ······-·· · ·
6.4
0
2.
1.
88. 5
o. 7
1. 3
o. 7
100.0
89.9
91.2
149
-- 0.2.97 -- 0.1. 75 16. 2 39. 7
Cropper ..• . •·-···· - · ·· ···--·····
7. 3
1. 5
30. 9
100.0
8. 8
39. 7
Farm laborer·- · -·····-·-· · ··········
5.5
10. 2
11. 7
29.9
2. 6
511.1
3.2
1. 5
7. 3
1. 1
100.0
6.9
8.
274
27.¥
6.
8
14.9
19.
5
Iii. 5
2
Iii. 6
6.
·£!·
N
'"n.
::,
'<
C")
0
0
-
00
(v
33
58
5.
4.
3. 2
93
4
4. 4
68
No~\'i::1~u!i-:::::: ::: :::: : :::::::::::
Bkllled . ... .• .•• • •••••• - . . ··- - ·······
Semiskilled • •••..•••• • . _•• _••• . • ••..
Unskilled . . . .....• .• ••. ••• • --·······
No usual occupation __ •• •••• •• .••• -··· - ·
28
64
123
69
9
t
100.0
100.0
100.0
t
4
t
11. 2
4. 0
14. 5
-
t
6.6
4. 0
13. 0
-
-
1. 9
1. 6
-
-t
1. 6
8. 7
-
t
3. 7
0. 8
4. 3
-
-
t
6.6
67. 4
70. 0
1.6
46. 4
-
-
t
t
5. 6
42.6
2. 9
--
a.a
-
3. 3
t
6. 5
68. 5
8. 7
-
-
3. 7
4. 9
84. 8
-
'"
a
0..,
-4
:c
""
- - - --- --- ---
0
I~
..,
..,
(71 counties rep,-ntlng 7 States)
t
7. 4
6. 7
2. 9
t
24. 0
20. 3
36. 2
t
~
0,0
"'
1/)
"ti
,0
8
,0
)>
?
0
z
,0
C
,0
)>
r-
,0
""r;;;
..,
......
I,:)
i
l
i
00
314
100.0
37. 7
28.1
10.9
Agrlrulture. _... _......•................
Farm operator._ .•.•.... ·- ..........
Owner __ ........................
TenanL ........................
F~~~'t~~r::::::::::::::::::::::::
Nonairriculture ..•... _........... _. ____ ..
White collar ...........•.............
Skilled ..............................
Semiskilled._ ..............•.......
Unskilled.····---····-··---··---- ___
No usual occupation ...... ·-·-·--···-- ..
Farm operator. __ ._ .. _.... ··-_ ..... _
Owner ________________ ------ __ - -
"N.
c,_
er
'<
()
0
0
-
oa
("i)
20.8
0.8
0.6
2.6
17.8
10.2
31. 8
i
i
i
8M
100.0
12. 6
10. 4
3.4
--- --- ------100.0
26. 7
22.4
7. 2
389
218
36
66
116
171
425
51
47
100
227
100.0
39.4
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
33. 3
31. 9
10. 5
0.8
2.0
100.0
100.0
2. 0
t
t
39.0
t
33. 3
31.0
I. 2
o. 4
2.0
Tenant.·-•-·-· ... -·---·- ... ----.
Cropper............. -----· ......
Farm laborer ...... ---········-··---N onagriculture. _·- ....... _.. __ .. _... __ . _
White collar.•.... •-······-·-·--····Skilled ................•.. --·-·······
Semiskilled.----··········•··-••····
Unskilled. ___ ........•........•.....
No usual occupation .... ·- __ ...•.•.•....
See footnotes at end ot table.
187
31
57
99
138
330
47
44
97
142
41
t
t
-
100.0
40.1
33. 3
33. 3
II. 6
0.9
33. 3
32. 3
100. 0
100. 0
1. 0
f
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
--
39. 6
t
I. 4
0. 6
---
4.2
5.9
9. 3
16. 5
10. I
0. 6
33. 3
-t
0. 2
2.0
--t
-
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2. 8
12. 4
-41
t
100.0
13. 5
11. 2
3.6
696
Wbite __ ···--···-····-····· ...••.•.••.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - --7. 4
Agriculture. _. _..•... ·- •...• __ ........ _.
100.0
28.0
23. 4
325
CJ
9. 6
No usual occupation.-·-----······ .... __
OJ:0R0U.
0
13. 4
i
Total .• _.•..••....... _. _... ··-· ..•.• ·- ... _. _
ca·
8.8
- - - --- --- --- ---- - - - --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - ----27.0
4. 3
9.5
0.6
4.8
20.1
15.3
100.0
58. 7
43. 4
17. 5
5.8
189
Agriculture._ .. ····---··-···-·--·--··· ••
2.2
9. 7
2.1
3.2
1.1
37.6
100.0
84. 9
84.9
35.5
1L8
93
Farm operator·----·--·---·------···
38
t
t
Owner.-·-···--··-··-···--······
f
17
f
t
l
Tenant..-·•---·-·-··············
f 16.-8 43. 7
38
--t
t
t
-6. 2
3. 1
30. 2
6. 2
33.3
3.1
F~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::
100.0
96
37. 9
37.1
11.3
6.5
a.
2
0.8
45.2
0.8
0.8
!GO.
0
4.8
0.8
0.8
125
5.6
NonaJU"iCulture ...... -········----·--·- ..
5
-t
t
White collar..... •·····--············
Skilled ...........•.•... _.•..........
4
t
12
Semiskilled ...•.••.....•........ _...
f 1.0-- 1.0- 2.-9t 40. l7 10. l7 38. 8
--t 1.0
t
-l 3.9-f --Unskilled_ ... __ .••••.. __ ..... _. _•...
45.6
100.0
4.9
1.0
2. 9
104
Neiiro--------------------------------------
12.3
--t
0. 7
o. 3
t
--
-
o. 6
0.2
--t
-
----
31.0
--
3.0
4.6
6. 2
10. 2
9.8
17.1
0. 7
0.3
t
·-
33.3
-
--
32. 3
-----
2.2
16. 8
2. 7
2. 1
5.0
7. 0
9.6
61.0
- - - - - - --- - - - --- - - - ----8.5
59.4
3.8
4. 3
5.4
0.8
o. 5
0.3
6.9
49.1
2. 8
o. 4
4. 6
0.9
0.9
t
t
--t
t
56.0
I. 5
7. 7
3.0
1.5
56.9
4.
3
5.2
6.0
1.
7
0.9
- 5.2 10. 5 72.6
0.6
9.3
6.4
0.6
59.6
10. 6
10.9
9.9
0.4
2'l. 7
4. 7
3.5
2:1. 5
35.3
2. 0
3.9
-- 39. 2t 33.3
t
t
t
t
t
11.0
46.0
36.0
2.0
2.0
41. 0
3.0
7.9
73.2
16. 7
18.9
0.4
1.8
t
t
t
t
59.5
5.8
9.9
2.3
17.1
3.0
2.3
tl.O
- - - ------59.1
2. 8
8.6
4.6
4. 3
0.9
0.3
0.3
8.0
48. 7
0.5
3. 2
I.I
0.5
1. 6
-t
t
-t
t
56. 1
8.8
1.8
1.8
6.0
56. 7
4.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
9. 4
73.2
5.8
0. 7
4. 4
10. 2
- 12.0. 47 9.4
11. 5
56. 1
31.5
4. 2
0.3
5. 5
t
t
t
-t
t
f
f
f
t
11.3
46. 5
41. 2
3.0
37. 2
1.0
1.0
70.4
19.0
2.1
8. 5
- 21. I
-t
t
t
t
-
V,
C
::g
r
m
:t
m
z-4
►
:::0
-<
-4
►
m
rm
V,
•
00
,0
Tol,le 74.-0ccupation and Employment Status In December 1935 of Heads 16 Through 64 Years of Ase, Worlcing or Seeking Work, of Rural Relief
Cases Closed July Through November 1935, by Usual Occupation--Continued
..,
'"
~
@
171 counties rep-ting 7 Btatee)
Employed ID private Industry
Total I
Agrtcnlture
Usual occupation of head
ment
Farm operator
only I
----.----.----.-----1
Farm
White
llled
Bemt•
1
Un8
1
Tota
laborer Total collar
k
skilled skilled
cent
Total I o,.._. I Tenant Cropper
-------------1--1---1---1--1---1----i----i---1--1--1--1--1----i----1
O11:0ROIA-Contlnued
Negro....... ........... . . ... .. . ........... .
1611 I 100.0
8.9
8. 8
1.ll
2. 6
2. 6
1.3
1. 3
0. 8
12. 5
8. 2
67. 3
e. 3
80.ll
.Agr!F.::.~imioi:::
:::::::::::::::::::
Owner . . . .•..• •••....•...• . •. •..
M
31
5
ll
F~~'::'t!:r:::::: ::::::::::::::::::
Nonagriculture ..•. •• . ••• ••... ••... ... •..
17
33
Tenant .......... •. ...• .••... . .. .
White collar . ..••• • •••...... . ........
Skilled . ......•.•• • •• •. . ..•.•••.•....
Semiskilled ...•• •• •• •.• ......•.•••• •
Unskilled ... ... . . •• ••. .....•.•••••••
a
'g.
•J
(°J
No usual occupation.
116
4
3
3
85
I
1 J>er.
mi zj I
l
17.2
100.
1. I
100.0
C.
o·
'<
0
0
~
~
Worts
Nonagrtculture
Program Unem.
1---..----1---....--------------.----~-- --,,----,----,---"T"--- I employ• ployed
Num•
bee
l
4. 7
t
t
e. 2
t
I
I
~~
3.1
11.0
ti
t
18.11
f
16. 2
I
I
1.6
-t
1.
8
•
ll. 4
-tt
t
t
2.1
t
LI
1. 2
1. 1
I. 2
l
f
14. 6
12. 8
7. 8
--s.1
-l
7. 1
0
..,
x
'"
~
;o
.J
-
(';i
'"ti
8
;o
)>
~
0
l z
77. 7
;o
C
;o
t Percent not computed on a baae of fewer than 60 CBll88.
E1clmlve of beads of bouaebolda for whom tlita IDformaUoa,... not avBllable.
' lncludln& the Civlliall CollBCV&tlon Cocpe.
1
)>
r
,.,;o
'rn
..,
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 91
Tol>le 15.-0ccupation and Emplo'£!!'ent Status in December 1935 of Members 16
Through 64 Years of A~, Other Than Heads, Worlcing or Seeking Work, of Rural
Relief Ca1e1 Closed July Through November 1935, by Usual Occupation
(71 oountle representing 7 States]
...
-a
Employed In private lnd11Stry
Total
I
usuaJ occupation or
memben
tJ
..
'3
e e
z9 I
"'
- - ----
.
.!
0
<I
0
E--
'ii
0
r-.
E--
32.11
16.1
~
8
s
:a
100.0
37.1
4. 2
Agriculture •• _••••.• _.
N ooagrlculture •.... _.
No usual occupation ••
100.0
66. 7
7. 7
78
40
24
f -t --
-611.0- 3.8
-t -t
I>-
"Cf
., ..., -a
!
a..,
I... fldl 1 ·u
II:
d
'i
8
II:
p
rn
MoNTil.l
Total_ ·-. ··-----------···· 142
~
N onagrlculture
Acrfculture
4.11
-
~
p
--
)6.1
4. 11
6.3
-- -18.30.-07
-2. 6 11. 5
-t -t f f
-- --
1. 2
-
0.11
11.4
12. 1
34.6
2. 11
1. 0
27. 1
1.0
20.0
13.11
34.3
-
-
Sotl'TII D.u:ou
Total •• •••••••.•••.••..••• 214
Agriculture._ . _____ . __
N onagrlcu lture •. _. __ .
No UIU&I occupalion ..
-
96
70
48
100.0
-100. 0
100. 0
t
1.4
36. 6 16. 4
37.9
6.1
-1.0- ------3. 1 81.3
84. 4
-- -- -- 46.- 7 15.-7
'--
--
- - -
t
t
WI.BCONllffl
Tola! •••••••••......•••... 310
100. 0
17. 0
Agriculture._.··- - ___ . 811
Nooagriculture. ______ 168
No118Ual occupation._ 118
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
611. 3
1. 3
Total ••• -------··· ••••••.. 211
100.0
Agrleulture. -·--··-·. _ 411
Nooagrlculture. _. ____ 116
No 11Sual OCCUIJ&tloo. _ 4ft
t
1.0
3. 11
17. 7
Ill. 4
37. 1
7. 7
-
1.11
1.ll
7. 1
2.3
30. 1
8. 8
111. 8
17. 3
23. 6
17. 4
34. 6
67. 7
8. 9
0.6
3. 8
26. 6
11. 8
40.1
t
0.8
-
-- - - - - --- - -1.6
16.4
26.6
6. 8
-
63.6
1.3
3. 5
-
48. 8
8.8
9. 9
0.9
11.0
38. 7
t
t
- -
3. 11
- -
IOW.l
-- - - -100.0
t
o.l
- -- -
0.9
67J
-
16.6
-
- t
- -
6.9
44. 0
t
t
8. 6
23. 3
t
t
WUT VIRGINI.l
Total. •••••••••••.•....• __ 218
100. 0
16. I
1.8
13. 3
16.6
1.8
0. 6
0. 6
12. 8
211.ft
42. 7
100.0
40.G
1.0
39. 6
21. 2
2.3
0. 2
8. I
JO. 6
16. 7
21. 5
2. 0
30. 7
1. 2
17. 2
13. 6
26.0
14.8
20.1
73.8
4. I
16. 7
17.4
-- -- - -t -- ------ -- - - -6.--2 ---- -t
t
t
42. 2
6J
48.4
4sJ
100. 0
100.0
- -- - 2. 6 - 0. 8 0.-11 0 .9 43.11 63. 5
Aertcultnre ....••••..• 40
N onagrlculture . ___ ___ 114
No u.rual occupatloo . . 114
Noam
C.lBOUN.l
Tota) _____________________
1,004
-- - - -3.-2 -0.-6 --- -0.G- - - -1.6 63. 2
100. 0 114. 8
2.6 63.8
6.3
0. 7 26. 1
100. 0
2.6
100. 0
- -- - I. 2 - - -
A grlculture __ ___ . __ • __ 621
N onagrlcultnre _______ 303
No usual occupation __ 80
Wbfte_ ---·······-·----- 656
JOO. 0
48. 2
1.4
48. 8
18. 7
3. 2
0.3
11. I
- - --- - - - - 2. 1 70. 2 3. 7 0.11 - 0. 6 -2.3 15. 3
8. 7
Agriculture.·--------_ 426 100.0 72.3
N ona,n'icul tnre. ___ . __ 163 JOO. 0
9.8 13. 6
Ill.II
1. 2 43.6
4.9 65.0 10. 4
4. 9
No usual occupation __ 66 100. 0
- - - 1. 6 - - - I. 6 24. 2 74. 3
2. 6 22. 7 18. 4
0. 3 26. 3 26.8
29. 2
0.6
Necro---·-······-······- 349 JOO. 0 26.11
-1.6- -21.-6 -28.-2
------0.
6
0.6
47. 7
2. 1
Agriculture .•• •• -•••.. 196 100. 0 48. 2
Non8jUICUlture ..• --·· 140 100. 0
- -- -- 62.-1 1.4- -- 6.-7 M.-O 13. 6t 24.3t
No usual occupation •• 14
t ·See lootnotllll at end of table .
o,
11z
JbyGoogle
92 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Ta&le 15.-0ccupation and Employ_'!'ent Status in December 1935 of Members 16
Throu9h 64 Years of A~, Other Than Heads, Workin9 or Seekin9 Work of Rural
Relief Cases Closed July Throu9h November 1935, by Usual Occupati;;;::tontinued
(71 countlell re~tlng 7 States)
::.0
Employed ln private lndWltrJ'
Total
iS.
Agriculture
UllUAI occupation or
memben
.
.!
z~
.,a
I
N onagrlculture
. .
.s
!
;;
~
t.
0
'3
{:.
§
r-,
1§ '3 i:a
B
0
"" -E-<-
~
:i
=
...
Cll
!...
~
.z
I~.. -a
?. 0
i.
t ti -0
a
a
p
Ir:
8
p
O11:0B0IA
-- ----- - ------ -100. 0 26.5
7.0 19.5
7.5
18.0
48. 0
- 1.-2 -14.0.5-7 -16.7.0-3 :al.
100.0
3
38.6
8.4
41. 1
100.0
- - - - - - - - 24.5 75. 5
White. __________________ 425 100.0 9.4
2. 8
8.6 16.6
3.5
0. 7
50.5
8.0
4. 4 23.5
- - - -- --5.11- -21.-45.8
-Agriculture __________ -153 100.0 26.1
7.8 18. 3
6. 5
6
o.8
N onagricul tore_ ... _. _ 176 100.0
34.6
8.5
1.
7
23.
9
18.
7
5.
7
41.
5
No usual oocupatlon. _ 116 100.0
- - -- - - - - - 26.0 74. 0
Negro ___________________
128 100.0 10. 2
1.6
8.6 32.0
0.8
- 3.1 28.1 9.4 48. 4
- -t - -- ----------------Agriculture_. _________ -47
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Nooegriculture .. _____ 75 100.0
- 48.0 1. 3 - 5.3 41. 4 12. 0 40.0
No usual occupation __
6
t
- - - - - - - t
Total _____ -- --- -·· -- ----. - 553
100.0
9.6
2. 5
7.1
:al.2
2.11
0.5
6.11
11.9
Al(tlculture. ________ .. 200
Nonegriculture __ . ___ . 251
No usual occupation .. 102
t Percent not computed on a base or fewer than 50 cases.
1
Exclusive or members for whom this Information was not avallabl~,
Dig tizncJ by
Goog Ie
:al. 2
50.0
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES•
93
Tol>le 76.-0uration of Job in Private Industry Held in December 1935 by Heads,
16 Throu9h 64 Years of A9e, of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Throu9h November
1935
(71 countlell re~tlng 7 States]
Number of montm employed
Total
State and lndnatrlal
group
Nwn•
ber
Peroent
1
3.1
2
3
4-6
7-9
11
10-12 13--2'
~
--
M0KTAIU,
Total ••••••••••••••.•••
262
100.0
Agriculture ...•••••
N onagrlculture ••••
210
62
100.0
100.0
37or
more
2.3
3.1
- 15.4 11.5
0.5
13.6
-1.0- -1.0- -1.0- --4.-- -1.4
7
2.9
811.8
11.8
3.1
2. 3
1. 5
6.0
2.3
70.5
2G. 0
11.6
7. 7
1. 9
6.8
-
6.8
2.8
6.11
119.8
0.9
8.8
4.9
411.11
1.4
6.9
8.8
71.4
SoumD.u:ou
Total •.••••••••••••.•••
Agriculture ••...•••
N onagrlculture ••••
322 100.0 6.11
----0.4
266
100.0
57
100.0
29.8
100.0
6.6
2. 8
1. 9
5.3
1. 2
1. 9
3.1
1.1
10.5
0.8
7.0
1.1
24.11
0.8
8.6
0.8
7.0
3.4
1.8
3.8
12.8
8.1
7.2
-3.4- -6.-7 -82.5
- 6.3 10.5
WlllCOKBIN
Total •.•••••••••••••...
Agriculture ...•••••
Nonagrlculture ••••
-6.9-220
- -100.0 -1.8- --- 1. 8 -1.8
0.6
2. 7
845
125
100.0
12.0
8.4
20.0
9.6
32.0
12.0
9.8
-
-
1.11
a.2
I0W.l
Total ••••••••••••••••••
Agriculture •••••••.
Nonagrlculture •••.
100.0
2.2
7.11 14.3 31.0 13.1 11.5
3.8
11.1
3.6
314
1.9
---7.4- -10.4- -17.-8 -16.3- -11.1- --6.2- -4.4- -23.0
--100.0
136
4.4
179
100.0
3.9
7.8 17.3 40.9 10.6 11.7
3.4
2.2
2.2
-
WUT VmolNl.l
Total ••••••••••••••••••
Agriculture ••••.••.
Nonagrlculture ••••
267
-134
133
-
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.2
.2.2
8.4
22.5
10.5
4.1
4.1
2.9
2.5
11.3
3.9
3.5
6.1
0.2
12. 8
1.9
7.3
5.5
4.1
0. 7
2.11
0.4
46.4
3. 1
4.0
69.8
0.9
1. 8
- -- -- - - -- - 1.5- --3.8- --o. 7
90.4
0. 7
- - o. 7 2.2 -6.8
10.5
4.6 12.8 44.3 18. 8
0.8
1. 6
-
Noam C.l&OLlll'.l
Total •••••••••••••••.•.
Agriculture •••••••.
N onagriculture•••.
White •••••••••••••••
Agriculture ......•.
Nonagrlcultnre ••••.
750
100.0
-632
- ---0.9---100.0
2.1
0.4
-3.9- -4.9- -711.3
-
218
100. 0
9.2
9.2
6.4
0.9
36.8
680
100.0
3.3
2.8
2.1
11.0
3.8
3.3
421
159
100.0
100. 0
9.4
10.1
-
o. 7
6. 7
o. 5
39.0
13. 2
-
1.9
6.9
7. 1
3.6
4.1
12.4
4.7
4.1
8.8
0.9
11. 9
1.8
8.6
9.0
8.5
-1.1
8. 8
2. 8
I.I
0.5
- - --- -- - - - - -- - - - -
Negro ................
170
100.0
Agriculture .••.••••
N onagriculture •••..
111
69
100.0
100.0
Total •••••..•••...•••..
216
Agriculture_ •..••..
N onagrlcultnre ••••
91
125
White •••••••••••••••
Agriculture ••••.•••
N onagrlculture •.••.
1.0
-11.3- -1.8- -1.8-
11.5
-- - - - - -4.0
2.9
4. 6
62.5
4.5
2.6
3.8
0.6
6.6
1. 9
82. 1
10. 7
3.6
2.4
49.4
1. 6
1.6
13.6
1.4
0.5
3. 7
2.2
0.8
1.1
7. 7
0.8
34.2
-74. 7
-4.6- -2.-7 -68.6
-
8. 6
6.8
8.5
2. 7
30.6
100.0
20.4
9. 7
11.6
12.0
100.0
100. 0
6.5
31. 2
3.3
14. 4
11.2
-
4.4
17. 6
14.4
4.8
183
100.0
19. 7
9.3
7. 1
12.6
9.8
2. 7
78
105
100.0
100.0
6. 4
29. 6
3.8
13.3
12. 4
3. 8
19.0
17.1
Negro•••••.•.•••••••.
33
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
-
t
Agriculture .•••••..
N onagricultnre.•.•.
13
20
f -t
-
-t
t
-t
-
-
t
OS0BGU
t
- --
-
l -
-
4.8
4.8
33.9
3.3
-1.3- -6.4- -75.-7
2.6
- - 1.0 2. 9
t
-
--t
l
t Percent not computed on a base of fewer than 50 cases.
Oig112cd by
Google
94 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Table 17.-Age of Male Heads 1 16 Through 64 Years of Age Employed on the Worlcs
Program I in December 1935
(71 counties representing 7 States)
Ageln,ean
Total
State
Number
Percent
16-:H
26-34
~
----------•--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Montana.. ..................... .
South Dakota.. •.•••••••••••..•.
Wlaooualn•••••.•••••••••••••.••
Iowa .......................... .
West Virginia.. ....•.••.••.••••.
North Carolina ••••••••••..•.••
White •••....•••...•••.••••
Negro. •••••• -----·· •• ···-·.
O~ltie··········-····---··-
Negro•. -··· ••••• -·· ••..•...
133
230
610
124
218
&44
240
104
426
346
80
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
27.0
6.3
ti. 7
8. 2
8. 2
12. 8
11.6
82. 8
6. 7
11.3
22. l
30.8
36.3
28.9
29.4
32. 6
13. 8
6.2
16.6
13. 9
18. 2
24.11
ll.8
Ill.II
9. 7
27.1
22. 4
17. 4
23.2
26.0
13.8
13.4
10.4
IS. 3
31.8
17. l
17.1
17. 6
111. 2
29. 6
28.0
20.0
30.4
32. 6
12. 4
:H.l
27.0
22. 2
24.3
33.9
37.0
n2
14.3
12. 1
23.8
1 Of rural roller cases closed Inly tbrou11h November ll!M.
• E:rclualve of the Civilian Comervatlon Corps.
Table 18.-Age of Males 1 16 Thrc;,1,1,h 64 Years of Age, Other Than Heads of Cases,
Employed on the Worlcs Program in December 1935
I44 counties representing 4 States)
Age ID yean
State
___________,____ ---- - - - --- --- --- --- --Wl!ooualn ....•..................
West Virginia .................. .
Number
Peroent
62
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
68
North C'arollna................. .
White .••••..•....•..........
Negro ••.•..•..•.............
137
81
M
Georgia ................... ·-.·- ..
66
16-17
18-24
13. 6
10. 3
19.0
16. 0
23. 2
20.0
67.3
77. 6
73. 7
77.8
67.9
65.6
~
9.6
6. 2
6.8
3. 7
8.11
14. 6
~M
36-44
9.6
I. 7
1.5
2.5
3. 5
~
1. 7
1 Who were members of rural relief ceses cloled Iuly through November 11136.
Table 19.-Amount of Relief Received in December 1935 by Rural Relief Cases 1
Closed July Through November 1935 and Reopened Within the Same Period
(60 counties representing 6 States]
Amount or relier received
Montana
South
Dakota
W!aconsln
Iowa
North
Carolina•
Number.............................
144
121
102
297
101
Percent..............................
100. O
100. O
100. O
100. 0
100. 0
211. 9
47.11
24. 0
6. 0
4. l
o. 8
33. 9
18. 7
10. 9
11. 6
7. 3
3. l
17. 8
18. 6
23. 7
21. 2
7. 4
3. 7
18. 8
2. 0
2. 0
3. 3
6. 2
2. 0
1----1----1----1-----1----Less than $6.00............................
4. 2
14. 9
ll. 4
6. 7
77. 2
$6.00-$9.99 ....•.••. ··-········-······-·· •..
$10.00-$14.99....... ····-·······. ·••·•·· .• ..
$16.00-$19.99 .•... ········-· .. ...• .... ... ...
~-00-$211.99.... •• . ••••.. ••.•••...•••• .. ...
$30.00-$39.99 ..•• ····-·····-········-···-···
$40.00-$t9.99..•.•.••. _. .. . • . . . • .. . • . • • • . . . .
$60.00 or more •.•• ···---·-·················
1
1
27. &
18. 7
9. 7
6. 5
2. l
2. 1
Exclusive or CB/11'8 for which this lnrormation was not available.
The number of cases was not great enough to warrant a breakdown by color.
Dig1w,
byGoogle
Tai,,. 20.-Size of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935, by Relief Status In December 1935
[ii counties rep rese nting 7 States]
Total
N um her or persons in case
I
Helier stat us In Deeemhe,r 1935
I
~umber
Percent
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
19. 4
9.0
16. 7
7. 6
16.1
12. 5
17. 0
13. 3
7.6
9. 6
2.1
i. 6
2. 8
3. 7
2. 8
2.5
0. 8
9
10
II
12 or
more
J\10STASA:
He lier received . . .. ... . .. .. .... . ........ .
No relirr recei~cd _ __ .. __. ___ ____ _. _.. __ __
0. 8
-
2. 3
3. 8
1.8
-
0. 8
I. 4
2. 5
0. 5
3. R
3. 9
3. 6
3. 5
2.6
0.9
2. 1
0. 5
o.~
0. 5
4. 2
4. I
6. 7
2. 4
2. 7
3.9
0. 7
0.9
0. 7
0.6
0. 3
0.6
4. 3
4. 0
1.0
100.0
100.0
3.5. 5
11. 3
121
568
100.0
HIO.O
10. 7
,.,
10. 7
16. 4
24 . I
18. 9
14. I
17. I
14. 0
15.0
9.9
9. 7
5. 8
6. 0
4. I
3. i
3. 3
1.8
194
100.0
lW.0
9. 8
i. l
12.9
12. 5
Ii. 0
18. S
14. 4
18. i
17. 0
9. 8
9.0
5. 7
111.4
4. 6
4. 6
100. 0
100.0
3.0
4. 2
12. 1
14. 1
17. 8
20. 3
20. 6
20. 0
14. 8
14. 4
11. 8
9. 3
9.1
8. 1
\ V1scoS SIN:
He lier received . . .......... . ... . . . .. . .. . . .
No relier received __.... _.. _.. __ .. __. ... _.
;45
7. 4
-
0. i
0.6
IH
35-1
80t'T II DAKOTA:
Heiler recol,·ed ... . . . . . . ••..... .. .. ...... .
Xo re Her received __ __ __ ______ _. . __ . _____ _
J O WA:
Relier reeeJved .. . ..... . .. .... ... . . ... • . .
N o re lie! received .... . .. . . . .. . ... .. .... . .
297
334
WEST \ " JHGISI.<:
Relier receh·M . ..... ..• . .. .... . ..•... . . . .
No relie f received . ___ . ___ ____ ___ ____ _____
40
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
486
100.0
8. 4
0. 9
15. 9
17. 5
12. 6
10. 3
8. 6
7. 6
4. 7
2.t
104
1,053
100. 0
100. 0
R.7
10. 6
II. 3
I I. 5
I~. 8
15. 4
17. l
18. 2
15. 6
10.6
JI. I
14. 4
J I. 2
5. 8
6. 2
3. 8
4. 7
3. 2
03
739
100.0
100. 0
7. 9
2. 2
II.I
i .9
Hi. 5
14. 3
Ii. 2
25. 5
15. 6
6. 3
11.8
19.0
11. 9
4. 8
I. 6
4. 6
41
314
100.0
15
t
N ORTII C.-\ROLI SA:
Holier recel ,·ed ... . . .. . ....... ... . .. . ... . .
I\" o rnliel rocel ,•ed .. . . . .• .. •.. • . .• . ••.... .
White :
Relief reeeh·ed . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . ...... .
Js; o relie! received . . . .. • ... . . .. . ....... . . .
N~gro:
Relie r N'CTh·ed . .. . ....••. . ... •. ..• • ... .. .
No reliel received ... .. . ... . . . . .•....... ..
t
GEORGIA:
c:;
<g
;::.
(!)
"'-
u
Heller received .. . . _.. .. . . .... . .. .. . ... . . .
No rellel recei ved ... . .•.. •••. .. •••..•.. . •
White :
Helie.r recei ved ... .. .. . . ..... .. . .. .. . . .. ..
No relie! received . .. . ... . . . ..... . ..•. . .. · 1
Kegro:
I~elier reeei ve<l .. . .. ... . ..• . • .. .. .•.. .• .. .
1' o relier re~-e, ved . .. .. .... .. .. . . . .. .. ....
022
100.0
14
746
t
I
176
'<
C;
0
0
-
00
(v
ftPercent
not computed on a base orrewer than 60
Median not computed for fewer than 60 cases.
100.0
t
100.0
I ..~Iedian
-------
---- ----
2. S
t
4.1
-
5. 0
-
5. 4
-
3. 4
10. 7
t
t
t
t
t
12. 7
14. 0
W.3
15. 6
9.6
t
t
t
t
t
16. 8
19. 1
17. 6
14. 3
10. 4
t
t
t
18.1
t
t
16. 4
-
18. 8
19. 2
t
18. 2
-
15. 3
14. 5
-
13. 6
10. 9
-
8. 5
t
.'>. 7
t
t
-
2. 6
-
1. 0
0. 4
-
-
tt
0 6
4. 4
1. 0
1.0
4. 7
1. 6
4. 8
4. 7
0. 8
-
4. 7
t+
0. 6
4. 1
5. !
4. 8
2. 5
I. 6
4. 7
6.8
6. 7
t
2.5
2. 0
-
0.8
-
0. 3
tt
t
-
-
-
-
-
7. 4
4. 4
3.9
-
6. 8
2.1
-
4. 0
1. 9
-
2.3
0. 8
-
0. 6
4. 0
tt
0.1
4. 0
l. I
4. I
tt
V,
C
:g
r
'"
~
z'"
-t
)>
,i:,
-<
-t
)>
a,
r
CUffl.
rn
•
,0
UI
96 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Tal,#e 21.-Age of Heads of Rural Relief Cases Closed July Through November 1935,
by Relief Status in December 1935
(71 counties rern-ntlng 7 States)
Age In years
Total
Relief status In Deoember 11135
Number
Percent
Ul--24
144
BM
100.0
100.0
a.5
4.2
121
li68
100.0
100. 0
1114
745
297
334
~
MONTANA:
Relief l'fX'elved .... ___________
No relief received ____________
8oUTB DAKOTA:
Relief received _______________
No relief received ___________ .
Wl!ICONSIN:
Relief l'fX'elved _______________
No relief received .. __________
IOWA:
Relief recelvNI .... ___________
No relief l'fX'elved ____________
WEST VIRGINIA:
Relief
received
... ··---------_
No
relief
received
____________
NORTH CAROLINA:
Relief received _______________
No relief received ___________ .
White:
Relief received .. __________ • __
No relief received ____________
Negro:
Relief received _______________
No relief received ____________
OIIORGIA:
Relief received. ____ • _______ ..
No.relief received ____________
White:
Relief received. ______________
No relief received ____________
Negro:
Relief received ______________ .
No relief received ____________
~
Mand
over
36--44
46--64
13.11
21.5
11.1
26. l
17. 4
KIi
18. 1
16.1
IG. 0
8. 2
8. 3
7.0
33.0
28.0
20. 7
26. 4
21.5
18. 5
10. 7
Ui.7
5.8
4. 4
100.0
100.0
5. 7
8. 2
25.8
29.8
24. 7
23. 1
23. 7
22.8
11.B
11. 7
10.8
4. 8
100.0
100.0
6. 1
8. 4
2!UI
26.6
28.11
28. 7
21.9
111.8
12. 1
14. l
4. 4
2. 4
------ --- --- ---
t
40
t
t
t
t
t
t
486
100.0
13.0
26. 5
22. 0
22. 2
14.8
2. 7
104
1,063
100.0
100.0
5.8
II. l
22.1
26.0
19. 2
KIi
20.2
23. l
111.2
16. 0
13. 6
63
739
100. 0
100.0
8.3
JO. 1
23.8
26.3
22. 2
26.1
15.9
21.8
17.5
14. 6
14. a
1. 2
41
314
100.0
16
922
100.0
t
t
t
748
100.0
1
176
100.0
t
27J
27. 7t
t
11.8
-
t
t Percent not computed on a base of fewer than l!O
22.0
11.0
t
14
t
6. 7
-
28. 4
7.4
t
22.0
t
K6
t
25. 2
-
22. 2
t
t
26. l
19. 7
t
t
19.4
12.6
t
t
19.3
11.8
-
-
Ill.II
15.3
1.11
t
3. 5
4.;
t
4.2
t
6. 8
cases.
Tal,/e !!.-Relief and Employment Stotus in December 1935 of Heads of Rural Relief
Cases Closed July Through November 1935
[71 counties representing 7 States)
...!f.
.!!
r:l
0
Relfe!~~::Se~g!.'::tment
J§
~
Number ___________________
Percent____________________
A
North Carolina
Georgia
]i
>
r:l
a
. i 3 :a:l i 3 8 i
"' 1
~
...
-- -i:t=- - - -i:t=- -E-<- -i:t=- -z- -E-<- -~- -z-5
~
0
0
0
689
631
526 I, 157
498
802
355
937
939
760
100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
-- -- -- ---- ----
Works Program I only ___________ 12. 2
Works Program r Rl1d private
employment• only .. _____ .. __ . 11.8
Works Program• and relief• ____ 5.0
CfviliR11
Conservation
Corps•--Relief only
______________________
19.0
Relief
Rl1d private employment
only ___________________________
4.8
Resettlement•------------------- I. 2
Nonlll!'.ricultuml
employment
only ___________________________
9.6
Farm operator only ______________ 26. 6
Farm laborer only _______________ 0.4
No employment, relief, or Rel!lllttlement Administration aid_ 11.4
177
100.0
22.9
34.8
4.3
26.3
16.8
13.3
24. 4
63.3
61.8
611.4
2.5
11.0
0.6
4.6
11.8
8.0
I. 2
8.3
o. 5
15. 5
o. 8
17.11
13.3
I.II
1.9
4.4
16. 2
2. 6
0. 6
3.4
20.0
2.1
0. 7
2. 7
7.9
3. 7
0.3
4.8
6.8
0.5
I. 9
0.6
7. I
o. 7
2.1
o. 7
6.6
1.1
0.6
2.3
23.3
3.4
6. 4
13. 5
-
I. 3
0.6
2.8
2. 0
2.tl
1.2
3.1
3. 7
0.4
0.1
0.5
0. I
--
7.3
16. 4
1.2
II. 5
5. 9
1.4
26.3
6. 2
8. 2
25.1
II. 4
1.1
l~.tl
23. 9
2.9
19.6
28. 2
1.9
16.3
14. 6
6. 4
13. 9
4. 4
l. 2
14.1
4.11
1. 2
13.0
2.3
1.1
11.9
9.3
6.8
12. 7
10. 2
7. 7
15.8
ltl.11
ltl. 8
16.11
-
• Excluding the Clvfllan Conservation Corps.
• Principally agricultural.
• Including some ca.""" which elso had privat~ employment.
• Including a few ca.sea which also received relief.
• All cases under care of the Resettlement Administration also had private employment (farming) and a
few also had relief or Works Program employment.
Dig1w,
byGoogle
Appendix 8
METHODOLOGICAL NOTE
THE PRESENT survey was undertaken to discover how rural households which had received relief in June and which had been closed prior
to December 1, 1935, were faring at the end of the year when practically
the last Federal allotments for general relief purposes had been made
to the States. It was, in effect, a follow-up study of general relief
cases enumerated in the Survey of Current Changes in the Rural
Relief Population in June 1935. A complete description of the
methodology of the latter survey has been included in a previous
publication. 1 This note describes the manner in which the data
analyzed in the present report were obtained and indicates the extent
to which they may be considered representative of the rural relief
group.
The June Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population
had included more than 120,000 rural cases or one-half of all cases
receiving relief in 300 sample counties in 30 States and 83 sample
townships in Connecticut and Massachusetts. 2 In the interests of
economy of time and of funds it was found necessary to limit the
scope of the present study to a single month, to a relatively small
number of counties, and to a relatively small sample of households
from each county. A major reason for such limitation was the fact
that several items of information required could not be secured from
secondary sources and competent field personnel had to be selected
and trained for family interviews.
THE STA TES SAMPLED
Seven States were selected for the follow-up study of closed cases.
These were Montana, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, West Virginia,
North Carolina, and Georgia, in each of which the Rural Current
1 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, appendix B, pp. 139-202.
'Ibid., pp. 185-188.
97
Digit zca oy
Goog IC
98 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
Change Survey had been made in June 1935. The selection of the 7
States from the 32 included in the larger survey was based chiefly
on administrative considerations. At the time they were selected,
the States represented important variations in administrative programs and practices of caring for needy families. Some States had
made special provisions for continuing the general relief program
after withdrawal of Federal aid; others had made little or no provision
for such a program. Various stages of development of the Works
Program and of the rural rehabilitation program of the Resettlement
Administration were represented. In addition the States covered a
fairly wide geographical range including the West, Midwest, and
South and represented a variety of type-of-farming areas and of rural
nonagricultural enterprises. The 7 States contained 71 sample
counties, 8 previously selected as representative of the rural relief
situation.
SELECTION OF SAMPLE CASES
The universe of cases sampled within each county consisted of all
cases which received general relief in June and were closed during 1 of
the 5 succeeding months, including those that were reopened on general relief rolls. Samples were selected from the Current Change
Survey schedule (DRS-109A) filled for a 50 percent sample of all cases
closed during these months. In some counties, where DRS-109A
schedules were not filled, the sample for November was selected from
control card (DRS-109D) files established for all cases in each county
as a part of previous surveys. Selection of samples was made in the
field where duplicate copies of all schedules had been kept in accordance with specific instructions provided by the Washington Office as
follows:'
Selecting a Sample of Cases Closed During July, August, September, and
Oct-Ober: In selecting the sample from the DRS-109A schedule the procedure outlined below must be followed:
1. On the basis of Section A of schedule DRS-109A sort all duplicat.e
schedules into four groups--July closings, August closings, Sept.ember closings, and October closings.
2. Check Section H on each schedule in each of the four groups to be
certain that closed case schedules only have been included.
1 Two more North Carolina counties were included in this study than in the
State sample for the June 1935 Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief
Population.
' /nstructiom for Sampling and Filling Schedule 409A, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., January 13, 1936,
pp. 4-7.
Oig112cd by
Google
METHODOLOGICAL NOTE• 99
3. Examine entries in Section C-Emergency Relief and Employment
History-on each DRS-109A schedule and remove all schedules for
cases that did not have a relief status in June 1935 in the county of
this survey.
4. Arrange the schedules in each group in alphabetical order according
to the last name of the client.
The schedules are now ready for the selection of the sample.
Each of the four groups of schedules (grouped by month of closing)
will be sampled separately. The size of the sample for any group will
depend upon the number of schedules in that group.
The detailed sampling procedure for any particular county will be as
follows for each of the four groups of schedules:
Number of 109A schedules filled for a particular month
Sampling
ratio
1-49 _________________ _
50-99 ________________ _
Percent
100
50
100-199 ______________ _
200 or more ___________ _
25
10
Selection of schedules
Take all schedules.
Select every 2d schedule 1, 3, 5,
7, etc.
Select every 4th schedule 1, 5, 9,
13, etc.
Select every 10th schedule 1, 11,
21, 31, etc.
The cases represented by the 109A schedules so selected will constitute
the samples for July, August, September, and October, and for each of
these cases a DRS-409A schedule will be filled.
Selecting a Sample of Case3 Closed During November: If DRS-109A
schedules were filled for a 50 percent sample of cases closed during November, proceed to select a reduced sample from these schedules following
precisely the same procedure as outlined for July, August, September,
or October.
If DRS-109A schedules wne not filled for a 50 percent sample of November closed cases, the 409A sample for this month will be selected from
the control cards (DRS-109D) for the November closed cases. In selecting
this sample, adhere strictly to the following procedure:
1. Examine carefully the file of control cards for November closed cases
to make certain that the file is complete; i.e., that there is on file a
card for each and every case closed during November. Make
certain that cards for November closings only are included and that
entries on each of these are complete.
2. Examine the entries on each of the control cards to determine whether
the case represented had a relief status in June 1935. Reject each
card which shows conclusively that the case did not receive relief
during June.
3. Arrange the accepted cards in alphabetical order according to the last
name of the client. The cards are now ready for the selection of the
sample.
Digit zca oy
Goog IC
100 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
4. The detailed sampling procedure for each county will be 88 follows:
Number of control
cards for November
closings
Sampling
ratio
Less than 100 _________ _
100-199 ______________ _
200-399 ______________ _
Percent
50
25
12. 5
-400 or more ___________ _
5
Selection of control cards
Select every 2d card 1, 3, 5, 7, etc.
Select every 4th card 1, 5, 9, 13, etc.
Select every 8th card 1, 9, 17, 25,
etc.
Select every 20th card 1, 21, 41, 61,
etc.
The cues represented by the cards so selected will constitute the November sample, and for each of these cues a DRB-409A form will be filled.
Caae Duplication in the Selected Sample: Since a cue may have been
closed two or more times during the period July to November, inclusive,
the same caae may fall in the sample for 2 or more months. For example,
a caae closed and selected 88 a part of the July sample may have been
reopened in August and again closed and selected 88 a part of the September sample. Such duplication in the samples should be carefully determined 88 follows:
1. Attach each of the control cards selected 88 a sample of November
closed cases to a blank 409A schedule. There will then be five
groups of schedules each constituting a sample of cases closed
since June. Four of these groups will be made up of 109A forms
constituting samples of July, August, September, and October
closed cases. The fifth group will be made up of blank 409A forms
to each of which a filled control card (109D) is attached.
2. Combine these five groups of schedules into a single group arranged
in alphabetical order according to the last name of the client as
shown on the schedules or control cards. Thie arrangement will
bring together all schedules upon which the same case is entered.
Schedules thus duplicated in the samples for different months
should be clipped together.
3. Only one 409A schedule will be filled for a client whose name appears
more than once.
A complete list of th~se duplicatioM miut, ho11>ever, be made showing the client's name, address, and caae number and
the different months in which he appeared in the sample. Thu lut
miut be forwarded to the Washington Office along with a full and
detailed description of the sampling procedure followed in each county
for each month. This material should be sent to Washington aa soon
as the samples are selected and duplications determined.
Use of Previously Filled 109A Forms as Sources of Information for
DRS-409A: A number of entries on the 409A schedule may be transcribed
directly from previously filled 109A forms. In order to facilitate this
transcription and the editing of the entries, the procedure will be as follows:
1. To each of the 109A schedules representing the July, August, September, and October samples attach a 409A form entering immediately the name, address, and case number of the client in Section
E. Let these schedules remain attached until transcription is
finished and editing by the State editor is complete.
Oig112cd by
Google
METHODOLOGICAL NOTE •
101
2. Transcribe the name, address, and case number of each client in the
November sample from the control card to Section E of the 409A
schedule. From each of the control cards constituting the November sample determine whether a DRS-109A schedule was filled for
the case as a part of the October active cross-section sample. If
such a schedule was filled, obtain the duplicate schedule from the
file and attach it along with the control card to the 409A schedule.
This October schedule may be used as a source of information in
lieu of a closed case schedule (109A) where none was filled. If
only a control card exists for a case closed in November greater
use will have to be made of agency records as sources of information.
Since a separate sample was drawn for each of the 5 months in each
of the 71 counties sampled, a total of 355 subsamples was taken.
These samples varied in size from 5 percent to 50 percent of all cases
sampled. The great bulk of the samples were, however, 50 percent
of the total. Of the 355 samples taken, 312 were 50 percent samples,
30 were 25 percent samples, 10 were 12.5 percent samples, and only
3 were 5 percent samples (table A).
Tal,le A.-Size of Samples Drawn July Through November 1935 in 71 Counties Included
in D~S-409 Survey, by State
Number of samples
Size or sample
Number ol C'ases from
which sample was drawn
West
North
Caro• Georgia
lina
Vir•
ginia
------1---------1--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total.•............••..................
ro percent •..•.....
Less than 100 cases ..... .
25 percent .•....... 100-1\Xlcases .••.........
12.5 percent........ 200-3119 eases ............ .
6 percent. •........ ,j()(J cases or more .•......
40
45
46
ro
20
l
4
6
1
8
l
3
g
1
70
85
4
l
2
-------- - ---82
39
34
36
47
10
64
2
Source: Correspondence with field supervisors.
In the 71 counties sampled there were approximately 15,400 rural
cases eligible for inclusion in the study. The samples taken included
a total of 5,377 usable schedules, the sample constituting 35 percent
of the total for all counties and all months. The average size of the
sample varied by States, ranging from 23 percent in South Dakota,
. where the volume of closings was large, to 47 percent in Montana,
where relatively few closings occurred (table B).
Tal,#e 8.-Rural Relief Cases Active in June 1935 and Closed During the Following
5 Months in 71 Counties and the Proportion of Cases Included in DR5-409 Survey
Sample, by State
State
Montana....••••.........•.........•..................•
~~~~~~~'.~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Iowa.................................................. .
West Virginia ..••••.....•..••..••..•...•..........•..•.
North Carolina.-······-···-·········-·················
Georgia.··-··-·-·-····-····-· ...... ··-· ........ --· .... .
Counties
s1U11pled
8
g
g
10
4
14
17
All cases
1,071
3,049
2,471
1,441
1.801
3,a92
2,189
Cases In
Percent
sample
sample
498
61;9
939
631
626
1, 157
1137
Dig tizncJ by
46.5
22. 6
38.0
43.8
29. 2
34. 1
42. 8
Goog Ie
102 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND RELIABILITY OF RESULTS
A considerable part of the information recorded on schedule DRS409A was directly transcribed from form DRS-109A (Survey of
Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population), which in turn
had been transcribed from agency case records or obtained from
family case workers or local relief officials. Information not available from the DRS-109A schedule was obtained from various agency
records wherever such records were available. Information not
obtainable from any secondary source was obtained by family interview by qualified visitors.
While the results of this study are not meant to apply to the rural
United States as a whole, it may be assumed that they are accurate
within reasonable limits of error for the rural sections of the States
actually sampled. Such assumption is based on the consideration
that the cases were carefully chosen to avoid bias in sampling.
SAMPLE COUNTIES REPRESENTING SEVEN STA TES
Montana:
Chouteau
Daniels
Garfield
Granite
Lake
Madison
Meagher
Prairie
South Dakota:
Brookings
Corson
Custer
Edmunds
Grant
Hand
Hutchinson
Jackson
Meade
W1SConsin:
Calumet
Chippewa
Crawford
Forest
La Crosse
Portage
Sauk
Wisconsin-Con.
Sawyer
Walworth
Iowa:
Appanoose
Black Hawk
Calhoun
Emmet
Guthrie
Ida
Mahaska.
Marshall
Monona
Washington
West Virginia:
Boone
Marion
Nicholas
Pendleton
North Carolina:
Alamance
Cabarrus
Caldwell
Chowan
Franklin
Gates
Hamett
North Carolina-Con.
Jackson
Onslow
Pasquotank
Perquimans
Sampson
Stokes
Wilkes
Georgia:
Chattooga.
Dodge
Greene
Heard
Jenkins
Jones
Lumpkin
McDuffie
McIntosh
Madison
Mitchell
Murray
Muscogee
Pike
Tattnall
Ware
Webster
1Jigl1zccJ by
Google
---• r--
•• _ , . . _ , _, •L•l"IIUll•IIOI
Co11, .. TN
1. •
- " ' •cu•u
a.(l-
CUlt(wt
A$'$1ST1NC( "'~10(0
t.( l
onu ISPEc,..,
Clf:CW ~-
._,01,
- 111
II ld. •• '• 6b 1 '9. 7 at 9 1$ CH(CIII.0-4flC1n:
I
l
I
)II()()
""
tta •vie;
, .(
) O(Cl(AS(O U91 ■ 1NGS ntCIII 0.M(11
, .(
, .(
6 .(
1. (
)
)
)
)
1.,1111(-._an,(ltT rr ld, 6 01 7 IS 04:CtClO-SPEC•FY
~l.l(F
!SOt:DUU IO.
DUAUIG
0(C(Wll,I
11.S IOllCl-Clf.Clt JIO
(!l
19',
h:)
or_:•~: ~~•" I
I
3.
l
1($(Tn_[lll( ■ l
UWILY IJlr()(I CA.Cl{
AOWl ■ t STA&fl OIII : ,t S(
Ill()(
fYP( 1,1() &IIQJIIT
1r 'l'CS LS D< Clll.O :
klaf( &Ca.P T( O
~ ! £ ~ t1o11_S _CI. OS llilG:
c.
u:
O <;(
■4 '>
Cl <5f. D -.:JI(
IOIT1'1 <Y Cl. 0~ lr4G I
l""-11 ()JrQ S ire( .,,.,..
ass, :
if.•SC. JC)P Cl,C51 NI'..
bl•
~-
H()..5(HOl0 lt( C( 1\1(0 SIU( C. 1.o::AL Qll.1tr
T(S ( ),0( )
IIIL IIF
0
0
0
~
rv
I
h&MC ,
lr&fll
,.,. I
PVl!l tC 011
PCI I Y& T(
'"
..
Qfltl.l' 5n, 111Nc.
I
"'
..
()
Mt( (JI &(llllCY
,,,
l.
VIL\.(
;, '"
,.ll.,IH(
loot:
11&.t'S [IIC.,.(10
IC).
CHf.CWl)I( (lC)
'"
"'
s
,
I
I
)
••6
(
J -10
(
l
l
I • S
[IIIGICI0 l it &.CJf lCl.l.. 1U.CI{ 0IA••G PASI' 10 Y(AIS :
UJN CX:.CUIA11C)tl
""'
usr
,_,_
. -··
m ""- ■TI I
511Tu5: 04.Clt CM h l
"""'
rt••'
CIOP'll
....
LA-I
■ 1.11111
C ) 0IIOIIOCIIS
C ) TOTAL AatlS
I ) I'll'( (6 CAI■ COG'
"
8r
8
)>
If ,s •aotl'lllll,I
•1
twr.1.t11t.
a. CRO'S
b . 1. IW($1tJCl
"'
)) . CAS• COG' ACIIS
SU llt(B
0
SAU: C, f4"M lllJl(JH.C(
c . l,.IV[Sta:K NCl>LCl'S
Cit~ ACllS
((
~
&r,l(IUNT
' •
OI • - s Qll(RU(O :
'"
~
MK fl lT (ST&lll 1c.wrr1
c:.,.,
as
1r-r
1
rr, A(QP(IIIUIG
or •IICC),( (l(ctwe(.A 19~,:
l.fl'IICS UtO Jlll[NOS
IUIC &.CCl)J!IIT'S
tw:t
c.
I l
,, HUO
,I
H1
Ot 0£Cl &NQ
.OA.iC
I
t[&'S()IIL
,.
19B 1910
l>f.L IO' 4(.{ M..
'"Y
I'll'( (6
a.
I
aQl>IC O( l,.l (J'
SOJIICI
1, Y~ S Iii CHt CIC( O
~
C.OV•f'I'
'•"114 C.OV•f'l'
~u~,~:,~
C6 AEI.IH O( Q I\IEO Ill OlaV!lf.l
tr CAS[~ll[QP(lll(O sug
li()Yl
t,()Y( Q
D r1°"
11101"'-1 SU.Tl
~~STl,a
ll.110.J11Tt(P&l0
OIi 110 01/1 1-.G O(a lllB( CI 1'," :
0
I
I
,.
;::;
IJ J9,o
19,o O!_LUII
CJI LUii :
fl()I 0 0 114(.1
M0¥(0 ,.()I
f'f' (JI 1H
fl
Cw■ f'f'OI
THIIS
S Sll
SlAfl
I<
k:.f.Plh lr..l'YTK
I
<§.'
ao..-uccs TO o, Tt
IOU!.
k) .
I
I
1• Y(H U,S 1 IO«O
10 nos co.,n,:
)
~~.,!>!
• DA~~ 1
Oll[ Ct 11[1,.l(r
t.
lW\.OftCd
LOSS OI IIE.SUTI.£\1.•1 SlUUS
CIOI' ,11LUIE (II LOSS (S LIV(STOCI
IICIUSlO 111[[05 (S'lCIFY lllLCJI)
OT~I {SP(CIFY IEl.tw)
[l,(QJC'f'
••TtlVI(■
OTHEI (SP[ClfY)
lll(Glle
I<
>U(
t,
OA'll
• COt.011 IJI HC[ (S ~40 OI IQ.6Cd.D
Fi ll.[0 10 R(POIT
JUNE 19'5
11.IJII SA..-U
CW,,IV
't II.LACI (It TOI■
fl ,1E1.0 1a1t
Ill.Ii( fl 504.01.U a.Ill
d,( ) IIILAll•O OI FIIIICIS
sua
CASI. 1111.
11&1(
e. ( ) Ol1€A ( SPECIFY IIILOI)
l.( ) 1owr ■ 1 $ TA.U 1 ~ flOLICY (SflllCIN al.GI)
(JI
CA!(S
llc.lll:O
tr:
,ow1•1$TAATICJf
l(i(ICY (5'1Cll"t .. LOil
\olCHto
, .C) ...
"'"'ll
,.1,
_OI,ICOULlt
n::a
fl CL,1(N1
1($10(1C( : SU,Tl
1'411(
h~
d. ( ) OIIOII (S1'£C1r, •LOIi)
2 . ( ) LOSS OR 0lJUTIOII fJJ lSSUS
CLOSED PIIOt TO O[C[MIU 1, 11)5
[.
•·<l LOCAL
c,() L"OLOIIO
I.( ) CL.l(Jfl
■ [R[
AID
___ --IT
I, L01S t, l..._O'IWlt
...... I . 11r1 . . ,.D111cr••
ltl.L
•1111,.. , · · · · · · " ·. .
SUIIY[Y 0, IUIAL HOUSEHOLDS TMAT KC[IV[D l(Ll[r II JUI[
l - · (S'lCI.., •LOI)
a.( ,.c
IICIIASID , ... ,11(11 '"°'
,_n
,.c ll cocP
•..,«'llo 01 110,uuo coo, 11,cu
1 . ( ) LOUIi (SPEC Ir, SOJIOCl l(LOII)
,.1 l oo,u11,01 • ..,,, <st'lc,.., •1.01>
a. ( ) R(.S(TTl,,l'(NI
. ,,
.aQOl,CWNOfl ■ llllllll.N11lt.lF'IIICIU,__CN
L,
I0&1a1. ll11uu D••••••
-•
'-IC)GIii•~•
l "''"'ll OI • - --IT
c.
6.
,.,.,,,01
,1011111 . . . . . .
111-, L................... "!-
■ 0111
_O_ 1e,,occx (I)
, .
,.
II.
, . , . , . Pll.l'lll(11'5
llf'I.IIAIL6
Co,i,(11'5,UIOII AIIG lil(IIIS I OIIS
nrwr1 SO.CU {S'f:CIN)
"z
r
9
'"•
....
0
w
..
11 . P ,A. rCJl'\I OOS--1101;.l
,.
F'( J150HA L A"IO OCC.uPA1 100 L O&TA
)&TA
ALL P'(QSO,S IN MOJS(MOl.D
IN
..,.,
tt()U'",( 1101.0
...
LO N(
R(LAT 10JfSHIP TO
MU,0 01 toCIJSt H0.. 0
sex
193 ,
<•.
( 04f.CC)
.__
OR
.
,,, . , ,.,
,.)
VEU
CT
BUITH
TES
"'
,'
11 I
,.,o
,.,
IMRlUL
STATLIS
{ \ii.'
s.,
. ,o. ,
S(P. ,
DIV.)
U ST GRAD£
INSC.HOOl,
( 1)(0< )
'1S
CQ.IPL[TtO
.
. .,.
OQA()[
HIQI
,., ,.,
171
COL-
ua
SC•<n.
11 0 )
I,
.. . .
11 21
I I"
I 1,1
""
1161
1111
""
~-
6,
t••
Jl( 1,u••(~:
(1)
L IN[
C")
wo.
'".•.""',. "
0
-
~
"'
(v
~ -
SlcutlD 0R01"4RY [W'I.OY\EN T
LA ID OH
QA
'"
~~
;g
MASOf FOIi: Ell01NG t.OYEA NWCNT
[ t,( ~NCV , . - nYutJrtf
I,
::t
g
PaOJECl (Ntl(Q
"')>
:t
OTHla ( $P£CIFY)
0
s.[!IP\.O't'lo(NI C>I GOv( P!O.( NI [lo( lfr.,[NCY PAC>,,fC TS (( xaPl [.A.A . P'fOJlCTS)JUlT 1. 1c;), IQ tlOV. !O . 19)')
~
rua.£....
2,
,.
0
"Tl
-4
MCU5[W l f'E
UNPAID HCM , WOR'IC(A
ST\U NT
OltCIIIC tU.Hf.SSOA MSICAL OISASILIT'Y
IMD(Olrf.SS 0A IIISIJI ITY
OTMU (5'£CIFY )
l, . IIIJUltCO CIA IUNlSS
•. OISCM4llCI D
,,"
Q_
§
Oil(
,o
,.
Ontf.A (Sll'(CIFY )
I,
2.
3.
•·
"
"
II .
~• AUSQN FOR NOT WORKING OR SC[ICIC WOR!t
•,
•
0
,.
,...,.
.•
,,""
2•
f'MYSICALLY 0A 1€NTALI.Y Ufilfl f
M((D(O AT MC),(
NO L()tG(A HI GISU r0A RtLl(F
..,..,..
)
co·
•
'"...,
IXX)(
"""" ,.,_ .....,,
1111
.
~
• • , . [WtLO'\'l,(NT
,a
ALL P(. lil"i()Jrti l ~
All
ALL F'( A'SC:)Jd )6-6,i, VU"5 a l'() 1,Jll 'l()Rlll
~ TU R'S Of &a
'l()RllllfGQltS{[l(IMG
lfGQltS{[l(IMG IIORK
1r fiiO l
Pll!S( Nl 5 TAHIS
l.6ijt,L [.-ilOY\INT
t1CRtl:ING
ilt•NO,-)
([NT(A •v(s• OR
·NO-)
C(QTIFl(O
C(
QI I Fl(O <JI SH-CING
•CR~
FOQ ff , P.
(I IIP\.CIYIO
MASON
(r.f'\.0't''4:NT
DATl LA.ST
S[[l( ING
((NT(1t
•CR'CIC
CC0.l'A110N
lll()f-li{Ll[f
(IF • HO • ,
IIIDUSTlh'
[NTtll....,.._
J08 [K'llO
S/oOtffil IN
•q•)
IN •,• )
,us
(DOC.l TIC)I
....
R(AS()frt Hit INlllGIIIILlfY f0A
.....
OU[
I 21
AU.SO"
,OR
,a,c,
"'
a::cu~l10N
.,
IND\1511n
'"
OAT!
[ NO i .:;
(1,1)[0
(( IHU NO.
5..0-N I N
,.,
.,
.
'"
,.
(lil'\.OYIUH OllllNG 1H( WONTH
(lil'\.0Yt4:NT
WONlH
... .....
"'1,
s.....
Ll,ll'NlilGS
IN
,.,
<
~
:ii,
OCQ"9Elt
oca"9E 195,
OAT[
'" "'
ORO.
IJ'.Mll~N l
U,(RGllCY
[IIPL,
(N J.loll AGENCY)
(C><CX)
'"
.,
C
, . oo~·,
TYfll Of [.wf>LCJ't'\,(N J
LIN(
IIONPfl.f
RAlt CT
z
[ll(RG[lfCY
OCCUF'UIOM
,.,
IIIIOUSTA
IIIIOUSTAY
,.,
om
[NOED
RC &SON FOA
TOT,1,1.
[AbUIOS
"""1$
ll0RIC£0
,.,
1101
(llOIMG
-··
(UT(II NO.
·•·>
'"
Ill
It
"'r►
"'r'"
iii
"Tl
0
.
...
"
u
v
~
d
""
~ J
44269°-38--9
;
,.,
-
;l ~ ~
0
-
.- -
:-, ~
5 '---
g
..:.
,,,,
.;
"?ls
;
1
►
;
~ ~~ -~
i
I
8
~
Ii
Goog Ie
METHODOLOGICAL NOTE • 105
s~
~~-I~ ;
n
~~~
-
,.,
,,
i.• .
--- .__._._...........
D1g1t zed by
106 • EFFECTS OF THE WORKS PROGRAM ON RURAL RELIEF
SUR\'EY OF CURRENT CHANGES IN THE AURAL RELIEF POPIJUTIO•
CIJNTRIJL CARil DRS 109-D
NAlll! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CASE NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
STATII _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ COUNTY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NlNBER Ill HOUSEHOLD _ _ _ _ _ _ __
l!SUAL
fO(
TEN(
CROP(
OCCUPATION
LAB(
OTH(
NONE(
nu.1 I
O.C.(
RESIDENCE
TOWN(
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
s
OPENF.l) OR REOPENED
CAIIRIED OVER
CLOSl!D
CLOSED BttAUS£ Of :
IIORl<S PROGIWI
IIESETTI.EIIENT ,..,,, IN I STRATI ON
OTHER REASONS
CASE HCLVDED IN 50( 9AltPU
SCHEDULE -FIUED FROII RECORDS
Digitized by
Google
0
N
0
Index
107
Dig,t zed tJy
Goos le
D1g1tzcobyGoogle
INDEX
Page
Activities ofthe Iowa Emergency Reli4 Administration, 193-5___
52n
Age. See Relief cases; Workers.
Aged, aid to _________________________________ x1, xxm, 47, 55-56
Agricultural employment:
AB source of income_________________________________
2, 3
Percent with ________________________________ xvm, 32-34, 96
Annual Report, South Dakota Department of Public Welfare,
July 1, 1935, to July 1, 1936____________________________
49n
ABch, Berta. and Mangus, A. R.: Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation ________________________________________________ 97n
Bankert, Zetta E.: Rural Reli~f Trends, Meade County_______
27n
Number of Households Participating in Three Emergency
Programs a11d County Welfare in Nine South Dakota
Counties__________________________________________
27n
Bartlett, F. S.: "Financial Procedure in the Federally Operated
Relief Administrations in Six States"____________________ 48n
Beck, P. G. and Forster, M. C.: Six Rural Problem Areas,
Relief-Resources-Rehabilitation________________________ 23n
Blind, aid to _____________________________ XI, XXIII, 47, 55-56, 57
Civilian Conservation Corps:
Enrollment of heads of households ________________ In, 36n, 96
Monthlyearnings___________________________________
44n
Dependent children, aid to ____________________ x1, xxm,47, 55-57
Dependents, normal. See Relief cases.
Digest of Public Welfare ProtWJions Under the Laws of the State
of Iowa______________________________________________
Digest of Public Welfare ProiWJions Under the Laws of the State
of Monta11a___________________________________________
Digest of Public Welfare Prorisions Under the Lmrs of the State
o.f South Dafota _______________________________________
51n
50n
50n
"Digest of State Legislation for the Financing of Emergency
Relief"_______________________________________________
51n
Economic status, shifts in ________________________________
Emergency relief funds, sources of_ ___ . _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _
7-13
xm
109
Oig112cd by
Google
110 • INDEX
Page
Emergency Relie,f in North Carolina________________________
Employability (see also Relief cases; Workers):
49n
Of heads and other members of households ____ 16-17, 29, 61-62
Of households _______________________________________ 15-17
White and Negro, compared_______________________
17, 18
Employed worker, definition______________________________
3 ln
Employment. See Agricultural employment; Industry, private; Workers; Works Program employment.
Farm laborers:
Relief history ________________________ 23, 75-76, 77-78, 79-80
Unemployment _______________________________ 32,34,86-90
Works Program employment ______________ 33, 38, 81-83, 86-90
Farm operators:
Employment________________________________________
31
Reasons for closing of cases____ _________________ ______
8
Relief history _____________________ 23-24, 75-76, 77-78, 79-80
Unemployment _____________________________ .. _______ 86-90
Works Program employment_ __________ 33, 37-38, 81-83, 86-90
Type of_ ______________________________________ _ xxn
Farming, principal types of, in States surveyed______________
xn
Farnham, Rebecca. See McGill, K. H.
Federal Emergency Relief Administration:
Final grants ______________________________ x1, xx11-xx111, 47
Direct control in Georgia_____________________________
48
Federal Government, extent of aid by______________________
xm
Female heads of households. See Relief cases.
Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930 _ __ _______________ x1m
Forster, M. C. See Beck, P. G.
Handbook of Procedures for State and District Works Progress
Administrations_______________________________________
Hayes, Grant. See McGill, K. H.
Heads of households. See Relief cases.
Hearings Before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, in Charge of Deficwncy Appropriations _ _ __ _________________________________________
Holcombe, John L. See Lowe, Robert C.
Households. See Relief cases.
26n
16n
Income:
Average amount ____________________________ xx1, 5-6, 69-71
Principal sources ________________________ xx-xx1, 1-4, 67-68
Secondary sources _______________________________ 4-5, 67-68
White and Negro, compared ___________________ xx1v, 4, 35-36
Digit zca oy
Goog IC
INDEX• 111
Industry, private:
Duration of employment _______ r
Page
35, 93
Earnings ________________________________ XXiI, 35-36, 44, 45
Heads and other members of households em ployed__ ____
31,
33,86-90,91-92
Occupational shifts of heads of households____ ____ __ _ 36, 86-90
Types ___________________________________________ 33,34-35
__ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Usual (see also Workers):
Definition______________________________________
20n
Labor Employment Procedure _______________________ 25n, 26n, 29n
Local governments, extent of aid by ________________ XIII, 4, 53, 54
Lowe, Robert C. and Holcombe, John L.: Legislative Trends in
Public Relief and Assistance, December 31, 1929, to July 1,
1936_________________________________________________
Lowe, Robert C. and Staff: Analysis of Current State and Local
Funds Specifically Assigned to Various Welfare Activities,
March 16, 1936 _ _ _ ____________________________________
Digest of Blind Assistance Laws of the Several States and
Territories, as of February 1, 1936____________________
Digest of Old Age Assistance Laws of the Several States and
Territories, as of February 1, 1936____________________
Digest of State and Territorial Laws Granting Aid to Dependent Children in Their Own Homes, as of February 1,
1936_____________________________________________
56n
56n
57n
56n
57n
McGill, K. H.; Hayes, Grant; and Farnham, Rebecca: Survey
of Gases Removed From Relief Rolls in Seventeen Counties in
Georgia for Administrative Reasons in May and June 1935___
Mangus, A. R. See Asch, Berta.
Members, other than heads. See Relief cases.
49n
Methodology:
Information, sources of_______________________________
102
Representativeness of sample ___________________ XIII-XIV, 102
Sample cases:
Method of selection _____________________________ 98-101
Number_______________________________ _ _ _ _ XI-XII, 101
Proportion of June 1935 load___ _ _ __ __ ____________
101
Sample counties __________________________________ xm, 102
Schedule used in study___ _________________ _________ 103-105
Scope of study________________________ ______ _ ___ XI-XII, 97
States represented in study _______________________ XIII, 97-98
Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
July 1 Through July 31, 1935 __ _________________________ xvn
Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
June 1 Through June 30 1936 _ _ _ _______________________ xmn
Dig 11,ed by
Goog IC
112 • INDEX
Page
Mont/,1,y Review of Relief Statistics, Federal Emergency Relief
Administration of Georgia ___ ·__________________________ 4n, 49n
National Youth Administration, employment provided by____
Nonagricultural industries, principal types of, in States surveyed________________________________________________
N onrelief status, definition_ _ _ ____________________________
Occupation, usual (see al,so Workers; Works Program employment):
Definition__________________________________________
Open country (see al,so Residence):
Definition__________________________________________
ln
XII
59n
20n
12n
Reasons for Closing Rural Relief Cases, March-June and JulyOctober, 1935 _____________ ____________ ____________ _____ xm
Relief (see al,so Relief cases):
And employability status of members of households_____
62
And employment status of heads of households ____ xvm, 61, 96
And other income ________________________ 4-5,53n,56,67-68
Average amounts_ _______________________ xxm, 53, 54, 55, 94
Duplication with Works Program earnings ____________ 5, 67-68
Extent, December 1935 _______________ xxu-xxm, 4, 52-53, 96
History __________________________ 23-24, 75-76,77-78,79-80
Intensity, variation by States, June 1935_______________
XII
Periods:
Definition ______________________________________ 23n
Number of_ ______________________________ 23-24, 75-76
Reopenings:
Number ________________________________________ 10-11
Reasons ____________________________________ xx, 10-12
White and Negro, compared ______________________ 11-12
Separations from:
Number__________ _____________________________ XI, 101
Methods used in _______________________________ xiv-xv
Reasons _______________________________ XI, xix-xx, 7-9
Surveys________________________________________ xvn
Sources of funds ______________________ x111, xx11-xxI11, 53-54
Transfers from, to other agencies___ ______________ _____ 8-9
White and Negro, compared__________________________ 9, 24
Relief agencies in States:
Georgia ___________________________________________ _ 48--49
Iowa ______________________________________________ _ 51-52
Montana __________________________________________ _
50
Oig112cd by
Google
INDEX• 113
Page
Relief agencies in States-Continued.
North Carolina._____________________________________
49
SouthDa.kota, _______________________________________ 49-50
West Virginia, _______________________________________ 50-51
51
Wisconsin__________________________________________
Relief cases:
Comparison of, with nonrelief cases:
Age of heads____________________________________ 60, 96
Employability:
Of heads ___________________________________ 61-62
Of other members___________________________
62
Female heads___________________________________
61
Normal dependents ______________________________ 62-63
Size of households_ _____________________ xxm, 59-60, 95
White and Negro, compared ______________________ xx1v
Definition _______________________________________ x1vn, 59n
Report on Progress of the Works Program, March 1937 ________ 44n
Report on Progress of the Works Program, October 15, 1936____
42n
Report on the Works Program ___________________________ 25n, 42n
Representativeness of sample. See Methodology.
Resettlement Administration:
As source of income_ _ _ ______________________________ 2-4
Clients under ca.re, number of_________________________
XI
Establishment______________________________________
XI
Extent of aid_______________________________________
38
Land utilization projects_ ____________________________
42
Transfer to, of relief cases _______________________ xx, 8-9, 38
Residence:
12
Changes _____________________ ~---------------------June and December 1935_____________________________
13
Rural areas, definition__ _________________________________ xm
Rural population, percent on relief, June 1935______________
XII
Sample. See Methodology.
Sex. See Workers; Works Program certification; Works Program employment.
Social Security Board, types of aid granted by ________ x1, 47, 55-57
Soil Conservation Service, erosion control projects of_________
42
State governments, extent of a.id by_______________________ xm
States represented in study _______________________ xu-xm, 97-98
Statistical Summary of Emergency Relief Acti1:ities, January
1933 Through December 1935 __ __________________________ 52n
Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population__ _ x1m,
22n, !)7, 98n
Oig112cd by
Google
114 • INDEX
Trend of Rural Relief, The________________________________
Types of Farming in the United States___________ ___________
PQ1Je
x1m
x1m
Unemployability:
Definition__________________________________________
16
InGeorgia _____________________________________ x1vn
Percentof __________________________________________ 15-17
Reasons for, of heads and other members of households_ 16-17, 72
Unemployment, extent of_ ___________________ 31-34, 86-90, 91-92
Village (see also Residence):
Definition__________________________________________
12n
Wells, Anita: "The Allocation of Relief Funds by the States
Among Their Political Subdivisions" ___________________ 51n, 52n
48n
Williams, E. A.: "Legal Settlement in the United States"____
Workers:
Age ______________________ _: ______________ XVII, 18-19, 72, 73
Employment experience __________________ XVII, xix, 19-20, 74
Employment status of households containing ____________ 31, 32
Percent of cases having______________________________
26
Sex __________________________________________ 17-19,84,85
Usual industry ___________________________________ 20-21, 74
Usual occupation ______________________________ 20, 21-22, 74
Compared with June 1935 relief load_______________ 22-23
Relation to relief history_ ________________________ 23-24
White and Negro, compared __________________________ xx1v
Works Program:
Certification:
.
Eligibility requirements __________________________ 25-26
Employability status and _________________________ 26-27
Heads and other members of households____________ 29-30
Occupational differences in ____________________ 30, 81-83
Sex differences in _____________________________ 30, 39, 84
Inauguration ____________________ .:__________________
x1
Noncertification, reasons for _________________ xx1-xxII, 26-29
Security wage rates ________________________________ 5, 44-45
Works Program earnings:
As source of income_____________________________ 1-5, 67-68
Average amount per month ___________________________ 44-45
Compared to earnings in private industry _________ xxII, 44-45
Duplication of relief and _________________________ 4-5, 67-68
Works Program employment:
Age limit_ _ _______________ __ ______ ______ ____ _____ ___ 16n
Duplication with other employment _____________ 33, 37-38, 85
Dig 11,ed by
Goog IC
INDEX• 115
Page
Works Program employment-Continued.
Duration ___________________________________________ 42-44
Heads of households:
Age and sex _________________________ xx1-xxu, 38-40, 94
Status in December 1935 _____ xx1-xx11, 31-34, 36-37, 86-90
Usual occupation __________________ xxn, 38, 41, 42, 81-83
Other members of households:
Age and sex _____________________________ xxn, 38, 40, 94
Status in December 1935 _____________ 31, 36-37, 85, 91-92
Relative importance of______________________________ 1-5, 96
Separations _________________________________________ 42-44
Types of, and usual occupations of heads of households ________________________________________ xxn, 41, 42
0
Dig,t zed
t,y
Goos le
o,,
11z
1tyGoogle
@FedFRASER