The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
BARRY L. HOPKINS, Adminutrator
Awtuat Adminutrator
CoaafflGTOl'I GILL,
DIVISION OF SOCIAL RESEARCH
BowAAD B. Mums, Director
·-··
FARMERS ON RELIEF AND
REHABILITATION
By
BERTA ASCH
and
A. R. MANGUS
w
Research Monograph VIII
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
W ASBINGTON : 1937
D1gt1zedoyGoogle
Drg t1zed by
Google
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
WoRKS PRoaRESs ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D. 0., June 15, 1937.
SIR: I have the honor to transmit an analysis of the social and
economic characteristics of farm operators and farm laborers receiving assistance under the general relief and rural rehabilitation
programs. The analysis contributes significant material on the
incidence of relief in the various agricultural groups and thus provides necessary information for the determination of future policies
for the relief of unemployment in rural areas. The report is based
on data obtained through surveys of Current Changes in the Rural
Relief Population, conducted by the Division of Research, Statistics,
and Finance of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration.
The report emphasizes the fact that the depression in agriculture
began long before 1929 and that the distress of the early 1930's
merely accentuated farm problems of long standing. Chief among
these problems are : the pressure of rural birth rates on farm opportunities; the attempt to farm lands which are submarginal in production or approaching submarginality; attempts to farm eroded
lands and adoption of farming practices which are conducive to
erosion; subdivision of farms into units too small to afford support
for a family; concentration on commercial rather than subsistence
farming; overcapitalization of farms and consequent heavy foreclosures; decline of certain extractive industries, especially lumbering and mining, with consequent loss of the supplementary income
which many farmers depended on for an adequate budget; growth
of the tenant system; and increase in low-paid wage workers in agriculture. The situation has become acute in recent years, due largely
to the lack of parity of prices of farm products and to the cumulative influence of a succession of disastrous droughts. The extension.
of relief into rural areas has focused attention on the human needs
of the low income farm families.
The study was made in the Division of Social Research, under the,
direction of Howard B. Myers, Director of the Division. The data
were collected under the supervision of A. R. Mangus and T. C.
McCormick, with the assistance of J. E. Hulett, Jr., and Wayne
Daugherty. Acknowledgment is also made of the cooperation of
the State Supervisors and Assistant State Supervisors of Rural Re-search who were in direct charge of the field work. The analysis
of the data was made under the supervision of T. J. Woofter, Jr.s.
Coordinator of Rural Research.
m
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
IV
Letter of Transmittal
The report was prepared by Berta Asch, whose services were made
available to the Works Progress Administration by the Resettlement
Administration, and by A. R. Mangus; it was edited by Ellen Winston and Rebecca Farnham. Special acknowledgement is made of
the contribution of T. J. Woofter, Jr., who wrote the Introduction
and Chapters I, VI, and VIII. A. R. Mangus contributed Chapter
VII and Appendix B-The Methodology of Rural Relief Studies.
Respectfully submitted.
CORRINGTON Gn.r.,
Ass'istant Administrator.
Hon. JIAimy L. HoPKINs,
Works Progress Administrator.
Digitzed by
Google
CONTENTS
Pll&'e
INTBODUCTlON---------------------------------------------------8UIIIIA.RY _________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHAPTER
I. Extent and causes of farm distress_____________________
Location of farm relief and rehabilitation cases_______
Basic farm problems__ ___________________________
II. Relief and rehabilitation programs___ __________________
Drought relief_____________________________ -- - --Rural rehabilitation______________________________
Works Program_________________________________
III. Relief grants and rehabilitation advances_______________
Types of relief__________________________________
Amounts of relief________________________________
Types of rehabilitation advances__________________
Amounts of rehabilitation advances________________
IV. Social characteristics of relief and rehabilitation hoWJ&holds____________________________________________
Age of heads of relief households___________________
Age differences between relief and rehabilitation clients_________________________________________
Size of households_______________________________
Family composition_______ _______________________
Employability__________________________________
Changes in residence_____________________________
V. Employment and relation to the land__________________
Residence______________________________________
Usual tenure status______________________________
Current employment status_______________________
Changes in occupation___________________________
Influx into agriculture________________________
Leaving the farm___ _________________________
Time between loss of job and opening of relief cue____
Rehabilitation clients____________________________
Usual occupations___________________________
Employment status__________________________
Advances in status__________________________
VI. Factors in production________________________________
Acreage operated________________________________
Farm experience_________________________________
Ownership of livestock___________________________
Education______________________________________
VII. Relief trends, 1933 through 1935______________________
Characteristics of the February 1935 general relief
load_________________________________________
First receipt of relief__________________________
Geographical location_ _______________________
Reasons for accessions_______________________
First-period cases in the February load_________
IX
XIII
3
6
7
13
14
15
22
23
23
27
28
30
31
31
36
37
39
41
42
49
49
50
li2
M
M
55
56
1,9
59
60
61
63
63
65
66
69
73
75
75
76
76
77
V
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
Contents
VI
CHAPTER
VII. Relief trends, 1933 through 1935--Continued.
Page
Changes from February through June 1935_________
Redistribution of the general reliefload, June 1935_ _ _ _
Geographical redistribution___________________
Occupational redistribution___________________
Characteristics of the June 1935 general relief load____
Characteristics of the general relief load, July through
December 1935_____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _____
Reasons for accessions, July through October____
Reasons for separations, July through October__
Industries responsible for closing agricultural
cases_____________________________________
VIII. Progra.ms of reconstruction___________________________
Economic reconstruction_________________________
Part-time farming___________________________
Submarginal land retirement__________________
Soil conservation____________________________
Crop control________________________________
Tenancy problems_________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Social reconstruction___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Direct relief_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Work relieL _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Rural rehabilitation__________________________
Population policy____________________________
Cooperation_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Higher standard of living_____________________
Rural institutions and services_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Need for a long-range coordinated program_________
APPENDIX A. Supplementary tables__________________________________
B. Methodology of rural current change studies_____________
Contents_________________________________________
C. Glossary_____________________________________________
78
80
80
81
82
90
90
90
91
91
91
92
93
93
94
9-i
95
96
96
96
99
139
141
203
INDEX------------------------------------------------------------
211
82
83
86
87
89
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGt.:RES
FIGURE
1. Areas represented and counties sampled___________________
XI
2. Farm operators receiving relief grants or rehabilitation ad-
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
vances in June 1935 in actual numbers and as a percent of all
farm operators in 1935, by State________________________
Emerp;ency and secondary drought counties, October 24, 1934_
Rural rehabilitation cases receiving advances, June 1935_ _ _ _ _
Type of relief received by rural households with heads currently engaged as farm operators, by area, June 1935_ _ _ __ _
Median amount of relief received by rural households with
agriculture as the usual occupation of the head, by area,
June 1935___________________________________________
Median age of heads of rural relief households with agriculture
as the usual occupation, by area., June 1935______________
Mobility of heads of rural relief and rehabilitation households
who were farm operators by usual occupation, by area,
June 1935___________________________________________
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
7
15
20
26
28
35
47
Contents
Vil
Page
FIGURE
9. Percent of all fa.rm operators receiving relief grants or rehabilitation advances, by area, June 1935_ _ _ _ _ __________
10. Usual occupation of heads of rural relief and rehabilitation
households, June 1935_ _ _ _ __ __________________________
1 1. Size of farms operated by farmers on relief in June 1935 and
by all farmers reported in the 1935 Census of Agriculture__
12. Grade attainment of heads of open country households on
relief, October 1935__ ______ ________ ___ ___ ____ __ _______
13. Number of farm operators by usual occupation receiving Federal assistance in rural areas, October 1933-December 1935_
14. Changes in estimated number of farm operat-0rs receiving
general relief, March through June 1935_____ __ ___ _______
15. Changes during month in estimated number of fa.rm operators
receiving general relief, July through December 1935______
52
58
64
70
74
84
84
PHOTOGRAPHS
Waste in the Cut-Over Area__ ------------------------------Abandoned coal mine_______________________________________
Farmers at work on W. P.A. road project _____________________
On the move _______________________________________________
A rehabilitation client _______________________________________
Rural school_ ______________________________________________
Eroded cropland ____________________________________________
Building a farm-to-market road ______________________________
Facing
Facing
Facing
Facing
Facing
Facing
Facing
Facing
Cig1 . zed by
8
10
22
42
60
70
90
94
Google
Di
I
zedoyGoogl
INTRODUCTION
was undertaken to assemble information concerning
the relief and rehabilitation needs of farmers and to clarify
the problems of the farm families that became dependent on
public assistance during the depression.
The specific objectives have been to describe the extent of the
farm relief problem and the underlying causes of distress; the development of the administrative programs which were formulated
to meet the situation; the types and amounts of assistance given
farm households; the social characteristics of these households; the
relation of farmers on relief to the land with respect to residence
and tenure and their relation to the factors of production and experience;· and the trend of farm relief through 1935.
The sections describing the social and economic characteristics of
relief and rehabilitation clients are based mainly on an analysis of
farm households receiving aid in June 1935. This month was selected because it was considered less subject to seasonal and administrative fluctuations than other months for which similar data are
available.
Supplementary data, however, are drawn from relief studies that
were made in February 1935 and October 1935 in the same sample
areas as was the June study. Material is also drawn from previous
Works Progress Administration studies, principally SUJJ Rural,
Problem Areas, Relief-Resources-RehoJ>ilitati011, and Oompq:ratvve.
Study of Rural, Relief and Non-Relief Households. 1 In chapter VII,
"Relief Trends, 1933 Through 1935," use is made of reports of the
Resettlement Administration and of the Works Progress Administration, and of the study .made by the latter organization of cases
opened and closed by relief offices between March and October 1935.
The data presented in this report were obtained by means of a
sample enumeration.• The June relief study included 116,972 rural
cases, in 300 counties representing 30 States, of which 37,854 were
those of farm operators; 58,516 of the total rural cases were in 138
T
HIS STUDY
Research Monographs I and II.
• For detail& of the sampling procedure, aee appendiJ: B.
1
DigtizedbyGoogle
Introduction
X
<)ounties representing 9 agricultural areas. Of these, 18,126 were
farm operator households. The estimated United States and State
totals were based on the larger sample.
The sample counties were systematically chosen as representative
of varied types of agriculture in the States and areas surveyed.
These counties contained 12.1 percent of all the farm operators in
the States sampled I and 8.1 percent of farm operators in the areas
sampled. The information on the schedules was obtained from
case records in the county relief offices.
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
This study is concerned with heads of families, either farm operators or farm laborers, 16 to 64 years of age. Those 65 years of age
and over are arbitrarily excluded since they are considered as having
passed their productive period. Farm operators include both farmers still remaining on their land and those :forced to leave their
farms 4 but whose usual occupation had been fanning. In all areas,
the study separates farm operators into two groups, owners and
tenants, while in the Cotton Areas, a third group, sharecroppers, as
distinguished from other tenants, is represented. Farm owners are
farmers who own all or part of the land which they operate. Farm
tenants are defined as operating hired land only, furnishing all or
part of the working equipment and stock, whether they pay cash,
or a share of the crop, or both, as rent. Croppers are tenants to
whom the landlord furnishes all the work animals, who contribute
only their labor, and who receive in return a share of the crop.
Farm laborers are persons who work on a farm with or without
wages under the supervision of the farm operator.' The major part
of the discussion of laborers is confined to heads of families.
For purposes of this survey, a person was regarded as having had
a usual occupation if at any time during the last 10 years he had
worked at any job, other than work relief, for a period of at least
4 consecutive weeks. If the person had worked at two or more
occupations, the one at which he had worked the greatest length
of time was considered the usual occupation. If he had worked
for an equal length of time at two or more occupations, the one
at which he worked last was considered the usual occupation. A
person on relief continuously from February to June was defined
as currently employed in June if he had had nonrelief employment
• The State sample was based on 31 States, but Arizona was not included 1n the J"une
survey.
• A farm ls defined as having at least 3 acres, unless its agricultural products in 1929
were valued at $250 or more. Fifteenth Oensus of the United States: 1930, Population
VoL I, p. 2.
• See Appendix C-Glossary.
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
In troduction
XI
lasting 1 week or more during F ebruary, the month of the preceding
s urvey.° For eases opened or reopened from March to June, a person was considered currently employed in June if he had had nonrelief employment, including employment as farm operator or
laborer, during the week in which the first order for relief was
received. The type of cunent employment is referred to hereafter
as current occupation.
AGRICULTURAL AREAS SURVEYED
Although relief and rehabilitation rates are given by States, this
study is primarily based on data for nine major agricultural areas.
They are: the Eastern Cotton Belt, which includes portions of
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Arkansas; the Lake States Cut-OYer Area in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the \Vestern Cott.on Area,
including parts of Oklahoma and T exas : th e Appalachian-Ozark
F1G. 1 - AREAS REPRESENTED AND COUNTIE S SAMPLED
SURVEY Of THE RURAL REL IEF SITUATIO
AF•216 /, W.PA
Area, including the mountai nous cil'et ions of \Vest Virginia, North
Carolina, T ennessee, Kentucky, Missou ri, an d Arkansas ; th(• Spring
"\\11eat Area in the northern part of the Great P lains ; t he. "\Vinter
"\Vheat Area in the southern part of the <irPa t P la ins; the R n,nchi ng
Area sca ttl'red through the moun tain St at l's : the H ay and Dairy
Area, which stretches from New Yor k along the Great Lakes to
0
T h is p ro C'euu re for det<>r mlnlng current employment was necr~snry
Wf'rP no t ke[) t up-to-da te wit h t(•~1 11 •e t to em p loy m,)nt stn t u....
nR
ens<> reco r,Js
I t is j us tif11>1l by tlw fact
l h nt June is a peak mont h for a i;ricu ltural Pmplo)·rn ent anti fnrm oJ•l'rn tn rs a nd l11bo1·er~
<!m plorell in F,·brua r y, 11, slack month, wo ul,I norma lly ,·ontin ue thei r e111 i,loymcnt
through the summer.
01 11wd by
Goog Ic
XII
Introduction
Wisconsin and Minnesota; and the Corn Belt in Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri. Figure 1
delineates these areas and indicates the counties sampled as representative of conditions in each area.
The first six regions constitute definite rural problem areas. 7
The Ranching Area may also be listed as a problem area, insofar
as it has been affected by recent droughts. The Hay and Dairy
Area and the Corn Belt are more nearly normal agricultural regions
and as such are especially interesting for a study of the general
farm relief problem. This is particularly true of the Corn Belt,
which was especially benefited by the corn-hog program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration.
• Bee Beck, P. 0. and Forster, M. C., 8w, Rural Problem Areaa, BeHef-lleeotlf"OU-Re11abllftoffo~, Reaearch Monograph I, Division of Research, Btatllltla,, and ll'lnance,
Federal Emergenq Relief Admlnlatratlon, 193~, pp. 8 ff. Thia report also deals with the
varlOWI aspect■ ot the farm relief problem. However, the counties 18.Dlpled differ from.
thON covered by the present 1tudy, and the data refer to an earlier period.
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
BE FABK FAMILIES that have received public assistance under
the various Federal relief programs were only in part victims
of the depression. In many cases, the need for outside aid
was the result of long-standing agricultural maladjustments and
adverse climatic conditions such as drought and flood.
A large majority of the farmers and farm laborers receiving? /
public assistance, up to the summer of 1935, were clients of the
- : -~
general relief and rural rehabilitation programs of the Federal (
Emergency Relief Administration. During the last half of 1935, \
the Federal Works Program and the Resettlement Administration_)
took over the bulk of the load.
T
LOCATION OF FARM RELIEF AND REHABILITATION CASES
Over a million farmer and farm laborer families in rural and
urban areas were on relief and rehabilitation rolls in February 1935,
and almost 600,000 farmers in rural areas received relief grants
or rehabilitation advances under the Federal programs in June 1935.
The June farm relief load varied widely among the States. New
Mexico, with more than one-third of its farmers receiving these
types of Federal aid, was followed in order by the Dakotas, Oklahoma, and Colorado, with more than one-fifth of all farmers on
relief or rehabilitation, and by Kentucky, Florida, Idaho, Montana,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Wyoming,
each with 10 percent or more of their farm families receiving such
aid. In the country as a whole, the proportion of all farm families
receiving relief grants or rehabilitation advances in June averaged
9 percent.
The 14 States in which the relief load was concentrated contained
only one-fourth of all farms in the United States in 1935; yet they
contained over one-half of all farmers receiving relief grants or
rehabilitation advances in June of that year. The concentration
of relief in these States primarily reflects the effects of the 1934
drought and the long-standing ills of the Appalachian-Ozark Area
with its poor soil and abandoned industries. At the same time,
the heavy relief loads in these States, as compared with others
suffering from similar unfavorable conditions, reflect differences in
relief policies, more liberal in some sections than in others.
:nn
Digitized by
Google
XIV
Summary
TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
I
1
Types and amounts of relief grants and rehabilitation advances
to farm families in June 1935 differed widely among various agri> , cultural areas.
Since the administration of both relief and rehabilitation was largely entrusted to the States, the available funds
and the administrative policies of the various States, as well as
differences in standard of living and employment status, caused
variations in the aid granted.
Most of the employed as well as the unemployed heads of farm
families on general relief rolls received work relief in June 1935.
The presence on work relief rolls of farmers still operating their
farms indicates either that other members of their families could
attend to the farm duties or that their farming was of little consequence. Many were normally full-time farmers whose operations
had been curtailed by the drought, and others were part-time farmers
who had lost their usual supplementary employment.
__ 1 (
Relatively fewer Negroes than whites had work relief in the
_, _l fawo Cotton Areas, with the difference more marked in the Eastern
/ - , '• Cotton Belt. In that area two-thirds of the white farmers on relief
> · but less than one-half of the Negroes had work assignments.
Amounts of relief given in June 1935 in all areas combined averaged $13 for farm owners, $12 for farm laborers and tenants, and
$9 for croppers. Negroes in all agricultural groups received lower
relief grants than whites. Relief grants were smallest in the Appalachian-Ozark and Cotton Areas, reflecting the relatively low stand\.. ard of living of those sections.
The proportion of all rehabilitation clients receiving subsistence
goods ( for meeting budgetary needs) and the proportion receiving
capital goods (for productive purposes) were about the same (83
and 84 percent, respectively) for the total of all areas, but differences among areas were marked.
Rehabilitation advances ranged in amount from an average of
,
$31 in the Spring Wheat Area to $416 for whites in the Western
_Cotton Area, reflecting to some extent the different stages of development of the program in the various areas. The average for
all areas was $189.
{ Relatively fewer Negro than white clients in the Cotton Areas
.. received capital goods, and Negroes received smaller advances than
· whites of both capital and subsistence goods.
ra,
SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RELIEF FAMILIES
\/
Farmers on relief did not differ markedly in age from all farmers
in the Unit~d States. Comparison of February and J11ne datat
however, indicates that the younger farxners and farm laborers
xv
Summary
(excluding the very young group, 1~24 years of age) left relief
rolls in greater numbers than did the older clients during the spring
planting season. As in the general population, owners on relief
were about 9 years older on the average than tenants, while sharecroppers and laborers were the youngest agricultural groups.
Relief families were found to be larger than those in the general
population. In most areas, tenants had larger families than the
other groups. Negro and white households were not consistently
difl'erent in size.
Although the normal family (husband and wife, or husband, wife,.
and children) was the prevailing type on relief, the proportion of
such families varied considerably by areas and by tenure groups.
Broken families were :found more frequently in the two Cotton Areas.
and in the self-sufficing areas (Lake States Cut-Over and Appalachian-Ozark) than in the regions where rural distress is of more
recent origin. These four areas were the only ones where the motherand-children type of family was found on rural relief in any considerable proportions. Nonfamily men were particularly important on
the relief rolls in the Lake States Cut-Over Area, and nonfamily
women on relief were of significance only in the Eastern Cotton Belt,.
where their presence on relief rolls reflects the influence of the considerable migration of males from the South.
Households with only one worker were found more frequently in
the lower socio-economic groups. The number of workers increased
with the size of the family, but it was not a proportionate increase.
Migration of farmers and farm laborers evidently increased during·
the drought and depression years. This trend would indicate that
mobility, rather than being a cause of the need for relief, was, at least
partially, the result of the need for relief. However, there was noclear-cut relationship between mobility and relief needs.
EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND RELATION TO THE LAND
More than one-tenth of the farmers on relief in rural areas lived in
villages, while much larger proportions of farm laborers on relief
lived in villages. Although in some agricultural regions farmers and
farm laborers normally live in villages rather than in the open country, the residence distribution probably reflects to a large extent the
influence of tlepression unemployment, which causes families to migrate from open country to village communities, with their greater
promise of opportunities for employment or relief.
Nearly three-fourths of the heads of farm families on relief in June
J935 were farmers by usual occupation, and slightly more than one/ _✓
-,fourth were ~rm laborers. '!'en_ants o~her than sharecroppers made)
<
D1gt1zedoyGoogle
XVI
Summary
t; up over one-half of the farm operators on relief, farm owners ac(, counted for about one-third,_ an~ sharecrop~~_!~!:_l!~rly one-eighth.
,7 In all areas ]arger percentages of tenants than of owners were on
'- telief, reflecting the less secure economic position of tenants as compared to owners. In both Cotton Areas sharecroppers were repre•-- sented more heavily on relief than either owners or other tenants.
The overwhelming majority of farmers on relief were still operating farms at the time of the survey. In general, tenants (exclusive
of croppers) on relief had not been able to remain on the land to
he same degree as had farm owners. Sharecroppers on relief had
lower employment rate at their usual occupation than either other
nants or owners, and relief heads who were farm laborers by usual
ccupation had the lowest employment rate of all. Few agricultural
orkers had shifted into nonagricultural jobs. Heads of relief
households with farm experience but not currently engaged in agriculture had left the farm, in most instances, during the depression.
While farmers and farm laborers were leaving the open country
for the villages, there was a tendency among nonagricultural workers
to move to the farm. This was especially true in the Lake States
Cut-Over and Appalachian-Ozark Areas where loss of industrial jobs
evidently caused workers to give major attention to farming in which
they had formerly engaged part-time. The poor soil in these two
areas made the land easy to obtain but hard to get a living from, so
that the workers had to resort to relief.
The majority of the heads of farm households on relief who were
unemployed or who had gone into some nonagricultural occupation
had left the farm between July 1, 1934, and July 1, 1935. Few had
left farming in the prosperous years 1925-1930.
The greater economic resources of owners and tenants, as compared
with those of sharecroppers and laborers, are reflected in the periods
which elapsed between the time they lost their usual tenure status or
job and the time they appeared on relief rolls. The average farm
laborer family head on relief, who was no longer employed as a farm
laborer, was accepted for relief only 3 months after the loss of his
usual type of job, and the average sharecropper, no longer employed
as such, remained off relief rolls for only 5 months after losing his
, I cropper status. Displaced tenants and owners, however, did not
, /; receive relief until 7 and 13 months, respectively, after they had lost
jobs at their usual occupation.
<
FACTORS IN PRODUCTION
Farmers who were unable to support themselves and their families
were found to be handicapped with respect to acreage operated, livestock owned, and education attained.
C1g1
zedbyGoogle
Summary
XVII
The average acreage of farms operated by owners and tenants on·: 1__
relief was much less than that of all owner and tenant farms, '
reported by the 1935 Census of Agriculture. The average acreage/
reported in June for both groups was much less than that in February, indicating that far,mers with larger acreages had been able to
become self-supportinlg or to go on rehabilitation rolls more readily
than those with smaller farms. This situation may be taken to indicate that as recovery in agriculture becomes more general the relief
group will contain a larger proportion of chronic or marginal cases
as measured by size of holdings.
Many farmers with adequate acreage were hampered in their efforts
at self-support by lack of sufficient livestock. From a study made
as of January 1, 1934, it is evident that fewer farm operators on
relief owned livestock than farmers not on relief, and that the relief
clients who did own livestock had fewer animals.
The farm families' need for Federal assistance was not caused by
lack of agricultural experience. The great majority of the agricultural workers on relief and rehabilitation reported 10 years or
more of farm experience.
One measurable index of personal ability of farm families on relief
is their educational attainment. A study made as of 1933 showed
that heads of rural relief families had consistently received less
schooling than their nonrelief neighbors. In the present study, the
majority of the heads of open country households on relief in October
1935 had not completed grade school. In no area was the average
schooling higher than the eighth grade. However, the younger heads
of open country households were better educated than the older heads,
reflecting the trend toward increased educational opportunities in
mral areas.
COMPARISON OF RELIEF AND REHABILITATION FAMILIES
When rehabilitation clients are considered separately from farm
families receiving relief, some of the expected differences between
the two groups do not appear. Neither the older nor the younger
relief heads and neither the larger nor the smaller relief families
appear to have been consistently selected for rehabilitation. Nor
is there any evidence that the number of employable persons in the
household influenced selection of families for rehabilitation. Relative stability of residence also was apparently not a determining
factor.
.
On the other hand, in contrast with relief families, practically
all rehabilitation clients lived in the open country. Also, the proportion of farm laborers was smaller among rehabilitation clients
than among relief families. Size of farm was evidently a criterion
137296°-37-2
D1g1
zedbyGoogle
XVIII
Summary
of selection, the farms of rehabilitation clients being larger than
those of relief families in most areas. $ome tendency t-0 select
normal families was evident. Unattached women especially were
almost unknown among rehabilitation clients, although unattached
men, mother-children, a.nd father-children families were accepted in
considerable numbers in a few areas.
The rehabilitation program was primarily agricultural, but only
89 out of every 100 rehabilitation clients on the rolls in June 1935
were farmers or farm laborers by usual occupation. All but 2 out
of every 100, however, had had agricultural experience.
RELIEF TRENDS
The estimated number of farm operators in the United States
receiving Federal assistance, including emergency l'elief, advances
under the rehabilitation program, and Works Program earnings,
increased from 417,000 in October 1933 to 685,000 in February 1935
and then fell to 382,000 in October 1935. During the last months of
1935, the downward trend in the number of farm operators receiving
these types of Federal assistance was reversed as needs increased
during the winter season. By December, 396,000 farm operators were
receiving aid under the 3 programs.
In February 1935, when tpe relief load reached_a_..pea.k in rural
f . are~-nearlyT,OM,000- :farm families fu--rurii.Tareas ~l~me, including
those of farm operators and farm laborers, received general relief
/ grants or rehabilitation loans. The largest single factor accounting
__ for the peak relief load in February was drought,whicll resulted
1
~n crop failures and loss of livestock.
Farm families left the general relief rolls rapidly after February
1935, with the expansion of the rural rehabilitation program and
with increasing agricultural prosperity. Of all agricultural cases
on relief in February, only 42 percent were carried forward through
the month of June, the remainder being closed or transferred to the
rural rehabilitation program.
Between July 1 and December 31, 1935, 551,000 farmers were
removed from the rolls of agencies expending F. E. R. A. funds.
About 186,000 of these found employment on the Works Program and
37,000 were transferred directly to the Resettlement Administration.
/-Of the 328,000 families completely removed from Federal aid, it is
estimated that about half became at least temporarily self-supporting, largely through sale of produce or through earnings at private
employment, and that the other half received aid from State or local
funds or were left without care from any agency.
The temporary nature of the self-support obtained by many of the
families in 1935 is indicated by the fact that out of 215,000 farm
jf:
~
D1gt1zc-dbyGoogle
Summary
XIX
operator families accepted for aid between July 1 and December 31
by agencies expending F. E. R. A. funds, four-fifths were former
relief cases returning to the rolls. The reasons for opening relief ..
cases in the July-October period are also significant, indicating that )
improvement in economic conditions had not been sufficient to offset
the effects of the 1934 drought and other factors causing rural distress.
Crop failure and loss of livestock were reported most frequently as(
reasons for applying for relief. Loss of earnings from employment ' \
was the second most important reason given-seasonal employment /
had come to an end or earnings had become so low that supplementary )
relief was required. Other families came on relief which had been
existing on savings for some time and which listed exhaustion of these
resources as their reason for applying. Increased needs with the
approach of winter, loss of assistance from relatives and friends,
failure of lan~!o_~s to con!i:!1ue ad~a_nces to croppers ttfte! the cotton~ ::.;· '
h~pr1atfon o:f crop returns by creditors, and destructiow ·
o{property by-ioc'!:1 J_oo.cli~-ot.her reasons for opening of relief
-. ~ - - - - - cases.
1
--
PROGRAMS OF RECONSTRUCTION
Any program for the reconstruction of American agriculture must
take into account the conservation of human values as well as of
soil and other natural resources. It must also be adaptable to the
peculiar regional needs of different parts of the country.
Combined farming-industrial employment, proposed as a partial
remedy for farm problems, is limited by the location and hours of
industry. Retirement of submarginal lands from agriculture is an
obvious necessity, but financial and legal difficulties stand in the
way of measures which would be immediately effective. Restoring
fertility to eroded or exhausted soil is a sound measure of economic
reconstruction, and a program to control surplus production is necessary to secure economic stability for farmers. Crop control can be
successful, however, only if planned in such a way that agricultural
/
production is adjusted to rural population trends.
For some areas, the reform of the tenant system and the arrest
\. \·
of the increase of tenancy are of paramount importance, since ten- --..__T/,
ancy has proved to be Iii stumbling block in the path of such con- ,-... __
structive efforts as crop diversification, soil conservation, and coopv
erative marketing.
Equally important in agrarian reconstruction are programs for
the conservation of human resources. The needs of destitute farm
families in the past few years have been met on an emergency basis
by direct relief, work relief, and rehabilitation loans and grants.
Direct relief, whether in the form of E. R. A. benefits, State or local
relief, or Resettlement grants, is often best suited to the needs of
''<
D1g1
zedbyGoogle
xx
Summary
farmers for temporary assistance, even if it creates no lasting values.
Work relief has the disadvantage of taking the farmer away from
his land, unless it is limited to off-seasons or to nonfarming members of the family. Rural rehabilitation loans are desirable for
many farmers since they provide the necessary credit at a reasonable
rate of interest, farm plans worked out to fit the individual farm,
and advice and supervision in the execution of these plans.
Guided migration is a basic need in rural reconstruction. Although the Government cannot arbitrarily move people out of
blighted areas, it can offer advice to farmers who wish to leave an
area in which they cannot support themselves.
Cooperation is recognized as one of the hopes of the smaller
farmer in marketing and purchasing, in owning machinery and
lands in common, and in meeting farm and home problems. Education to awaken the desire for a higher standard of living is another
means of social reconstruction. The improvement of educational
and other institutions in rural areas, however, calls for better financial support than is now available. Equalization funds are needed
for health, education, and public welfare to reduce the financial
inequalities between rural States and States which contain points
of financial concentration-between rural counties and industrial
cities.
The more fundamental measures for building a superior agrarian
civilization in the United States are long-time measures,,not planned
for immediate results. Furthermore, they require national coordination and Federal financial support. Successful rehabilitation
cannot be accomplished without a continuing course of actiont uninterrupted by sudden shifts of policy such as have characterized.
relief and rehabilitation programs during the depression years.
Dig tized by
Goos le
FARMERS ON RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
1
Dig,
zedbyGoogle
D1gt1zoobyGoogle
CHAPTER
I
EXTENT AND CAUSES OF FARM DISTRESS
of rural distress on a large scale has been a notable
feature of the depression of the 1930's. In past periods of
widespread destitution, the urban unemployed could usually
step into a bread-line, find a place in a soup kitchen, or get direct
financial aid from local public or private welfare agencies. Rural
families, on the other hand, except in a few sections with long established systems of poor relief, usually had only their neighbors or the
almshouse to turn to when their slender credit was exhausted. They
could rarely expect assistance from welfare agencies of neighboring
towns, whose resources were usually inadequate for their own needy
townsfolk.
In the recent depression, as in earlier depressions, city governments recognized the necessity of providing assistance for the urban
unemployed, but county governments discounted the needs of farmers within their jurisdiction, arguing that a farmer should be able
to obtain the necessities of life from his own land, however bad
market conditions might be. Under modern agricultural conditions,
such an assumption is, of course, not supported by the facts. Even
if he raises most of his foodstuffs, there will always be some necessary cash expenses that a farmer may not be able to meet. Moreover, under the one commercial crop system practiced in some agricultural regions, farmers either do not raise foodstuffs at all, or
raise them in quantities insufficient for their own support. Again,
farmers who normally raise their own foodstuffs may be prevented
from doing so by drought or flood or other causes of crop damage,
or by personal disability.
The depression of 1930--1935 was both prolonged and widespread
in its effects. Moreover, it came at a crucial period in the development of American agriculture, when the country was due to reap the
consequences of reckless and unplanned use of natural resources over
a period of decades and when expanding commercial farming and
increased mechanization were forcing radical readjustments in the
relationship between land and labor. With the impact of the depression, bringing bank failures, a contracted market, and low prices,
the weak spots in the agricultural structure gave way. Hundreds of
thousands of farm families found themselves without savings or
current income. Thousands were left without land or equipment.
Other thousands faced a barren future on soil that had become
useless for agriculture.
P
UBLIC RELIEF
3
o,,
I
zed by
Google
Farm ers 011 Relief a11d Rehabilitation
4-
As more and more fa rm famil ies lost their livelihood, it became
lea L· th at destitute farmers could no lon (l'er live on neighbors or
r dit. Their neig hbors were frequently as badly off as they were.
Ma ny of thei r creditors were goi1w bankrupt..
/
ons quently, when he Ueconstrnction Finance Corporation began
t o make relief loans in 1932 and when the Federal Emergency Relief
Adm inistration introduced direct grants in the spring of 1933, these
benefits
were mad available to agricultural counties as , ell as to
)
cities and towns. In June 1935, 31.5 per ent of the 4,534,000 cases
receiving Federal aid under the general relief program lived in rural
areas. 1 Of the rura l casPs, 28 peree1 t were farm opec•itor fam ilies
and 10 percent were farm laborer fam iliPs (table_ 1). More than
half of the :3H0 ,000 farm operators,2 or 208.000J were tenants (exclusive of sharecroppers) ; about one-tlurd, or 138,0lJO;were f ann
ow ners; and the remai ning 4+,000 were . harecr oppers. In addition ,
20:3, il 2 famil ies in rur al areas ree<'i vecl loan under-theFurarreliali"il.ita ion pr ogram dur ing .June 1933 3 ( table -).
TA IJ LE 1.-EST IMATF.I) NtTM RF.R OF RURAL AND URR N CASES RECEIVING
RELIEF U N DER TH E GF.NEIIA I. RELIE F PROGIIAM, AND Usu L OCCUPATION
OF TH E HEA ll S OF RU RAi. CASES, Jur-rn 1935
C'ases un er gen~ral
relic! program
ReslrlenC<' and usual occu pat ion
N u m •r
Percent
100.0
4. •5:ll. 000
All cases · -•·· ·· ··· · ·· · · ·· · ·· -· · •····· · · · · · · · ·· ··· · · · · · · · · · •· ····· ·-··· · · ·· · !~ ---
Rural ' ·· · ·- -·- ···· · •· · · ·· · · · ··· ··· · ··· · · · · ·· · · · · ·· -··· · - ··· ··· · · · · · ·· ··· · · ··· ·
Urban •.. .. .. . • . .... . ·---·- -·. · -- -· - · .· ·· --·-- ·· · . . ·- - · . .. . .. . .... · · · --··· . . . · Rural cases . . . . . ____ ____ ___. __ __________ ____ __ ___ ______.... ____ ,___. . .• . .
l. ·127,0(K)
:i. 107, 000
l , 4:.?i, 000
100
Agricult ural h ils.. . . .. . . .. · - · .. . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . · -· · . . · - -- · .. ...... .. . .. . . _
Fa.rm
operators
. ... .. ·•
____. •...
- ·. -_·..· .. ....···
- --·
. · ----·
. · -_
____ __
_. -__.. ...
• ___..____
. _.--__
. ..· --··
.. __ ·_-•.--____
_. ._..
__. ___..___
O,,-tners
T nan ts •. . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. ... . .. . .. ...... .. ... ...... . . . .... .
t~7. 000
I 3'.•J. OiK
138,000
2( )S , 000
4 ,mo
38
28
C'rop J"' .. .. · -· ···• • · · - • -· · · ····· · - ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . ..... . .... • .
Far m laborers . . . . . - · •- · · · --- - · -- .. . --- - ·· . ··--·-··.· · - --·- -· · · · - - -- · · · · · .
All ot hers ._ .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. ... _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _... . . . . .
3U I
68.5
✓
14 7, 000
h00,0(()
10
15
a
10
(12
' OJ)('n country or ('('nter, of l"ss t han Z,f,W population.
• I ncludes !arm o\x,rators residing in town~ o! 2,500 to 5,000 population. The t own oases constitute less
than 2 Jl<'rrcnt o! al cns,•s.
• E xclusive o! er p pers in the 2 otton An>as.
SourN' : • m lth , M apheus and i iRngu s, A . R .. Ca.,r, R tet il'ing Gtnnal R rli,f in C rban and Rural Artu,
J ul11 1!133- D,umb,r 19., 6 (estlmatt-d), Hcs,•arch Bu lletin , Series Ill, No. I, D lvi.ion or Social Research,
Works Progress Administ ration , Aug. 22, 1936: and Sun t i/ of Current Changta in t he R i.r al Rditf PoptUOlion,
J i.ne 1936.
T ha t is, in the opPn country or In cen ters c;t lcs. 1hnn 2,500 popu lat ion.
• E xclusive of caH~s rec,•lvlog bot h rell,•f gra n t" and rehnhll ita tl on a,lva nces. Such
casPs were considc,·ed rehabili tation clien t~.
• Throughout this report, the following points with regard to the rural rehabUHatlon
load should be kept In mind: (1) The June Bllmple of rehabilitation cases Included ap.
proximately 9 percent that were also receiving general relief during June; (2) of the
June r ehabllltation aample, 80.4 percent of the household heads were farm operators by
UBUal occupation; 8.1 percent were farm laborers ; 8.4 percent were nonagricultural
workers; while 3 .1 percent reported no usual occupation; (3) a small bu t Indeterminable
number of rural rehabilitation clients had never been on relief rolls.
1
Ont zed by
Goog Ie
Extent and Causes of Farm Distress
5
TABLE 2.-FARM OPERATORS IN RURAL AREAS RECEIVING RELIEF GBA.?11'8
AND REHABILITATION ADVANCES,' JUNE 1935, AND THEIR RATIO TO ALJ.
FARM OPERATORS IN JANUARY 1935, BY STATE
Number of cases •
State
Ratio or
1---------------1 :bf!1
Total
Relief
Rehablll•
tatlon •
to all
tanners
593,612
300,000
203,612
9
68,310
'Zl, 733
SO, 100
53,500
18,000
9,100
9,800
8,210
M5
22,939
18,998
17,933
'Z1
19
8
11
33
23,842
23,260
22,633
22,573
19, 6f1l
13,200
10,900
22,600
22,200
2,000
10,642
12,360
33
373
17, 6f1l
12
8
'Z1
12
7
'North Carolina........................................
.Oeor!da. ... .. .............. .. ............. ......... ....
.,South Carollna..... .. ................... ........... ....
Missouri...............................................
18,674
17,894
17,579
16,300
16, 034
11,800
6,500
11. 500
9,800
12,100
6,874
12,394
6,079
6,500
2,934
6
7
11
6
6
New Mexloo...........................................
Illinois.................................................
6,600
13,800
6,800
7,000
7,400
9,120
36
6
Colorado...............................................
Florida................................................
14,720
14,633
14,044
13,917
13, WT
,-('ouJsiana....... ............. .......... ............ ....
Virginia................................................
Michigan..............................................
Ohio...................................................
West Virginia..........................................
12,910
10, 2.57
10, 179
9,444
8, 283
2,200
7,200
8.000
7,100
7,100
10, 710
3,067
2,179
2,344
1,183
Wisconsin..............................................
Nebraska..............................................
Idaho..................................................
Montana...............................................
Iowa...................................................
8,281
8, fTl7
7,620
6,M9
6,228
6,800
6,700
7,500
5,900
1,481
2,377
120
649
1,228
Indiana................................................
California..............................................
Washington............................................
Utah...................................................
Wyoming..............................................
6,473
4,921
3,763
2,294
I, 708
4,600
4,900
3,300
1,700
600
Maryland..............................................
New York.............................................
Massachlll!etts.. .......................................
Maine.................................................
Oregon.................................................
1, 700
1,697
I, 500
I, 2.54
1,700
1,600
1,500
900
I, 100
New 1ersey .. ....••... .................................
Arlwna. .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . .•. . . ... . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .
Connecticut............................................
Vermont...............................................
1,128
957
900
Kew Hampshire.......................................
401
213
800
400
400
100
Nevada................................................
Delaware..............................................
Rhode Island..........................................
121
100
100
100
100
100
United States, total..............................
I
l-----1------
'6klahoma.... ..•....•.•••••.......•.•.................
Kentucky..............................................
-Texas..................................................
-Arkamas.... ..................... ......................
South Dakota..........................................
40,939
Minnesota.............................................
~ississippL...........................................
North Dakota.........................................
Pennsylvania..........................................
.,Alabama...............................................
'-Tennessee...............................................
KBl'""S ..•.• ·•·•··· •. ·····•··.. ••..•....... ........ ....
M, 045
28,008
I, 158
454
6,000
833
7,244
6,917
6,707
873
21
463
694
1,108
--·--------lfl
8
22
18
8
6
6
4
8
4
6
17
13
3
3
3
6
8
10
'
58
1
4
3
2
228
157
M
I
113
4
6
1
2
1
-----------3M
21
-----------------------
3
1
2
• Exclusive of cases under care that did not receive advances during June.
• These figures include farm operators residing in towns ol 2,500 to 5,000 population. The town cases,
however, constitute less than 2 percent of all cases.
• Including groups other than !arm operators. See p. 4, footnote 3.
• Cases that received both relief grants and rehabilitation advances were considered rehabilitation cases.
Source: Reller data for States estimated on the basis of the Survey or Current Changes In the Rural Reller
Population and the Unilrd Stat,a c,n,u" of A~rirulture: 19/15; rehabilitation data lrom the Rural Rehabilita•
tlon Dlvialon, Federal Emergency Relief Administration.
Some 2,000,000 farm families received relief at one time or another
during the depression period. In a single month (February 1935)
D1gt1zc-dbyGoogle
6
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
well over 1,000,000 farmers and farm laborers' were receiving some
type of public a&<iistance. 1 Thus, at this time, families whose heads
had usually been employed in agriculture constituted about one-fifth
of the total relief load of the entire country.
LOCATION OF FARM RELIEF AND REHABILITATION CASES
The 593,612 farm operators receiving relief grants or rehabilitation
advances O in June 1935 ( table 2) constituted 9 percent of all fa.rmers 7
in the United States as reported by the 1935 Census of Agriculture.8
This proportion does not appear large when compared with the 18
percent of urban families on relief in June 1935.11 In 21 States, in
fact, the combined number of farm operators receiving relief grants
or rehabilitation· advances was less than 6 percent of all farmers, and
in 13 States the ratio was from 6 to 8 percent. In 14 States, however,
farmers receiving relief grants or rehabilitation advances in June
1935 account~d for from 10 to 36 percent of the total farmers.
New Mexico had the highest proportion of its farm operators on
relief or rehabilitation, 36 percent. South Dakota followed with 33
percent, and North Dakota and O~!1,ch with 27 percent.
About one-fifth of all farmers in Colorado and Kentucky were receiving such aid. Florida, Idaho, Montana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania,
Arkansas, Sout.h Carolina, and Wyoming reported 10 to 18 percent of
their farme~n either relief or rehabilitation rolls. These 14 States,
which contained approximately one-fourth of all farms in the United
States, included over one-half of all farmers in rural areas receiving
public aid in June 1935.
All but two of these States are in drought or poor land regions
(figure 2). Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Minnesota form a belt
• These included 198,000 farm operators and 279,000 farm laborers who were heads of
household8 on the general emergency relief program (a small percentage of the farmers
lived In towns of 2,500-6,000 population, the rest in open country and villages): 135,000
cases under care of rural rehabilltation ; an undetermined number aided by sons in the
Civilian Conservation Corps : and about 166,000 displaced farmers or farm laborers living
In cities and receiving urban or transient relief. These estimates of the Division of
Research, Statistics, nnd 1/'lnance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, exclude all
farmers or farm laborers 65 years of age and over.
1 Due to changes in economic status through improved crop conditions in some areas,
to Agricultural Adjustment Administration benefit payments, and to seasonal employment
or administrative orders, some farmers left the relief rolls while others, BB their resources finally became entirply depleted, were forced to seek Federal aBBistance. Thus,
the total number of families aided during the year was considerably larger than the
number receiving emergency aid at any one time.
• Undupllcated total. Casee that received both relief grants and rehabilitation advances
were considered rehabilitation cases.
• Because of lack of census data on farm laborer heads of households (unlike farm
operators, farm laborers are not predominantly household bends), estimates of the
percentage of farm laborer households on relief by States are not available.
• Ratios bBBed on the Census of Agriculture tend to be slight overstatements as the
farmers lncluderl In the present survey were not necessarily still on their farms. All
farmers reported by the Census of Agriculture were actually operating farms at the date
of enumeration.
• Table 1 and Fifteenth Census of the United States: J!JSO, Population Vol. VI.
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
Extent and Causes of Farm Distress
7
across the northern part of the 1934 drought area. ·wyoming forms
a connecting link with Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, a chain of southwestern drought States cutting into the Dust
Bowl and the cotton areas. Kentucky and Pennsylvania had large
concentrations of farmers on relief in the Appalachian sections with
their poor soil and abandoned mines.
FIG.2-FARM OPERATORS RECEIVING RELIEF GRANTS OR REHABILITATION
ADVANCES IN JUNE 1935 IN ACTUAL NUMBERS AND AS A
PERCENT OF ALL FARM OPERATORS IN 1935, BY STATES
rcenl
ceiving
relief or
rehabilitation
D o-5
mJ 5 - 10
~ 10· 15
UPPER FIGURE - Relief
LOWER FIGURE - Rehobil ilolion
BIii
15 - 25
■ 25 and over
•Lesa than~ coses
AF• 2007, WP.A.
Heavy relief in Florida and South Carolina. may be attributed to
a number of local natural and economic conditions and to local administrative policies. These States were probably more liberal in
accepting farm families for aid than were other southern States.
Rehabilitation clients in June were still concentrated to a large')
extent in the southern States, where the program was first developed. (
Of the 8 States with more than 10,000 clients receiving advances ·
during the month, only 2 (South Dakota and Minnesota) were outside the South. The program had its smallest development on the
west coast and in the northeastern States (figures 2 and 4).
/
BASIC FARM PROBLEMS
Part of the vast volume of rural need was due directly to depression factors. Farmers who had done fairly well in the past were
victims of bank failures and vanishing markets. City workers and
workers in rural industries lost their jobs and, without farm experience or capital, tried to make a living from the soil. Youth who
would normally have gone to the cities and towns to work in indus-
Diy1!zed by
Google
8
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
try stayed on the farm, crowding into an already overcrowded
agriculture.
The depression was not directly responsible, however, for all the
rural distress reflected in the heavy relief rolls. Federal relief
brought to light a much more numerous group of farmers whose
distress arose from long-run factors, who had led a precarious existence for some years prior to the depression because of these factors,
or for whom the depression was the last straw in an accumulation
of troubles outside their control.
Some of the accumulating hazards of American agrarian life 10
have been enumerated here. They show the variety and complexity
of the forces which underlie rural distress and indicate the regional
differences involved.
Farming on Poor Land.
In many parts of the country, farmers have been attempting for
years to cultivate soil which was never suitable for farming or which
has deteriorated beyond redemption.11 Such soil has given them
only the barest living and has made it impossible for them to better
heir condition. Had Federal relief not been made available, they
might have continued mo:re or less inarticulately to endure their
extreme poverty unaided. The relief program served to bring their
condition to light and to focus attention on the need for removing
, the impoverished land from cultivation.
- The National Resources Board has estimated that about 450,000
farms in the United States, including 75 million acres, are of this
submarginal type. 12 They are to be found for the most part in the
hilly, dry, or forested parts of the country and in sections where
he soil is light and sandy or seriously eroded.11 Over one-half
, of the total acreage proposed for retirement from arable farming
\_/ ~ s in the Western Great Plains and the southeastern hilly cotton and
-f ! tobacco regions, although scattered concentrations are found
1
throughout the United States.
'-txcess Birth Rate in Poor Land Areas.
Poor land in itself is a sufficient hazard to farming, but when, as
in the Appalachian-Ozark highlands and parts of the cotton areas,
it is coupled with an excessive birth rate, the problem is greatly
aggravated, and individual and family suffering multiplied. In
•• Discussed In more detail by Beck, P. G. and Forster, M. C., Blfl BfwaJ Problem Areu,
Rellef-Re11ource11-RehalnHtatlon, Research Monograph I, Division of Relearch, Statistics,
and Flnanee, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 19311.
11 National Rmiources Board Report, December 1, 1934, pp. 1~16.
12 Idem,, pp. 110, 127, 1117 ff., 1711 ff.
18 Jdem, p. 181.
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
Wast e in th e Cul-Over Area
Digitized by
Google
01
Ii
a
G
Extent and Causes of Farm Distress
9
the past, the high farm birth rate served to populate new areas and
the cities. But desirable free homestead land was exhausted years
ago and the covered wagon is no longer a means of escape from an
overcrowded shack in the hills. The depression shut off the opportunity to make a living by migrating to cities and towns. There was
nothing for the surplus rural population to do but remain, causing
serious unbalance between population and land in many sections.
Soil Erosion.
Not only have some farmers been trying to grow crops on hopelessly poor soil, but others have been ruining good land by practices
conducive to soil erosion or have failed to take necessary precautions
to protect land subject to erosion. Warnings of soil erosion have
been heard in many areas for years, but these have been ignored by
farmers who were too eager for immediate results to care about the
future. Other farmers could not afford the outlay necessary to prevent erosion or had such limited acreages that they had no choice
but to use their land to the full, regardless of the danger of overcropping. In 1934, the National Resources Board reported that the
usefulness for farming of 35 million acres had been completely
destroyed, that the top soil was nearly or entirely removed from
another 125 million acres, and that destruction had begun on another
100 million acres. u
Excessive cropping has been especially destructive on the dry land
of the Western Great Plains, where quarter sections allotted to the
settlers under the homesteading laws were too small for economic
use of the land. The farmers were further led astray during the
World War when they were encouraged to break more and more
sod in order to meet the world demand for wheat. No provision
was made against the effects of the inevitable dry years, and vast
acreages of dry soil were left unprotected by grass or trees against
the ravages of wind and sun.
The southern and western corn belts also contain much easily
eroded soil which is being destroyed because the many small farmers
in the area have been concentrating on clean-cultivated row crops.
In the hilly southeastern section, cotton and tobacco are being grown
for the market on land from which the top soil has been completely
worn away. Cultivating the subsoil requires extensive use of fertilizer, which makes farming on such land an expensive and precarious business. The cost of fertilizer consumes a large part of the
farmer's income and credit, and when the crop fails he is ready for
the relief rolls. 15
"National Re.•ource11 Board Report, op. clt., p. 17.
u Woofter, T. J., Jr., Landlord and Tenant on the Ootton Plantation, Research Mono•
:graph V, Division ot Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1936, chapter V.
Cig1 . zed by
Google
10
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Inadequate Size of Farms.
Small farms in areas which require large-scale methods oft.en lead
to practices conducive to soil erosion, as already pointed out. Even
when soil erosion is not involved, the farms are often inadequate to
make a stable income possible. 16 Where productivity per acre is
low, as in the western dry-farming regions and the hilly cotton areas,
and where there is constant threat of drought, large acreages arc
required to compensat.e for low productivity and to build up reserves
for years of crop loss. Farmers whose acreages are too small to provide such surpluses in good years are brought to dependency at the
first year of crop failure.
Extension of the One Cash Crop System.
The recent trend in American agriculture has been toward absolute dependence on a single cash crop-cotton, tobacco, corn, or wheat
-to the exclusion of production of food and feed crops for home
use. The small farmer who follows this practice is rarely able to
accumulat.e reserves in good years for the year when his one crop fails
or the market falls. When that time comes, he is left not only with
no alternative source of income but also with no products for home
consumption.
Overcapitalization of Farms.
During the World War and post-war years, farmers borrowed
money and bought large acreages of land at inflated values in order
to take advantage of high prices for foodstuffs. They also invested
heavily in machinery to be paid for at some future date. But before
they could realize on their investment, the depression sent prices and
land values tobogganing. Many were unable to meet real estate
and chattel mortgage payments and were left in the hands of their
creditors.
Decline of Rural Industries.
Natural resources, such as timber, coal, and other minerals, have
been progressively and oft.en wastefully depleted in certain parts of
the country. These formerly furnished small farmers with a means
of earning the cash income necessary to supplement their limited
agricultural production. When these industries declined, the farmers became completely dependent on farms too small or too unproductive to support them. This situation is found in the Lake States
Cut-Over and Appalachian-Ozark Areas in particular, and accounts
in part for the heavy relief loads in those regions.
1
•
Nationai Reaources Board Report, op. oit., pp. 17 an,1 159.
.4ba11do11{'(/ Coal Mine
Dig tized by
Google
I
Dig1 zed
byGoogl
Extent and Causes of Farm Distress
11
The Tenant System.
An extremely low standard of living has been characteristic of ten-
<
ant farmers in various parts of the country 17 since long before the __
depression. This has been particularly true of the South where the
cotton tenant system, especially that phase of tenancy known as \
sharecropping, was developed to utilize the abundant supply of cheap )
and tractable labor.
(
Under the sharecropping system the t.enant furnishes the labor of (
his entire family, as well as his own, for raising the cotton crop.
1
The family receives in return the use of a piece of land, a. house, \
work stock, equipment, subsistence goods, and the proceeds of half (
the crop, the other half being retained by the landlord. This system \
has become more and more widespread, until at the present time 50 S
percent of the tenants in some States are sharecroppers.18
-✓
While cotton was booming, the extreme poverty of the southern
cotton tenant attracted little attention, but the depression and predepression years brought a crisis in the cotton market. Cotton acreage
was extended after the war. Increases in production, however, coincided with a. relatively decreasing demand both at home and abroad.
The competition of artificial silk, increased production in foreign
countries since the World War, and increased tariffs were some of
the factors responsible. The results were decreasing prices since
1925 and a. large carry-over from one season to another.
When the depression brought these conditions to a. clima.x, acrea~
was sharply reduced, and tenants, especially sharecroppers, were dis--!
placed from the land. With no resources of any kind, and accus- J
tomed to depend on the landlord for every want,19 large numbers \
of tenant farm families were left stranded, bewildered, and helpless. ' 1
The acreage reduction program of the Agricultural Adjustment\
Administration raised prices and helped the cotton growers by benefit ,~ / ,/
payments. Most of the t.enants' payments in the first years of the \. Y .
program, ho~ever, were applied by the landlords to old debts,20 and (..
tenants contmued to be displaced from the farms, although at a
.1
much slower rate than before.
!
Assuming a. permanently decreased demand for cotton, the tenant (
system of the South has produced a "stranded" population, a. group\
of landless people with undeveloped capacities, who, unless some )
scheme for rehabilitation is devised, will be permanently in need of (
public assistance.
r'
j
17
Oj).
18
For a detalled description of tenancy in the old Cotton Belt, see Woofter, T. J., Jr.,
olt.
Umted States Oen8UB
of
Agrfoulture: 19.15.
111
Holfsommer, Harold, Landlord-Tenant Relations and Relief in Alabama, RPsearch
Bulletin, Series II, No. 9, Division of RP•earch, Statistics, and Finance, J,'ederal
l!.'mergeney Relief Administration, November 14, 1935.
•Idem.
Cig1 . zed by
Google
12
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Not so widely publicized, but more rapid of late, has been the
increase in tenancy in the drought-stricken Great Plains Area, where
discouraged owners are being replaced by tenants.
Farm Laborer Problem.
Insofar as farm laborers have formerly been employed by farmers
now on relief, their need for relief is caused by the same factors
that caused the need of their former employers. The depression also
led to unemployment of farm laborers through restricting the demand
for farm hands by farmers still able to carry on. It may be reasonably assumed, therefore, that the relief problem of farm laborers is
to a greater extent a function of the depression than the result of
long-run tendencies. 21
In addition, the problem of migratory labor has grown markedly
with the increase of large-scale one crop commercial farming. Since
under this system laborers are needed for only a brief period while
the one crop is being harvested, they must move on to other areas
after a few weeks, and so on throughout the season. At best they
can find employment for only a few months a year and their wages
are not enough to carry them through the months of idleness. Because of their wandering existence, they are without roots in any
community and cannot turn to neighbors or neighborhood grocers
for help in off-seasons.21
m Inadequaclee of available data make It lmpoeslble to ascertaln the ertent to which
unemployment of farm laborers Is due to displacement caused by Increasing mechanl11111tlon.
.. For a detailed dlscosslon of the migratory labor problem, see Webb, John N., The
MlqratOfll-Oaaual WOf'ker, Research Monograph VII, Division of Social Reaearch, Workll
Progresa Administration, 1937.
Digtized:iyGoogle
CHAPI'ER
II
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMS
1933,1 the Federal Government assumed responsibility , 1 .
for public assistance to the unemployed. 2 The Federal Erner-.\. '.' -'
gency Relief Administration was established in May 1933 with
a program of making cash grants to the States for direct or work
.reUef under Fe~eral_ su_pervjsion.8 In the fall of that year, the
Federal Surplus Relief Corporation was organized to assist the
F. E. R. A. by purchasing and distributing commodities, such as
foodstuffs and feed for livestock, to the States.'
Direct relief, whether in cash or in kind, was looked upon by the
Administration as a "dole" which in the long run would tend to
demoralize tts recipients through prolonged idleness. Furthermore,
direct relief created no equivalent for the money spent. Because of
these objections, and because of the limited range of employment
under the Public Works Administration, a program of work relief
was early developed in a number of States.
)
In November 1933, the Civil Works Administration was set up to
provide jobs quickly for the unemployed, both those on relief and
t-hose who had managed to stay off the rolls. Large numbers of rural \
cases were cared for under this program during the winter months,
but as early as March employment under the Civil Works Program .'
was discontinued in a number of States. On April 1, 1934, the C. W:
A. work program gave way to the emergency work relief program
of the F. E. R. A., designed for workers from relief rolls, with
the few exceptions necessary to provide adequate supervision and
administration. Although the emergency work relief program was
intended to give employment to relief clients as a substitute for direct
relief, such substitution was limited by available funds and by the
E
ARLY IN
1 Prior to this time, relief had been considered a local responslbllley, although the
Recoustructiou Finance Corporation had been established to make loaD8 to the States to
aBBlst them ID caring for the unemployed.
• The agencies dlscuased ID thll chapter are limited to those which gave major uslstauce
to farmers who either temporarily or permanently had lost their meau1 of self-1upport.
• For a detailed history of the F. E. R. A., see Carothers, Doris, Ohronolofnl of the
Jl'ederai Bmergencv Relief A/Jmln'8tratlo,,., Mau ~. 1!133, to DtY.;ember :u, 1M5, Research
Monograph VI, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Admlulstratlou; aud Hopkins,
Harry L., 8petl!Ung to Save, New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1936.
'The F. S. R. C. was only In part a relief organlzatlou. ID November 19311, Its name
was changed to Federal Surplus Commodltles Corporation and 1ta direction was brought
under_ the Department of Agriculture.
18
137296°-37-3
Dl'JI
zedbyGoogle
14
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
fact that many households had no employable member. A large proportion of cases continued to receive direct relief, either alone or as
\
a supplement to work relief earnings.
: / · ,Y ~ Farmers and farm laborers, along with other workers on relief
, 1 1--- rolls, shared in these early types of Federal relief and work programs
in varying degrees. Unemployed farm laborers and farmers who
had lost their farms presented in some respects the same problem
as other unemployed persons. They needed help to tide them over
until they could return to farming or find employment outside agriculture. It was discovered, however, as early as May 1933, that
thousands of farmers still on their farms also were without sufficient
means of subsistence. As soon as the F. E. R. A. began to function,
requests for help began to come into Washington headquarters from
the drought-stricken Southwest where farmers were losing their crops
and livestock. Direct relief was needed for the smaller farmers who
were unable to get loans for livestock feed from the Farm Credit
Administration or commercial agencies. The F. E. R. A. responded
with funds for direct relief and feed for such livestock as farm
families retained for their own use.
DROUGHT RELIEF•
By September 1933, the Northwest had been added to the drought
area and Federal relief activities had to be extended. A special
drought relief program was adopted in which various Federal agencies cooperated. The F. E. R. A. set aside a special fund for drought
relief for the purchase of grain, hay, and other feed. It also continued to give direct relief to farm families. The Bureau of Public
Roads established road building projects for drought farmers, whose
wages were paid first from relief funds and later by the C. W. A.,
while the P. W. A. assumed up to 30 percent of the cost of materials.
After April 1, 1934, the various State relief administrations continued
the road projects under their work programs.
The drought relief program was greatly expanded in 1934, when
more than half the land area of the United States suffered from
serious drought (figure 3). Under the Emergency Appropriation
Act of June 1934, the F. E. R. A. was allotted funds for relief and
land purchases. Relief took the form of food, clothing, household
supplies, and medical care; feed for subsistence livestock; seed for
forage crops; and employment on the work program, where wages
were paid in cash or credited against advances made for feed and
seed.
• Mont1'l11 Reports of the Federal Emergencr, Relief Admlnl1tratlon, December 1933, pp.
8-9 ; February 1935, pp. 18-23 ; and November 1935, pp. 11-23.
Digitized by
Google
Relief and Rehabilitation Programs
15
Agencies cooperating with the F . E . R. A. in the drought relief
program included State and local relief administrations; the Office
of Emergency Conservation Work; the Extension Service of the Department of Agriculture, and its State and county agents; the
Drought Relief Service of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration; the Farm Credit Administration; the Farm Debt Adjustment Service; and the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation which
took the livestock purchased by the A. A. A. and had it processed for
distribution among relief families.
FIG. 3-EMERGENCY AND SECONDARY DROUGHT COUNTIES
October 24, 1934
Sa.rte: SIX'°-1
U 5- 0.1)«-
of
of
AQricullurol Econcmk5
AF- 2085. weA.
Agri<ulh,o
Orders to State administrators, effective March 1, 1935, and subsequently, provided that the Rural Rehabilitation Division of the
F. E. R. A. should extend its activities to include drought relief
cases. The special F. E. R. A. grants for drought relief rapidly decreased after that date, although large numbers of drought cases
continued to be cared for throughout the summer and fall of 1935.
RURAL REHABILITATION
F armers who could regain self-support, if provided with fertilizer,
seed, tools, or work animals, presented another special problem to
relief administrators when Federal aid was first extended. Early in
the history of F. E. R. A., the relief admin istrations of southern
States began to make advances of such capital goods to relief clients
instead of giving them recurrent direct relief grants.
Digitized by
Google
16
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
In April 1934, a special Rural Rehabilitation Division was established within the F. E. R. A. to develop this type of aid to farmers
on a national scale. Its purpose was "to assist destitute fa.rm families
and other families residing in rural areas to become self-supporting
and independent of emergency relief aid." 8
This program recognized the variety of problems facing farmers
who had been receiving drought or other emergency relief or whose
resources were nearly exhausted. For those living on fertile land, it
proposed to provide such resources as seed, livestock, equipment,
buildings, building repairs, and more land if needed; to arrange debt
adjustments if necessary; and to give training and advice in farm
management and home economics. Displaced farmers would be relocated on the land. Farmers living on poor land would be moved
to better land purchased under a land program in which the A. A. A.
shared. Rural relief families living in towns having less tl;tan 5,000
inhabitants would be provided with subsistence gardens. Selected
families would be transferred from the towns to subsistence farms.
Families stranded by the decline of local industries would be encouraged to develop subsistence gardens and community farmsteads.'
All subsistence and capital goods provided under the rehabilitation
program 8 would be assigned to cash value, charged against the families' accounts, and paid for by the farmers in cash, in kind, or in
work on Federal work projects.'
Although these general objectives were determined by the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, the program was worked out
under State control. The State emergency relief administrations
organized their own rural rehabilitation divisions to outline policies
and to conduct the programs. Later they organized Rural Rehabilitation Corporations which acted as the legal and financial agents of
the rehabilitation divisions.
• "Rural RehablUtatlon Program," Month.Ill Report of the Federal E ~ Relief
For cooperating agencies, eee p. 8 of that report.
'"The Rural Rehabilitation Program,'' Jlonthl11 Report of the Federal Emergency ReUflf
Admlniatration, August 19311, pp. 14-24.
• Capital goods refer to the gooda classed na "rehabilitation goods" under the Fooeral
Emergency Relief Administration rehabilitation program. These Included the ''purchalle,
rental, construction, or repair& of land, buildings, home equipment, livestock, work
animals, feed, seed, fertilizer, equipment, farm tools, or machinery and any other capltnl
outlay■ required to carry out the rural rehabilitation program for Individual cases, groups
and/or community projects." Subsistence goods under the Federal Emergency Reller
Administration rehabilitation program Included "cash and/or the t:,pe■ of servlet>s or
commodities which are usually Issued In the form of direct relief to general relier cases.
Burh commodities are: food, clothing, fuel, medical cnre, or any other ne-cessltles llf Ure
which the Rural Rehabilitation cases may need pending their complete rehabllltatlon."From a letter to ell Stnte Emergency Relief Administrations, Attention Rural Rehnbllltatlon Directors, Subject: "Rural Rehabilitation Progrnm: Financial Policies and Procedures," December 26, 1934, Federal Emergency Relifof Administration Form RD-22a.
• Firat Annual Report, Resettlement Admlniatrotlon, 1936, p. 9.
AdmimatraUon, May 1934, p. 6.
Dnr zed by
Google
17
Relief and Rehabilitation Programs
It is not surprising, there£ ore, that the programs in practice
diverged somewhat from the original plan. Although administrative machinery was provided for organizing rehabilitation on a
national scale, the program continued to be concentrated in the
southern States. As the program was worked out in the States,
rehabilitation "in place" 10 became the major type of aid provided,
whereas the resettlement of farmers from submarginal to better
lands was conducted on a much smaller scale.
The first F. E. R. A. grants specifically for rural rehabilitation,
made in May 1934, went to seven southern States-Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia; and six western States-Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, South
Dakota, and W ashington.U Due in part to the fact that it began
late in the growing season, the program was slow in getting under
way.
I
(
TABLE 3.-CASES RECEIVING REHABILITATION ADVANCES, BY MONTHS, APRIL
1934
Year and month
THROUGH JUNE
Number of
cases
11134
tm'-=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June
_________________________________ _
Jnly
___________________________________
- -- -- --- --- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- ---_
August
September __ -------------------------October_ ----------------- ...... ---- .._
November
___ . _______________________
December. ___________________________ _
825
18,071
27,428
30, 7711
il4,372
40,092
46,011
62,391
68,810
1935 1
Number
of cases
Year and month
lll:!6
Je.nuary ______________________________
_
February
__________
.---·-------------March. ________
... _____
. _. ________ . __ _
Uar:--::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June_-··--··.-------------------··----
72,222
87,3/iO
172, 8811
llOU, 1161
~433
D,612
Data revised 88 of Apr. 111, 1936.
Bomoe: Division o f ~ . StatlatlOB, and Records, Worb Progress Administration.
1
In February 1935, fewer than 88,000 cases received advances under
the rehabilitation program 11 ( table 3) and more than half of these
were in the 2 States of Alabama and Louisiana. Ninety-three percent
of the total were in the 10 southern States of Alabama., Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana., Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, and Texas. Outside of the South the only States
with more than 100 cases were Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri,
Ohio, and Washington ( table 4).
10 Rehabilitation "In place" Included those caseB tn which the rehabllltatton agency
bought or leased land in the immediate vicinity end rented 1t to Individual clients, or
helped clients to obtain better leasing nrrangemente, as well as those 1n which. the client
was rehabilitated on the land which he already occupied.
u The State of Vermont also received a smell grant.
u Th111 figure excludes households which bad received advances In previous months, but
which had received none during February.
01g1• zed by
Goog Ie
)
·,
18
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
TABLE 4.-CAsEs REcE1v1No AnvANcEs UNDER THE RuR.u REHABILITATION
PROGRAM, FEBRUARY THROUGH JUNE 1935,1 BY STATE
Number of cases receiving advances t
State
February
United States, total ________________ .
87,350
March
172,886
AprU
May
200,951
205,433
200,812
18, 07ll
163
19, 115
17, 507
157
18, 1198
.Alabama_----- -·-- ·-·· ···-·---·----··--·-·
20,813
21,817
18,273
Arizonn . . ----······· ·- ···-····-•·-••····· ·
17
48
~ll
Arkansas.·-··· ...........•.... ·-··.·-·....
ll, 942
17,372
19,014
California ..... ...................... ... ... ·-··--·······--··-········ ··-···· · · ·
Colorsdo ___ .. __··-·-···-·-···-··---··-·-·· ·-·· · · ······
241
11,371
lune
2
:n
6,138
11,917
Connecticut_ ... -·-·-·-·-·-··-····-·-····-·
3
2
1
86
64
Delaware_·- -····· ···· -- ·····--·---··· ·······-·-· ···· ···-··· -··· ···· -·---· ····· ·· -- -·· ·· ··· ··-----· - · ··
Fiorida ... --·-··---·-·-·--·····---···-·····
1,372
4,043
6,435
5,740
6, 7<11
Oeorl(ia.-··-···--···-·········-· -·-·-· -···6,978
11,008
12,161
12,457
12,3114
Idaho ... ---- - -··-- ---·- -·····-·-·------ ·-·
31
45
117
168
120
I, 276
750
833
Illinois . . _.··-··-·---······--···-···-···.·584
2,350
911
796
873
Indiana·-·-· ···-----·-·-····· ······- ······
2!H
437
266
~
1,228
Iowa . . . ••····-·-· · ··----··················
16
73
Kansas. ... ............. .. ... ..... ......... ......•••...
311
326
1,251
7,244
33
973
M5
Kentucky.-····---···--·-·--···-· ---···- ...... --·-·· .... -··-----··
Loulslana.-··-· ·-· -· ·-----·······-········
25,584
24,551
~744
12,3:!l
10,710
Maine .... ·-····-·-·-····-··-······-··-···29
40
23
125
3M
Maryland .·····-··········•-····· ··-· ···-· ···----···· · ····-·-··-·· ···-·---···· ·--··--···-· ····--··---Ma.ssachwetta....... _..... -............... ·-·········· ·····•-•···· .... .... . ... ·· -··· · ····· ····-·· ··· ··
Michigan .. ·---- ·- --- --·-···-····-·-····-··
1,414
1,540
1,898
2,014
2,179
Minnesota . . ---·· · -·-·--··-·---·----·--· ...
26
Mis.sissippi. ____ .• _._ .. _....... -.-· ····-···
6,331
Missouri. ... ·-·--- ·---·· .... ···-.-···.....
129
Montnna .. --··-·· -· -············-··--·-··· · ·-------···
Nebraslr.a..... ..• -··-··-··-·-······-·--····
2
10
21, 72&
10, 711
19,944
l,!'i07
68
864
17,509
8,978
21,061
Nevada .... •• ···-·-· ··-··· ········--····· ·
16
25
22
New Hampshire..•••....................... . .. .... . •.. ···-·---····
30
New JersoY . . . .. . · -· ·· ···········-········ · ..•......... · -·----·····
IOI
New Mexico ...... . _··················-····· · ··-·······-····--·--··
8, ;33
New York.--·---·····-·······-··-···--···· -·-··--·-··· ··-- ··---··· ·····-······
North Carolina ... -.• ···-··-··-············
1,052
4,485
11,122
North Dakota ... . . .. .... •······-·- ·· ········--····--··
2
2
Ohlo . ..... .............. ....... -···-······
1,709
2,381
2,721
Olr.lahoma .. _..... - ······-··- ········· ···· ·
401
2,437
4,852
Oregon ..... ·-·----···-··- ··---------· -· ... ·-------·--- · -- ------·· ... ··-· ··--··
16, 4311
12, -139
14,425
688
I, 761
22
50
lll8
II, 61l8
65
11,781
16
2, 164
6,948
43
10,842
12, 3f;()
6,500
6411
2,377
21
113
228
II, 120
117
6,874
33
2,344
8,210
68
Pennsylvnnla . . .......... --·-·-··-----··-·· ··-- --· --- · · ··--···--···
04
313
373
Rhode Islnnd .. .....•... -····•-·-··-·-·•-·· ·--·· · •· · · · . ·-········ ·· --······ · .. . · · - ····· .... ··-·---• · · ..
South Carolinn . ..• -····---·············· · ·
2,117
3,449
4,998
6, 001·
6,079
South Dako1.a ... - ·-····-·····-·-···-·•···•
25
977
I. 246
3, 135
17, O:tl
Tennessee. •··· --- · · ··· ······ ··-· -- ·· ··-·-·.... .... ....
1,102
2,083
3,008
2,934
Texas·--··-···-- -- ·-· ·-····· ··-- ···- ·--- · ·
7,548
11,810
18, 441
23,078
22,939
279
16, 114
174
756
11,632
2,176
1,183
Utah ....... •-- ·· ···-··· ·-· ·-·· ····· ····-··
16
108
2'lll
483
Vermont·-·--· ·· ·····-······-···--···-········--······ ······-····· -····-·-···· ........... .
Virgini11 .... -··· -·-·- - ·····-········· ·-·-··
37
28,~
1,311
2,628
Washington .. ·-··-- - · · · ·-·---·--·--····-··
HO
277
375
434
West Virginia . .. ----··-·--·-··-·-••·······
1,629
67
Wisconsin._ .. ·-·· -· ··-·-···············--·
46
15,289
Wyoming ·-•··· · ··· ···················· · -· · ··-········ ·····-······
594
I
3,057
463
1,481
l, 108
1 Data revised as or Apr. 16, 10:m.
t The total nnmher or clients under care. I.e., who still owed the Rehabilitation rorporation ror advsnres,
each month March to June inclusive, was ns follows: Mnrrh 2'i0,fi31; April 2114,637; May 315,746; June 366,945
(figures from unpublished reports; tlata for 1,·ebruacy JQ35 not available).
Source: Division or Research, Statistics, and Records, Works Progress Administration.
Many of these cases, although nominally transferred from general
relief to the rehabilitation division, had experienced no change in
type of aid received. The large rehabilitation case loads in Alabama
b.nd Louisiana, for instance, do not mean that the rehabilitation
programs were unusually comprehensive and far advanced in those
Digitized by
Google
Relief and Rehabilitation Programs
19
States. Wholesale transfers were followed by attempts to classify
the clients and to work out differentiated programs. Even when this
had been done, many cases continued to receive substantially the
same types of aid as they had when on the genera.I relief program,
since general relief in some rural sections of the South had been on a
loan basis for some time and in other sections rehabilitation advances
of subsistence goods had the character of direct relief grants.
The predominance of the South in the early rehabilitation program
may be explained by the prevailing tenant system, which had reduced
many tenants, especially sharecroppers, to destitution. After the
crop reduction program of the A. A. A. had been carried out, landlords, who no longer needed as many tenants and croppers as before
or who were unwilling to furnish them with their subsistence for the
coming season, were reluctant to reemploy these displaced tenants.
The rural rehabilitation program, however, by "furnishing" the <croppers and tenants,18 made it possible for them to raise a crop
in 1934.
Another reason for the predominance of the South in the early
program may be that the region presented a relatively simpler
problem than some other areas. Most of the farmers in need of
relief were already on the land and could readily be rehabilitated
''in place."
Between February and March 1935, the number of cases receiving
rural rehabilitation advances doubled, as thousands of drought relief
cases were transferred to the rolls. The numbers receiving aid also
increased in April as the transfers of drought cases continued and
as the beginning of the growing season caused a number of cases
to be added to the rolls.
The transfer of drought cases, like the "furnishing" of sharecroppers, meant another modification of the rehabilitation program,
because it made rehabilitation clients of many farmers who were in
need not of any long-range rehabilitation but only of some emergency assistance, such as feed for livestock.
In June 1935, the 10 southern States which had 93 percent of all ---,
rural rehabilitation clients in February still contained about 60 ')
percent of the cases. By that time, however, the rehabilitation pro- \
gram had been so extended that only 11 of the 48 States had less _
than 100 rehabilitation clients or none at all (table 4 and figure 4) •..:..,
During this period of expansion a certain amount of shifting was .'
occurring in the rehabilitation rolls. The total number of clients
under care at any time from April 1934 through June 1935 was
11 The practice of mating eubslstenee advances Is known locally ae "furnishing."
For a
dlscusalon of this practice, see Woofter, T. J., Jr., Landlord ona Tenant Ofl the OottOfl
Plantation, Research :Monograph V, Division of Social Research, Works Progre88 Administration, 1936, pp. 59 and 63.
o,- I zed by
Google
Farmers on Relief and R eh abilitation
20
398,000.H Since the total number of cases on the records in J une
was only 367,000, it appears that about 30,000 cases had been losed
in the 15-month period. Some of these were clients who had repaid
advances; others had been considered unsatisfactory clients for rehabilitat ion and had been dropped from the program.
FIG.4- RURAL REHABILITATION CASES RECEIV_ING ADVANCES
June 1935
Each dot
represenfs
5_0
CO_S'f.
NUMBER OF CASES
ALABAMA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORN IA
,COLORADO
CONNECTICU T
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
17,507
157
18,998
21
6. 9 17
54
5. 707
12.394
120
833
873
1.228
7,244
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
545
10,710
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
354
2 , 179
10.642
12,360
6.500
649
NEBRASKA
NEVAOA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES TOTAL
2.377
21
113
228
9,120
97
6,874
33
2,344
8,210
58
373
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TE XAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
6,079
17,933
2,934
22.939
594
I
3.057
463
1,183
1,481
LI06
203.612
AF-2087, W.P.A.
The type of capital or rehabilitation goods advanced to clients
varied from area to area according to the type of farming. In the
cotton area. , mules or oxen, and fertilizer were usually advanced
to rehabilitation clients. In Tennessee,15 the rehabilitation advances
included fertilizer, seed, and livestock. In a Wisconsin county, cows,
horses, pigs and hens were supplied, as were seed and implements.
1
• Division of Research, Statlsttce, and Records, Works Progreps Administration.
Data
revised as or December IIS, 1936.
11
The following Information Is based on various county reports obtained In connection
with the Survey of Current Changes 1II the Rural Relief Population.
D1g11zedbyGooglc
Relief and Rehabilitation Programs
21
Advances for equipment sometimes took the form of refinancing
loans for maehinery (for example, in Olmsted County, Minnesota).
In some cases advances were also made for building materials, and
at least in Hawkins County, Tennessee, mortgages were secured with
the help of rehabilitation advances.
Only in a. few cases were the rehabilitation clients advanced money;)
with which to buy livestock or farm equipment and in those cases th~
clients were required to make account of their expenditures. Usually,)
the rehabilitation agency assisted the farmer in selecting the required
goods and made payment for him in the name of the Rehabilitatio~
Corporation. For durable goods and· livest.ock, which were bought
in this wa.y and sold to the client under a conditional sales contra.ct,
the Corporation retained the title.
The terms for repayment of rehabilitation loans showed variations
by States and even by counties. Usually, advances for capital goods
were repayable over a fairly long period, while advances for subsist.;. ,
ence goods, since they were goods of a. perishable character, were to
be repaid within 1 year. Crop mortgages and notes were given as
security. Interest on these advances was fixed in accordance with ·.
local rates; in some States no interest was charged until the notes \
reached maturity; in others the advances were free of interest for the ·
first year. In order to facilitate repayment, some rehabilitation /
agencies accepted payment in marketable produce. In a number of \_
instances, especially in regions where there were no money crops, due 1
particularly to drought, the rehabilitation clients were given employ- }
ment on work projects and thus were enabled to pay back part of (
their advances.
A number of States made relief grants to rehabilitation cases. As
late as June 1935, about 9 percent of the rehabilitation clients also
received relief grants, according to data from the nine sample areas.18
After the responsibility for the rural rehabilitation program was
transferred from the Federal Emergency Relief Administration to
the Resettlement Administration on June 30, 1935, it was taken out of
the hands of the States and became centralized under Federal
authority. Thus, more unifonn policies were made possible.
Rehabilitation loans to farmers continued under the new regime,
the Resettlement Administration providing farm management plans
and supervision to its standard loan clients, charging interest of 5
percent and limiting the period of a loan to 5 years.11 In addition,
the Resettlement Administration made loans to emergency cases, for
whom·no farm plan was drawn up. Beginning in November 1935
11
See chapter I, footnote 8.
u Taeuber, Conrad, 7'7le Work of the Reaettlenwmt Acl9"'n'3trntlon 4n the Worle l'rol77'Clffl,
Division of Research, Statlstlcs, and Records, Works Progress Adminllltratton, December 1,
193G, Appendix C-1.
Digitized by
Google
22
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
when the Federal Emergency Relief Administration was about t.o
terminate direct relief grants, the Resettlement Administration introduced direct grants for certain needy farmers. The Resettlement
Administration also encouraged cooperative purchase of farm
yquipment through loans.
"') During the transition period from State-controlled rehabilitation
/ corporations under F. E. R. A. to a Federal-eontrolled rehabilitation
l. 1 program under the Resettlement Administration, the number of
' farmers aided by the rural rehabilitation program declined. From
367,000 clients on the records in June 1935 under the F. E. R. A., the
number had fallen to 351,000 by July 31 and to 314,000 by November 15,18 including those in debt to the Administration for past loans
as well as those receiving advances during the month. Including
only those receiving advances during the month, the number fell
from 204,000 clients in June to 58,000 in October, and then rose
to 156,000 in December, comprising 26,000 loan cases and 130,000
grant cases.19
WORKS PROGRAM
/ In July 1935, the F. E. R. A. work program began to be sup, 'planted by the new Federal Works Program, coordinated by the
1
Works Progress Administration, which was the major employing
'--'~ agency.20 One important respect in which the new Works Program
differed from the F. E. R. A. work program was that the workers
were paid a monthly security wage rather than a relief grant based
on their budget deficiency. With the inauguration of the Works
Program, the Federal Government announced its intention of termi1 nating direct relief, and of turning over to the States and localities
' the responsibility for all persons in need, over and above the
\ 3:500,000 workers who were to receive jobs on the new program.
~ · The shift from Federal work and direct relief to Federal jobs
and local relief began slowly during the summer and fall and was
finally accomplished in November and December of 1935, when the
quota on Works Program employment was approximated and all
Federal direct relief, with minor exceptions, ended. Farmers in need
of aid who were not employed on Works Program projects, or cared
for by Resettlement Administration grants or loans, became the
responsibility of State and local relief agencies.
First Ann11al Report, Resettlement Administration, 1936, pp. 9-10.
See chapter VII, table 30.
""Report on the Works Program, Works Progress Administration, March 16, 1938,
pp. 1-10.
1•
29
D1g1
zedbyGoogle
CHAPI'ER
III
RELIEF GRANTS AND REHABILITATION
ADVANCES
of relief grants and rehabilitation advances
varied widely by agricultural groups and by areas. As the
administration of both relief and rehabilitation was largely
entrusted to the States, there were no uniform rulings to determine whether direct or work relief should be extended, or whether
rehabilitation advances should take the form of subsistence or
capital goods. Neither were there any uniform standards for the
amount of relief grants per family or the value of rehabilitation
advances, although the recommended procedure for determining relief grants was on a budget deficiency basis established by social
workers, while rehabilitation advances were to be determined on the
basis of individual farm plans developed by the county rural rehabilitation supervisors. Differences in the availability of funds
were also a factor in determining amounts granted.
In general, the various groups within agriculture might be expected to receive different types and amounts of aid according to
differences in standard of living and need for assistance. Where
farmers were still on the land, for instance, except in areas of extreme drought, it might not be feasible for them to leave their crops
at certain times of the year to work on relief projects. Furthermore,
they might be able to furnish part of their living from their own
land and thus require only supplementary direct relief. On the other
hand, an unemployed farm laborer living in a village might best be
served by work relief. Similarly, a. farm owner on rehabilitation
might require advances of only feed and seed, while a laborer who
was being established as a rehabilitation farmer would necessarily
require both working capital and subsistence goods.
T
YPES AND AMOUNTS
TYPES OF RELIEF
Both direct relief and work relief 1 were given to destitute farm
families. In some cases they received only one type of relief; in
others they received both types concurrently. Moreover, largely due
to the fact that farm operators who were still on their farms were
considered to be employed, work relief was given to employed workers as well as to the unemployed.
1
For a discussion of types of relief programs, see chapter II.
23
cig1 2-d by
Google
24
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
The fact that work relief was given to employed workers reflects
the inadequacy of much of this employment. It is true that the definition of current employment used in this survey-1 week or more
of employment during the month-permits a situation in which a
laborer might work during the first part of the month and go on
relief during the last part; he woultl be recorded as receiving relief
and working at the same time, merely because the two conditions
occurred during the same month. However, it may be assumed that
in the great majority of these cases relief and employment actually
did coincide, and that relief was given to supplement insufficient
earnings from private employment.
In regard to farmers who received work relief while operating
farms, it might be assumed that employment on relief projects in
the month of June would interfere with their work on the farm
and retard the process of rehabilitation. However, many farmers
on relief were, in normal times, only part-time farmers; others could
leave the farming activities to some other member of the household;
and still others had been prevented by drought or flood from putting
in full-time work on their farms.
In February, 75 percent of all the farm operators on relief who
were currently operating farms were receiving work relief or drought
relief, 2 while 60 percent of the currently employed farm laborers received these types of relief. In June, the proportions of currently
employed farm families receiving work relief were still high-74percent for farm operators and 60 percent for farm laborers a (appendix tables 1 and 2).
Active farmers and employed farm laborers participated in work
relief to a greater extent than did rural workers employed in nonagricultural industries. This may have been partly due to administrative policies. It was probably also due, in part, to the fact that
in this study farmers were considered employed if they w~re operating their land, whether or not this activity brought in any net
income or took any considerable part of their time; whereas nonagricultural workers were considered employed only if they put in
some hours of work and received some income.'
• Work rrllef, In this context, comprises work rellef only and work relief combined with
direct relief. Drought relief consisted primarily of cash payments for work on approved
projects although lu an undetermined proportion of cases drought relief consisted ot direct
re lief only.
• 'l'he 2 months of February and June are not dlrPctly comparable since statlstlcnl and
administrative procedurPs Included drought relief cases In February, but eliminated them
In June nfter they had been transferred to the Rural RehabUltatlon Division of the
Federal Emer~ency Relief Administration. The June data undoubtedly furnish more
accurate Information than the February data as to the role of work relief among the farm
relief clients.
• Exceptions to this latter group Include a small number of workers employed on "own.
account," such as proprietors of small buslneSBes and commission salesmen.
Digitzed by
Google
Relief Grants and Rehabilitation Advances
25
A greater proportion of employed farm laborers than of employed
nonagricultural workers received work relief in all areas in February, but this was true of only three areas in June. This difference
would indicate that the February emptoyment of nonagricultural
workers was more remunerative than the employment of farm laborers
in that month. The latter were probably employed to a greater extent
at odd jobs which left them more time to fill work relief assignments. As the agricultural season advanced, either the employment
of farm laborers became more substantial, or administrative policy
was opposed to extending them supplementary work relief.
Tenants (exclusive of sharecroppers) shared in the work relief 1
program more than any other farm group in June in most area~ ,
(appendix table 2). They shared in the work relief program to a"
higher degree than farm owners II in all areas except the Eastern )
Cotton Belt (figure 5). In six of the nine areas, a higher percentage,
of tenants than owners received direct relief combined with work re- ,
lief, the combination carrying higher benefits than either work or \
direct relief separately (appendix tables 3 and 4).
(
Employed farm laborers generally were given less work relief than
farm owners, although more employed farm laborers than farm owners received direct and work relief combined. Employed laborers
usually received much less work relief than tenants.
__
The great majority of the employed sharecroppers in both Cotton/
Areas received work relief, either alone or in combination with direct /
relief.
Negroes in all agricultural groups received less work relief than the/__
whites in both Cotton Areas, but the differences tended to be more ~/
marked in the Eastern Cotton Belt. While about two-thirds of each
of the white farm tenure groups in that area received work relief,(
only a little over one-half of the Negro owners and croppers and one-L
third of the Negro tenants received work relief. Only one-fourth
of the employed Negro farm laborers compared with three-fourths of
the employed white farm laborers were given work relief.
In all but one area, drought relief 'Was extended to workers
currently employed in nonagricultural industry in February 1935
(appendix table 1). In the Winter Wheat Area, 40 percent of the
cases on relief with heads currently employed in nonagricultural
industries received this type of relief. The role which drought
relief played in the various areas depended, of course, on administrative policies as well as on the actual drought situation.
<
• The small number of tann managers are combined with farm owners In all tables.
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
26
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
II
Work rtllef
only
~
Direct re lier
~ only
!l!S1ll Work and
liill2S1 direct relief
Percent
Owners
ALL AREA!:!
Tenants
Croppers
Owners
EASTERN
COTTON
Tenants
Croppers
Owners
WESTERN
COTTON
Tenants
Croppers
APPALACHIAN·
OZARK
LAKE STATES
CUT-OVER
HAY ANO
DAIRY
Ownera
Tenants
Owners
Tenants
Owners
Tenant,
Owners
CORN BELT
Tenants
Owners
SPRING
WHEAT
Tenant,
Owners
WINTER
WHEAT
Tenants
Owners
RANCHING
FIG.
Tenants
5- TYPE OF RELIEF RECEIVED BY RURAL HOUSEHOLDS
WITH t:IEADS CURRENTLY ENGAGED AS
FARM OPERATORS, BY AREA
June 1935
oig1•z_d by
Google
27
Relief Grants and Rehabilitation Advances
AMOUNTS OF RELIEF
Average relief grants were uniformly low, but they varied considerably among the different areas. The two Cotton Areas and/'
the Appalachian-Ozark Area stand out with the lowest median,
relief grants per family for all agricultural groups (table 5 andi,
figure 6). In these three areas, median grants for all agricultural')
groups were $10 or less in June 1935, and 90 percent or more of all '
grants were less than $20 (appendix table 5). The influence of
administrative policies cannot be entirely discounted, but it is safe
to assume that the low standard of living prevailing in these three \
areas was a determining factor in fixing the relief grants at thi§.: ·,
low level. The Lake States Cut-Over Area also is not a prosperous
area, but it ranks second highest with regard to median relief
amounts when all agricultural groups are taken together. Only
one-half of the cases received less than $20, and 36 percent received
from $20 to $39 in relief grants. The highest grants were in the
Hay and Dairy Area with an average grant of $22 in June 1935.
The average amounts of relief are per family and not per capita,
and therefore do not take into consideration the size of the relief
households,9 but when the two sets of data are compared, little or no
relationship is apparent (tables 5 and 13 and appendix table 7).
The average amounts of relief also varied somewhat by tenure
groups. In seven of the nine areas, tenants by usual occupation
received higher average grants than owners in June 1935 ( table 5 and
figure 6).
TABLE 5.-AVERAGE 1 AMOUNT OF RELIEF RECEIVED BY RURAL HOUSEHOLDS,
BY USUAL OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD AND BY AREA, JUNE 1935 •
[138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas]
Agriculture
Area
Total
Owners Tenants• Cropper.; Laborers
- -All
- areas
- -_________________________
---------------- --- -----.-Eastern Cotton:
Total.
___ ---- ---------------------- --_
White.-______________________________
Negro ________________________________ _
Western Cotton:
Total. ____ -- ------- --------- -- --- -- --White .• ________ --- ---- -- ---··· --· --- -- -- •• ---··· .• --· -_
Negro_-·-· ___ .--···.
.•• ___________________
Appelachlan-Ozark
Lake States Cut-Over ____________________ _
Hay and Dairy __________________________ _
Corn Belt ________________________________ _
~~~r
~'l::c::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ranching
________________________________ _
$12
$13
$12
S9
$12
$15
9
10
9
10
9
10
12
10
10
II
8
II
12
14
10
9
9
8
10
19
20
13
17
14
18
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
9
9
8
10
20
22
18
18
12
18
6
9
8
g -------···
25 ·······-··
21 ----------
145 ---------18 ····--·-··
12 ---------20 ----------
7
11
18
23
17
17
11
17
II
10
7
12
21
23
18
23
15
16
Median.
• Exclusive of cases openedhreopened, or closed during the month.
• Exclusive of croppers In t e 2 Cotton Areas.
1
• Variations in the method ot enumeration of cases by the different relief agencies may
influence the alze ol cases.
o,g,wKI by
Google
~
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
28
The Negro f arm families consi tently received mailer amounts of
relief than white families. The difference was most marked for the
r gro t.enants of the Eastern Cotton Belt who received $6 a month
as c mpared with $12 for the white tenants. As was shown in a
previo us study,7 these differences cannot fully be explained by the
size of white and Negro relief households. It may be assumed,
ther fore, that the lower standard of living usually prevailing among
the Negroes was made the basis of differentiation.
The nonagricultural workers by usual occupation received somewhat higher relief benefits in June 1935 than all groups of farm
operators and farm laborers in most areas (table 5). This difference
30
~
Owners
[SJ Tenant$
@ Croppers
ES Laborers
i
:g
.5
20
'•
:'i
'
~
0
Ia
10
I
O L--J.a.:;:L:..11:il.....~ill.ll"L...l~e""s.>.J
1er""
n'-"i"""pp""oil.
- ..-;.,.e
..._,.....,.Yo...,.,_~o""rnU-!S:,,;,.,;prmg
Colton lochion- Stoles Dairy Bell Wheat
Areas
Ozark
Cut'Over
FIG. 6- MEDIAN AMOUNT OF RELIEF RECEIVED av RURAL HOUSEHOLDS
WITH AGRICULTURE AS THE USUAL OCCUPATION
OF THE HEAD. BY AREA*
June 1935
~xclusive of coses opened, reopened,
°' closed
durinQ the month
is probably related to the fact that nonagricultural workers have less
opportunity than agricultural workers to provide themselves with
foodstuffs from their own land.
TYPES OF REHABILITATION ADVANCES
Subsistence goods 8 were advanced to 83 percent of the rehabilitat ion clients, while capital goods were advanced to 84 percent of the
clients (table 6). There were great variations among the different
°"
• Mangus, A. R ., The RvraJ Neuro
Relief, Fe'bruat'Jf 19SS, Research Bulletin H-3,
Division ot Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Adminis tration,
October 17, 1935, pp. 6-7.
• For dellnitlons or s ubsistence and capital goods, see C'hapter II.
DtJI
~edbyGoogle
Relief Grants and Rehabilitation Advances
29
areas. 9 In the Hay and Dairy and Lake States Cut-Over Areas,
only 32 and 38 percent, respectively, of the cases received advances
for subsistence goods. On the other hand, both Cotton Areas listed
more than 97 percent of their cases as receiving advances for subsistence goods.
Fewer clients received advances for capital goods than for subsistence goods in the Cotton, Wheat, and Ranching Areas, an indication that a fairly high proportion of the clients received nothing but
subsistence goods. In some of the southern States a distinction was
made between rehabilitation clients who were capable of managing
advances-of capital goods and those who were considered incapable,
and this may furnish an explanation for the lower percentages (of
cases with capital goods advances in the Cotton Areas. In b~h
Cotton Areas, the percentage of Negro cases with advances for cal\
ital goods was somewhat smaller than the corresponding figure fon
the white rehabilitation clients. In some States, it appears that a \
relatively large number of Negro clients were not considered capable /
of handling advances for capital goods.
/
TABLE 6.-TYPE AND AMOUNT OF TOTAL ADVANCF.S TO RURAL REHABILITA'J'ION CLIENTS,' BY CoLOR AND BY AREA, JUNE 1935
(138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas]
Area
All areas ______ ---------- ________
Eastern Cotton:
Total_ -- -- --- - -------- - -- --- -- -- - White _____ - -- -- --- -- --- -- -- -- -- -Negro_ - ___ - -------------------- -Western Cotton:
Total. -- --· --· -- - --- -- -- - --- -- -- - White _____ -- - -- -- - -- -- -- ---- - -- - Negro ______ -- -- -- --- -- --- --- ----Appalachian-Ozark ___________________
Lake States Cut-Over _________________
Bay and Dairy _______________________
Com Belt_--------------------------Spring
Wheat _________________________
Winter Wheat____________ ---------- __ Ranching ________ --- --- _______ ---- ____
Advances for capital
goods
Average
Number amount
or Percent
of cases• advances
receiving Average
advances amount
14,428
$189
84.0
$168
6,288
2,200
175
205
122
90.3
91.2
88.8
145
73
2,332
388
91.1
91.8
88.3
92. 3
98. 7
89.6
68.2
20.5
362
387
257
133
67
176
144
4,028
1,872
4f,0
904
770
1,386
1,284
948
310
206
416
276
163
104
168
116
31
187
182
86.5
69.9
119
44
178
201
I
Advances for subsistence goods
Percent
receiving
advances
Average
amount
83.1
$58
97.9
98.8
69
74
116. 3
97.3
97.3
97.4
76. 5
38.2
32.0
62.6
94.3
87. 7
77. 7
60
60
62
61
40
100
31
28
24
311
63
1 Only cases receiving advances during the month are included. The amount! include grants during
previoUll months as wall as during June.
Advances for capital goods were predominant in the Hay and
Dairy, Com Belt, Lake State.s Cut-Over, and Appalachian-Ozark
Areas, regions of general and self-sufficing farms. In such areas,
farmers usually raise their own foodstuffs and hence are less in need
of subsistence than farmers following the one crop system.
• It may be pointed out that the sample was selected as representative of the relief
situation and cannot, therefore, be considered as wholly representative of rural rehabilitation clients.
137296°-37--4
D1gt1zedoyGoogle
30
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
AMOUNTS OF REHABILITATION ADVANCES
The money value of the advances given to clients varied from $31,
the average advance in the Spring Wheat Area, to $416 for whites
in the Western Cotton Area (table 6). Next to the Western Cotton
Area, the Winter Wheat and Ranching Areas paid the highest
average advances. In terms of advances for capital goods alone, the
Western Cotton Area again held first rank. When subiistence
advances alone were considered, the Lake States Cut-Over Area was
found to have given the highest amounts, averaging $100, followed
by the Eastern Cotton Belt with $69. Moreover, the Lake States
Cut-Over was the only area in which the average value of advances
for subsistence goods exceeded the average value of advances for
capital goods.
The Negroes of the two Cotton Areas received considerably smaller
advances than the whites in both capital and subsistence goods.
Differing administrative policies probably were the primary reason
for the wide range in amount of advances. The various States based
their rehabilitation programs on different principles, and these programs, moreover, were in various stages of development at the time
of the survey. Differences in type of farming and standard of
living may also have led to differing financial requirements for
rehabilitation.
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
CHAPTER
IV
SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RELIEF '.AND
REHABILITATION HOUSEHOLDS
on relief or rehabilitation in June 1935 was
about 40 years old. He was married and had three or four
children, for whom he was the sole breadwinner. He had lived
in his present county of residence for at least 10 years.
The typical farm laborer head of a relief or rehabilitation household was 32 to 36 years old, was married, and had two or three
children. Like the typical farmer, he was the only worker in his
family and had been a resident of the county for at least a decade.
These composite pictures of the average farm families 1 receiving
aid in June 1935 indicate that the majority of such families were
similar to farm families in the general population with respect to age
and composition, although somewhat larger than average in size.
Certain variations come to light when relief and rehabilitation clients
are studied separately in the nine areas. ·
T
HE TYPICAL FARMER
AGE OF HEADS OF RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS
Farmers on relief 2 did not differ markedly in age from all farmers
in the United States in 1930 (table 7). Farm owners on relief proved
TABLE 7.-AGE OF ALL FARMERS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1930, AND
OF FARMERS 1 ON RELIEF, JUNE 1935
Median age In years
Tenure status
Farm operators••••...••....•..•.•.••......•••••..••.•••.•.....••............
Owners •.•...........•......••.•...•.••••..••...•.•.•...••.••......••...
Tenants, Including croppers ••.••.••..•.••.••............•••....•••••.•..
I
All !armers,
Relief farm.
1930 •
ers,1JUD811135
40.8
46.11
87-11
43. 3
47.5
37. 6
7
I
\
(_
By usual occupation.
• Fifternlh. Cenrua ofth.e Unit,d Slate&: 19MI. Agriculture Vol. IV.
• Based on data for 138 counties representative of g agricultural areas.
The terms "famlliee" and "households" are used Interchangeably In this chapter.
• Since only 1.4 percent of all farm operators In the sample were not heaJs of households, the B111all number of nonheads Is disregarded In the discussion.
1
31
01g1• zed by
Goog Ie
/
I
32
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
to be only about 11 months younger and tenants, including croppers,
about the same age as the same tenure groups in the general farm
population.8
The slightly lower average age of farm owners on relief, as compared with farm owners in the general farm population, suggests
that, on the whole, the older farm owners were somewhat less likely
to apply for relief than the younger ones because their economic resources were greater. The similarity of the average ages for tenants
in both categories may indicate that tenancy contains elements of
insecurity which are likely to affect all age groups• and make them
equally susceptible to the need for public support.
There is some indication that the younger farmers and farm laborers found it easier to leave the relief rolls during the spring
planting season. Comparison was made of the age distribution of
all heads of farm families on relief in February and June 1935
(tables 8 and 9). In the nine areas, taken as a whole, the age group
5!'H>4 years was larger for all agricultural groups in June than in
February. The very young farmers, those 16-24 years of age, however, tended to remain on relief throughout the spring and early
summer. Not only farmers, but also farm laborers, 16-24 years of
age, made up a larger part of the June than of the February rural
relief load in most areas.
Owners on relief were about 9 years older, on the average, than
tenants (including croppers); this difference is similar to that found
in the general population (table 7). Tenancy precedes ownership
in the life of many farmers, and this fact probably accounts for
the considerable difference in age.
The sharecroppers in the two Cotton Areas were younger than
the other tenants in those areas. This would be expected since the
~harecropping contract does not call for any capital on the part of
the cropper, and young people can easily become croppers. In both
Cotton Areas the croppers were about the same age as the farm
laborers.
1 Comparisons could not be made by areas or for farm Jaborer11 since cenf!US data on
the age grouping of farmers are not available by counties, and since no Ci!nBue data on
this point for farm laborers are available. Both groups of ftgures pertain only to the
age group 16--64 year11, bPcauee, owing to the definition ueed In this survey, only persons
wJthln these age limits are classified as having a usual occuoatfon.
• When age distributions of owner and tenant heads In rural farm areas of the United
States, exclusive of women heads, were compared with those of the relief population,
fewpr owner11 and more tenants w1>re found In the 41>-64 year group on relief than In the
gpneral population. Sources: Table 8 and Fifteenth Census of the United States: JreO,
Population Vol. VI.
Dig t1zed oy
Google
Social Characteristics of Households
33
In all areas, farm laborers were younger than owners or tenants
( exclusive of croppers), reflecting the situation in the total farm
population. However, it is possible that the farm laborers on relief,
in contrast to farm· operators were older than the laborers in the
general population. In general , wages for married and unmarried
farm laborers are the same with no differential, except possibly in
perquisites. Thus, the married laborers, who were also the older
ones, were more likely to go on relief when their wages suffered
severe cuts during the depression and were no longer adequate to
support a family.
TAIII,E 8 .-AGE OF HEADS OF FAnM HOUSEHOLDS
FEBH U A HY HJ35
1
0:--i RELIEF, BY AREA,
[1 3S countit•s r ,•prPsentl ng fl ni,; rlcultural area s ]
Age in years
Area and usua l occupation
N umber
- -- -- - - -- - - -
I Percen t
-- -
-
-
16- 24
25-34
- --
- --
35-44
45-54
55-64
- ----- ---
A ll nreas:
O wners___ __. . . __ .. . ___ . _. .
T enan · , _ . . _____. ______ _. _
Crop pers . . . . . .... . .• • •.. .. •
1-~arm Jahorcrs ... ____ _____ __
Eastern <.' 0 1t n11:
O wners. - --- - - -· - --- - - -- - - -
iParm
~~i~!;;~
~:::::::::::::::!
lahorers_ _________ _ .
10. 1,;s
Te nants . . . . . . . .. . . .• • .. ...
Croppers. -- --- - - - -- - - . . . ,_ - - F nrrn laborers ____. . .. ___ _
A pp alacbian •O uirk :
Farm lahorers . ............ .
Winter Wheat :
Ow ners . - · •• · . . . ..... . .... .
Tenan t s . ... . . . . . . . . . ... ... .
Farm laborers .. • - .•. .. • . •. •
Ranch ing:
Owners . . . . .. . •. .. . ..... .. .
Tenants . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . .. .
F arm laborers . . .. . ... . .. .. .
23. 4
15. 7
23. 0
20. 5
2S. 4
29. I
37. 0
23. 8
20. 7
24. 8
28. 6
31. I
22. 5
IS. O
2. 2
6. 3
13. I
16, 5
I~. 2
3G. 0
311. 3
34. 7
24. 9
26. 9
22. y
20. 3
3 1. 4
20. 3
18. 6
16, 1
26 3
H•I. 0
100. 0
3. 0
10. 7
14. b
JG. 2
31. 7
27. 2
23. 8
23. I
28. 8
rn. 1
II . 9
23. 9
11 . 7
100. 0
I. 3
26. 9
1()(). 0
2. 6
14. 3
11.4
33. 3
18. 4
13. 2
5
I, :!27
2, 401
2, 65~
100. 0
100. 0
!ll.l.0
100. 0
2. 0
5. 4
9. e
15. 1
I. 739
3, it')7
100. 0
1()(1. 0
1()(1. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
3. 0 . . 5
2,721
0 "1 ners _____ -- - -- - - --- - · · ·
Owners . . . ... . . .. . .. . ... . . .
'I,enau ts. ____ _____ ____ _ __ __
33. i
21. 2
19. 5
16. 5
10, i'3J
'I'en~n t..~ . . . . _. . _.. __. _. ____ _
F orm lahorer:- ______ ___ __
Lake " ta les ( ' ut •<h ea :
Owners .· ·- · · . .. . . .. . .. . . . .
Tenant s . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
Fu.r m lnhorers __________ ____
H ay nnd D a ir~•:
Ou1 ners. ___ ____ __ __ _______ _
T e nants .. .. . . . .. . ..... . • . .
Farm Jabor ·r~-- - --- -- -- ---Corn Dell :
Ow ners .... _____ __ __ _.. . .. .
Tennnt:- ____ __ ___ ______ ____
F arm luhorers . . . . . .. . •. •. ..
Spring W heat :
26. 6
2S. l
2.5. 6
22. 2
2. 4
n. 7
11. 3
H.4
Western Co l ton :
Owners . . . . . ____ __. ____. . __
13. 9
32. 9
33. 0
3,1. 7
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
1ro.o
17, -11 1
5, 4.!-.fi
1, 339
393
133
I. 6 18
l ,f>4 ~
1, 506
800
3. 02·1
2, o;;o
] , 234
2. 0:r.i
369
339
73,I
247
100. 0
4 1. 9
I I. I
10. 6
12. 2
IU. 4
12. 6
13. 3
10. 5
9. I
12. 4
M. 3
56. 4
29. 0
13. 5
42. 0
21.9
4. 5
30. 5
3:l. 6
22. i
36. 3
23. 7
20. 7
19. 9
11. 3
100. 0
100 0
100. 0
12. 2
11. 0
~>9. 0
31. 2
100. 0
JIJO. (I
100. 0
.9
5. :;
10. 4
12. I
•. 9
3 1. 0
24 . 5
31.4
35. 6
24. 9
16.2
26. 9
25. I
100. 0
100. 0
100 {I
I.8
5. 4
19. 5
13..
311. 9
52. 0
31. 3
~i . 6
U. 8
29. 8
18. 0
9. 5
23. 6
9. 1
100. 0
ml. O
100.0
6. 2
5. 3
JG. 5
34. 4
14 . 5
30. 9
25. 7
11. 0
IS. 6
34. 0
25. 5
37. 1
18. 4
13. 4
12. 2
29. 1
32. ~
26. 5
34. 6
2 1. 5
25. 8
10. 7
13. 3
JI. 7
100. O
100. 0
100. 0
2. 3
4. I
.9
4. H
14. 7
33 9
27. 5
u. 6
IO. 2
g 3
H .3
9. 2
8. 5
With agricult ure M the usual occupation.
• F.xclasfve of croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
1
oig,•z_d by
Google
34
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
TABLE 9.-AGE OF HEADS OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS• ON RELIEF, BY
JUNE 1935
(138 counties representing 9 agricultural ares.sf
AREA,
Age In years
Total
Area and usual occupation
Number
Pem1nt
16-24
~
35-«
4~
M-M
--- ------ ------ --All areas:
Owners •• __________________
Tenant~•-- ________________
Croppers __________________ .
Fann laborers ______________
Eastern Cotton:
Owners_-----------------.
Tenants
____________________Croppers ________ . ___ . ___ ...
Farm laborers. __ . __ . ___ .. __
Western
Cotton:
Owners
____________________
Tenants ____________________
Croppers _________ ... _______
Farm laborers _____ . ________
Appalachian-Ozark:
Owners ____________________
Tenants ____________________
Farm laborers ____________ ..
Lake States.Cut-Over:
Owners __________________
-·-----------· --Tenants
....
Farm laborers _______ . _____ .
Hay and Dairy:
Owners __
-·--------------·Tenants
____________________
Fann laborers __________ • _. _
Com Belt:
Owners_
- -·-------- __ .... -Tenants ____________________
Farm laborers______________
Spring Wheat:
Owners ____________ -------Tenants ____________________
Fann laborenl_ --_- _-_-- -_-_
Winter
Wheat:
Owners
____________________
Tenants __________ --- ---- -- Fann laborers ________ - _____
Ranching:
Owners ______________ ; _____
TeoBOts. ___________________
Fann laborers______________
1
t
;
6,416
11,684
2,024
6,SW
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
,.1
8.8
9.8
14.3
14. 3
82.2
82.0
32.0
25. 3
26.1
24.0
22.6
30.6
21.4
Ill. 7
17.11
25. 7
11. 5
14.li
13. 2
458
646
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.1
6.0
8.3
12.1
10. 9
22.0
27.9
26. 7
17.9
ZI. 5
27. 7
26.0
33.6
2!1.1
20.5
:ll-5
34.li
21.,
15. 6
15. 7
300
1,238
958
!,448
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.3
9.4
II. 5
15.1
14.0
28. 7
38.6
30.6
22. 7
25. 2
111.8
24.3
33.3
24. 6
18.8
17.11
26. 7
11.1
13.4
12.2
2,610
3,904
616
100.0
100.0
100,0
5.11
12.6
26.2
15.9
33.8
35. 7
26. 5
Zl.4
28..
11.,
Zl.3
II.II
11.2
660
184
144
100.0
100. 0
100.0
2.1
,.a
16.•
26.1
41.6
.0.2
12.6
31.2
20. 7
5. 6
!M.2
26. 4
726
762
1,004
100.0
100.0
100.0
8. 7
10.4
8. 5
27.3
36.8
26.2
32.3
23.1
38.6
27.0
19.11
22.8
11. 7
10.8
3114
1,170
1,464
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.0
•. 8
JO. 9
10. 7
27.6
30. 7
31.0
27.2
20.1
36.0
11.8
15. 7
1,212
244
864
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.1
8. g
21.3
....
20.3
28. 7
22.6
15. 0
.s.,
27.5
1111.9
10. 7
29. 7
15. 2
11.8
26. 7
8.fl
D.8
110
386
204
100.0
100.0
100.0
9. 1
8.8
22.8
21.8
32.6
41.2
30.fl
17.8
l'-11
32. 8
19. 7
10.8
21.8
8.8
7.8
294
182
334
100.0
100.0
100.0
1.4
5. 6
15. 6
15. 0
82.11
28.1
29.11
28. 6
26. 3
22.4
16.5
18. 0
81.3
18.6
12.0
1,066
1,502
...
26.1
18. 7
10.5
8. 7
13.9
With agriculture as the usual occupation.
E:i:eluslve of croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
Farm labor is now, to a larger extent than formerly, a permanent
occupation and is no longer only the first rung of the agricultural
ladder. This is indicated by the fa.ct that about one-third of the
farm laborers who were heads of households were between 45 and
64 years of age (table 11). The predominant age group, however,
was 25--34 years.
The majority of the farm laborers on relief in five out of nine
areas were not heads of households, the proportion ranging as high
as 89 percent ( table 11). These were overwhelmingly in the age
group 16-24 years. They were for the most part sons and daughters
of farmers, working on the home farm.
The average ages of the different agricultural groups varied
little by area (table 10 and figure 7). Such variations as appear
Dnr zed by
Google
Social Characteristics of Households
35
cannot be adequately interpreted since no corresponding data for
the general population are available.
10.--------------- -----------------,
~ Owners
601 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~~~~i;::s- - -- -- - - - - - -- - ---l
lfilLoborers
50 1---- -
.,
"'
0
C
0
i
O L...J""',,..JOOL-.J:>i
EL:
os
J.l..;.er"'n"'-J~ .:.L..tlilJ.,:A;:,i.p.:cp"'o-" Areas
Col Ion
lochion- Stoles
Ozark Cut-Over
FIG. 7- MEDIAN AGE OF HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS WITH
AGRICULTURE AS THE USUAL OCCUPATION. BY AREA
June 1935
&F-IO&t, W.P.A.
1
TABLE 1O.-AGE OF HEADS OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS ON RELIEF, BY CoLOR,
BY RESIDENCE, AND BY AREA, JUNE 1935
(138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas]
Median age in years
Farm operators
Farm laborers
Area
Owners
Croppers
Tenants•
Open VIIOpen VilOpen VIIOpen VII•
Total coun- !age
Total coun- !age
Total coun- !age
Total coun- !age
try
try
try
t ry
- - --- - - -- ---46. 3 48.3 37.9 37. 5 41.3 --- --------- ------ 36. 1 35. 7
36 9
----------- - - - - - - - - - -- -
All areas ______________ 46. 5
Eastern
Cotton:
T otal.
________________
49.9
49.8
Wh
il<i.....
.• _------·-----Negro
___________ 50.
2
Western Cotton:
Toltll . • ------·-------W
hite_______
•.• ------------·
Negro
__________
Appalachian-Ozark. ______
Lake States Cut-Over ____
H nr ar ,d Dairy __________ _
Corn Bel t. ... ______ ______ _
Spring Wheat ________ ___ _
Winter Wheat. __________ .
Rnnchin~ -------· _____ ___ _
47. 5
47 . 6
47 . 2
45. 1
46. 3
47. 3
50.0
46. 3
45, 9
46. 2
49. 9
49. 8
50. 3
49. 9
49. 9
49. 5
44. 3
43. 6
45. 3
43.8
42.9
45.4
48. 6
47 . 5
44. 5
39. 5
38.8
41.4
39.4
38. 8
41.9
39. 7
38. 7
40.6
39.0
37. 8
40. 4
38. 8
37. 9
40.1
35, 5
U.2
47.0
47. 0
47. 0
45. 0
46. 2
47. 2
50. 2
46. 0
45.4
47. 8
50.1
b0. 2
49. 5
46. 6
55. 2
48.0
49. 5
56. 2
39. 2
38. 9
40. 7
36. l
39 . 4
40.4
40. 7
34. 2
37. 5
38. 5
38. 9
38. 5
40. 2
36. 0
38.9
40. 3
39. 5
34. 3
36, 4
37. 7
41. 6
41.0
45. 8
38. 3
47 . 0
41.2
43 6
35. 5
34 . 3
39. 5
34.8
34. 0
38. 5
39.9
37.8
44 . 5
36.3
35. 9
37. 9
a1. 5
30. 2
36. l
38. 2
30. 4
31. 2
36. 9
35. 7
35. 2
37. 8
31.9
29. 9
35. 9
37. 9
29. 8
31. 4
35. 3
37. 7
37. 7
38. 0
30. l
31.2
36. 7
38. 5
31.8
28.8
37. 6
54 . 5
42.2
• W Ith agriculture as the u sual occupation.
1
as.a
42. 2
39. 5
-- ---- ------ -------- -------- ----------- --------------------·
----·------ --------·--·----- ---- ---- -·
------ ------ ------
39. 8
Exclusive of croppers In the 2 Cotton_Areas.
Di;Ji zed by
Google
36
Farm ers on R elief and Rehabilitation
TABLE 11.-AGE OF FARM LABOR ERS ' 0:-1 RELIEF, BY F AMILY S TATUS AND
BY AR HA JUN E 1935
[138 coun les re pre..s entlng 9 ngrlca lturo.I lll'll8S)
Ag In years
'fotnl
Family stnt us and area
!'\ umber
Percen t
Jr-r 24
45-M
3fr-4 4
- - - - - - - - - ~:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---
A ll nrOII.'! :
H
ead•--- · --·- ....... . .. . .
i1emhers . _. __ _. . _______ ___
Eastern C' o LLon :
Il enrls ··---·· · ·-·······---·
~1cm bers. __ _____ . __ .•..•..
"' esL~rn C otton :
Jlearls ... _. . .• . .. . _....... •.
Members . .... . ... •. . .•• . .
Ap pala,·hlan-Otnrk:
H e11ds . .. •• ... . . . • ....• . . .• .
1 le mhers ____ . -· - ---- - - •
L ake S tates C ut•O , er:
Heads _. ... . . . .... .... . ... . .
1-tem her!- . • ••• . •• . . .•. • •••
!lay a nd D uiry :
Hea<ls ..... . ... . . . .... ..... .
1-tem her~. •.. .. . •• •• .•. ____
C orn Belt ;
Jleu,ls . ..... . ... . . .... • . . ..
J\l em h,•rs . . __ . _.. -· _.. . ... .
Sprin~ \Y he:it :
6, 8[,()
11, 804
). .',()2
2. 234
1, 448
1, 77M
HJO. O
H. 3
32. 0
100. 0
70. 0
14. 6
100. 0
100. 0
12, I
67. 0
100.0
Jl'(). 0
13.2
21l. 7
16. 4
2!\. 0
20. 5
0. 5
-~- 2
15. 7
LIi
15. 1
79. 5
30. 5
11.9
24. 3
3. 9
18. 0
2. 8
12. l
17. 4
4.3
10. 5
2. 1
ll. 2
5. 5
2, 2
13. 9
1, 4.
1. 11
2.~. 2
4,276
7; _0
35. 7
144
444
100. 0
100. 0
21l. 4
7J. 9
4 1. 7
20. 3
12. .~
1, 004
JO. 4
82.0
3~. 9
10. 8
23.1
a. 7
19. 9
I. f
10. 7
868
100. 0
100.0
1,454
700
100. 0
100. 0
10. 9
75. 5
30. 8
22. 5
IU. 2
2. 9
20, l
1. 3
15. 7
1. l
244
21. 3
"5. 9
4R. 4
12. ~
IO. 7
.5
9, 8
1.0
11.8
.2
22. 6
72. 9
41. 2
~a. 1
17.
~
10. 8
7. 8
:!!I I
2ll. 3
1,100
100. 0
100. 0
lieads . . - - - -·· - ---·-·· · · ··
·! embers . • .. . . . . •• . . . . . .. •
20-I
118
100. 0
100, 0
Rani'f.i f; .... . ......•. . . •. • •••.
334
1(10. 0
100. 0
1
17. 11
.8
100. 0
100.0
51fi
!J ends... . . . . .. · -··· · · · . • . ..
1l emher~ . . . . .... . ... . . ... .
Winter Wh • t :
Member,; ..... . ..... . ..... .
22. 6
4. 5
160
14. 5
J:l.7
2. 7
1. 2
.9
2.1
l. i
I. 7
1-·········
l~. O
2, 5 -
12. 0
--------~
n y usua.l occupation,
The average age of farm owners on relief was great er in the
village than in t he open country in most areas ( table 1( ) , 5 possibly
due in p , r t to the f act that oklPr farm omwrs often retire to
villages. This explanation is not completely satisfactory, however,
because two-thirds of the village farm owners were still engaged
in their usual occupation (appendix table 11).
In practically all areas, the average age of tenants also was higher
in the village than in the open count ·y (table 10), but unlike the
owners, the majority of the tenants in the villages were unemployed
(appendix table 11). Only in the Appalachian-Ozark Area were a.
majority of the tenants in villages employed at their usual occupation.
AGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
CLIENTS
Age did not appear to be a determining factor in the selection of
rehabilitation clients. It might be expected either that older farmers
• The Works Progress Administra tion Labor Inventory shows that .the median age of
both farm operators and farm laborers In cities was 4 yPare higher thsn the median age
of those In rural dis tricts In March 1935. The median nge or rarm laborers was 31.3
years In cities and 27.2 years In rural areas, according to Labor Inventory data, and the
media n age for farmers was 44.2 YE>Rrs in the urban areas compnre<l with 40.0 years lo
rural areas. Source: Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration.
Dig tized ;iy
Google
Social Characteristics of Households
87
would have been preferred as rehabilitation clients because of their
longer experience, or that younger farmers would have been preferred because of their greater physical strength. Median ages
indicate, however, that there was no consistent selection of clients
on the basis of age by area (tables 10 and 12). In six out of nine
areas the younger owners appeared to be favored as rehabilitation
clients, and in five of the areas the older tenants were chosen.
In six areas the younger farm laborers and in two areas the older
ones were selected for rehabilitation. Croppers accepted for rehabilitation were younger than relief clients in the Eastern Cotton
Belt and older in the Western Cotton Area. In most areas, however, there were fewer owners and tenants in the oldest group,
55-64 years of age, among rehabilitation clients than among relief
clients (table 9 and appendix table 6).
TABLE 12.-AGE OF HEADS OF RURAL REHABILITATION HousEHOLDS,1 BY
COLOR AND BY AREA, JUNE 1935
(138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas]
Median age In years
Area
Farm operators
Owners
All areas ........................................ .
45. 6
~f~~:r'~b!!i:::.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·_-::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ranching ..•.••.•••..•........•••.•.....••.•.••.•......
1
1
Croppers
39.0
Farm
laborers
32.0
1----1-----1----1•---
Eutem Cotton:
Total. •••••••••••..•..•.•.•...•.•.•••. ·•·••·••··•··
White ••••••.•.•...•..•...•...•.......•.•.•.•..•.•.
Negro ........••••••..•.••.••............. •·•·•·····
Western Cotton:
Total. .•...••••••••..••.......•...........•........
White .••..•.•••...•.•....•.•...••.................
Negro .........••••..••.••.•........................
Appale.chian·Ozark .••.•••..••.•.........•...•••..•.•..
Lake States Cut-Over •..•...•...•.....•.•.....•....•...
Hay and Dairy._ ••...•................................
Corn Belt••.•.•.•.....•.....•...............•..........
1
Tenants •
47.2
45. 3
50.1
43.4
47. 3
45. 4
45. 0
45.1
45. 9
42.4
39.7
38.3
36. 7
37. 7
"2..4
34.6
38.3
38.1
37.6
37.3
39. 8
39.1
38.0 •••·••·•··••
40. 5 ••••••••••••
40. 0 ·•·•··•··•··
38.8 ·••·········
81.&
31.8
32.2
83.«
83.2
35.6
32.8
32.0
36.0
31 .•
36. 9 ·•·••••··•··
29.1
27.0
44.1 ·····•·•··•·
33.8
38.1 •··•·•·•·•··
With agriculture as the usual occupation.
Exclusive of croppers in the 2 Cotton Areas.
SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS
The average farm relief and rehabilitation family proved to be
larger than the average farm family in the general population.'
The average size of the farm relief household was larger in each area
• Also, see Beck, P. 0. and Forster, M. C., 8£41 Rural Probl- .Areaa, Re1ief-Resolllf"068Rehabi!ltatcon, Research Monograph I, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal
l<~mergency Relief Administration, 1935, pp. 43-44. and McCormick, T. C., Oomparati11e 8tll4f/
of ReUef and Non•Relk!f HolUICholth, Research Monograph II, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, 1935, pp. 22-25.
Digtized:iyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
38
than the highest State average size of rural farm family m the
general population 7 of the area.
Tenants, exclusive of croppers, had families as large as or larger
than those of other groups on relief and rehabilitation in all but two
areas ( table 13). The farm laborers had the smallest families of
any agricultural group, as might be expected from the fact that
they were the youngest group (with the exception of sharecroppers)
among the heads of farm families.
TABLE 13.--SIZB OF RURAL RELIEF AND REHABILITATION HOUSEHOLDS, BY
USUAL OCCUPATION OF THE ffKAD AND BY AREA, JUNE 1935
]138 ~ountles representing 9 agricultural areas]
Median number or persons per household
Agriculture
Area
Nonairrlcul•
Farm operators
ture
1--------------lFarmlaboren
Croppers
Owners
Tenants•
Reha•
Rehn•
Reha•
Reha•
Reha•
Relief bilita• Relief bilita• Relief billta• Relief hilita• Relief bilita•
tion
tion
tion
tion
tion
---------1-- ---------- -- -----All areas ...............
Eastern Cotton:
Total ••••••••••..........
White .••••...............
Negro ..•.....•••..••..•..
Western Cotton:
Total .••••••••...........
White ...•.•••.•..........
Negro ...........•.•.•....
Appalnchian•Ozark ...•......
Lake States Cut-Over •.......
Hay and Dairy ...............
Corn Belt ..•...••••••.•.•••.•
Spring Wheat •..•.•••.•••••••
Winter Wheat ••••.••..••••...
Rancblng •••.•.•••...........
6. 5
--
6. 6
4. 9
4. 5
4.
4.
Ii 2
Ii 1
5. 4
4.4
6. 4
6.4
5.6
ft
5
- - -- -- - - - - -- - - - --
4. 9
4. 9
Ii 5
5. 7
5. 7
Ii 8
5.6
5. 4
6.1
6.8
6.8
6.11
4.9
6.0
4. 4
6. 7
6.8
Ii 6
4. ft
4.9
4. 2
4. 7
4. 7
4. 8
4. 4
5.0
4.9
5. 3
5.9
6.0
6.6
4. 9
6. I
6. 0
4. 9
5.5
Ii 4
5.6
6. 7
4. 8
4.8
6.0
6. 6
4. (
6. 4
Ii 4
6. 3
6. 9
6. 4
6.3
6.0
6.0
5. 3
5.1
5.0
Ii 4
5.4
5. 2
6. 7
Ii 2
4. 7
5.1
5. 2
5. 2
5.9
4.8
4. 7
Ii 3
6.2
5. 2
Ii 4
4.8
4. 9
4.9
4.8
Ii 4
4. 3
4. 4
4. 2
6. 3
4. 5
4.6
3.8
3. 4
3.8
4. 2
4.8
4. 2
4.6
4. 4
4.8
4.3
4. 3
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------
4.6
4. 5
3. 3
4. 6
4. 6
3. 6
4.0
4. 4
(.5
4. 0
5.0
5. 1
4. 7
6. 2
5. 1
5. 3
4.11
&. 0
3. 5
5. 3
• Exclusive of croppers in the 2 Cotton Areas.
No consistent differences in size of Negro and white households
in the two Cotton Areas were shown ( table 13). Families of Negro
owners and tenants on relief were slightly larger than those of
whites in both areas, and the same was true of rehabilitation cases
except among tenants in the Western Cotton Area. On the other
hand, Negro cropper families on relief in the Eastern Cotton Belt
were smaller, on the average, than white cropper families. This may
be explained by the preference of many landlords not only for
1
Datn on the size of fnmlly In the general population are available only on a State
basis so thn t a dirf'ct compnrlson with the area data of this stu(ly was not pos,,lble.
The nrPa dnta for fnrm oprrators were compurf'd with the corresponding figures for the
States represented In each of the nine SRIDple areas. Source: Pifteen,th, Oemus of fh,e
United States: 11}30, Populution Vol. VI, tuble 6.
Dig t1zed oy
Google
Social Characteristics of Households
39
large families but for large Negro families so that such families
would be less likely to be on relief during the growing season. Moreover, it was a common practice of the landlords to "split" their
Negro cropper families and let the aged members of the family
go on relief. 8 Thus many relief cases were classified as one-person.
families, reducing the average size of family.
The small size of Negro farm laborer families, as compared with
white farm laborer families, is probably caused by differences in
the family composition of white and Negro cases on relief, the Negro
laborers having more broken families and one-person households
than the white laborers ( appendix table 7).
When relief and rehabilitation figures are compared by areas,
size of family does not appear to have been a primary criterion for
the selection of rehabilitation clients. 9 In some areas, rehabilitation families were larger ; in others, they were smaller than the
corresponding relief groups ( table 13).
FAMILY COMPOSITION
An effort was made to determine which types of family were most
likely to come on relief, the normal families-husband-wife, husband-wife-children---0r the broken families and the one-person households. In the absence of comparable data for the general population, only the existing relief data ( appendix tables 7 and 8) and
general information on the social structure of farm families could
be utilized.
In all areas the normal family was the prevailing type on relief
but it varied in importance among areas and agricultural groups.
The Corn Belt, the Spring and Winter Wheat, and the Hay and
Dairy Areas had the highest proportions of normal families, while
the Eastern Cotton Belt and the Lake States Cut-Over Area had
the lowest proportions. In one relief group in the Eastern Cotton
Belt--Negro laborers-normal families accounted for only 41 percent of the total. Farm owners had the smallest proportions of
normal families in six of the nine areas. while tenants had the
largest proportions in all areas.
Next to the normal family, the nonfamily man was the type of
household which appeared most frequently on farm relief rolls,
accounting for 7 percent of farm operator and 10 percent of farm
laborer households on relief. The proportions were especially high
in the Lake States Cut-Over Area, particularly among farm laborer
households, more than one-third of which consisted of unattached
• Mangus, A. R., The Rural Negro on Relief, February 1935, Research Bulletln H-3, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
October 17, 1935. p. 6.
• See appendix tables 9 and 10 for distributions of relief and rehabilitation households
by size.
40
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
men. This high percentage reflects the comparative youth of the
farm laborers in that area (median age, 30 years), and possibly
also the influx of single men into the mines and lumber camps of
the area before the depression. After mines and lumber camps were
abandoned, many of these recent migrants doubtless became farm
laborers.
The Cotton Areas showed relatively high proportions of broken
families of all types, especially among Negroes. Eleven percent
of both white and Negro farm operator households on relief in the
Eastern Cotton Area were of the mother-children type of family,
and among farm laborer families on relief more than one-third of
the Negro and more than one-sixth of the white cases were of this
broken type. Nonfamily women also had a larger representation
in the Eastern Cotton Area than elsewhere, accounting for 13 percent of Negro farm laborer cases and 8 percent of both Negro and
white owners. Likewise, the father-children type of family was
more frequent in the Cotton Areas than in other regions. This type
was most important among Negro farm owners in the Western
Cotton Area (7 percent) and white tenants and croppers in the
Eastern Cotton Belt ( 5 percent).
The large proportions of mother-children families and unattached
women in the Cotton Areas probably reflect the migration of males
from the South, a phenomenon which has been more notable in the
Eastern Cotton Belt, for whites as well as for Negroes, than in
nny other agricultural area during the past decade. The migration
of males from the Western· Cotton Area, also reflected in the data,
probably represents more of a depression phenomenon, as the area.
was more recently settled.
The greater proportions of mother-children households among
Negro tenants, croppers, and laborers, and of nonfamily men among
Negro croppers and other tenants, in both Cotton Areas, as compared to the proportions of such families among whites, probably
results from the attitude toward the Negro in these areas. The types
of families which would naturally be in the most desperate straits,
such as widows with children, or aged men, tended to be overrepresented among Negro relief clients, while normal families with
able-bodied male members tended to be underrepresented. The practice of splitting Negro families, referred to above, also helps to
account for the large proportion of broken families.
Normal families were preferred as rehabilitation clients, as indicated by a comparison qf relief and rehabilitation data (appendix
tables 7 and 8). The proportion of normal families was higher on
rehabilitation than on relief among owners and croppers in all areas
and among other tenants ih all but two areas. The relatively small
Dig t1zea by
Google
Social Characteristics of Households
41
number of laborers accepted for rehabilitation in the Cotton Areas
reflects the same trend toward the selection of normal families.
It might appear that broken families were considered good risks
for rehabilitation, as shown by the rather high ratio of mother-children families on rehabilitation in the Negro farm laborer group of
the Eastern Cotton Belt and the comparatively high percentage of
father-children families among owners in the Winter Wheat Area,
Negro owners in the Western Cotton Area, and Negro tenants in
the Eastern Cotton Belt. In the Lake States Cut-Over, Hay and
Dairy, and Spring Wheat Areas, nonfamily men were well represented among farm owners on rehabilitation, and in practically all
areas and agricultural groups they had some representation. On
the other hand, the presence of such households on rehabilitation
rolls may be interpreted as evidence that in certain States the rehabilitation program was largely a relief program, especially in its
early stages. Few nonfamily women, however, were found among
rehabilitation clients in an:y area or agricultural group.
EMPLOYABILITY
The number of workers 10 per relief or rehabilitation household is
important in any consideration of the possibility of the family again
becoming entirely independent. The more workers in a family, the
greater the chance for this family to become self-supporting again,
unless the number of dependent members of the household increases
proportionately.
The percentage of relief and rehabilitation households with only
one worker tended to increase as the occupational status of the family declined, assuming that the highest agricultural group is that of
owner, followed in order by tenant, cropper, and laborer (appendix
tables 9 and 10). These differences largely reflected the existing age
ditferences among the various agricultural groups. 11 In general this
held true not only for the total, but also for households of different s1zes. 12 In other words, the older the head of a family, the
higher the occupational status of the family, the more workers it
had on the average, and the greater the likelihood that the children
-were already old enough themselves to be workers.
Although the number of workers increased with the size of the
-family, it was not a proportionate increase. The number of family
Pel'80nll 16--64 :,ean ot age working or eeeklng work.
There ls, ot coune, the posslblllt:, that the second worker In the tamll:, 111 the wife,
but the dlviBlon ot labor practiced In the American farm famll:, practically limits snch
-eues to the cotton-growing South.
u Data available In the flies ot the Division of Social Research, Works Progress Ad·JDIDlstratlon, show that this occupational difference appeared also ID each of the nine
ample area.a.
10
11
Digitized by
Google
42
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
members to be supported also tended to increase. Therefore, it was
not surprising that large families came on relief, although a fairly
high percentage of them had two or three and even more workers.
There is no evidence that families with more than one worker
were given preference for rural rehabilitation. Rehabilitation
households included larger proportions of one-worker families
among farm owners and larger proportions with two or more workers among sharecroppers than did relief households. There were
no marked differences for tenants or laborers.
CHANGES IN RESIDENCE
Migrations of agricultural workers evidently increased during the
drought and depression years. This is indicated by data in chapter
V on the residence distribution of farm families, and the more
detailed information presented here on intercounty movements both
during the depression period and during the entire life of the farmers
and farm laborers. 18
In a study made in October 1933 a it was found that farmers on
relief had changed residence across county or State lines more often
than those who had not up to that time received aid. It was suggested that this fact might reflect greater instability on the part of
farmers in need of public assistance.
It is readily understandable, however, that the depression would
have caused an increased mobility among farmers.u Mobility data
for the relief population would reflect such movements because the
prosperous farmer, who was not adversely affected by the depression,
would have no reason to move during a time of general economic
instability. Thus, the relief group would naturally appear more
mobile than the nonrelief group. Mobility, rather than being a
cause of the need for relief, seems to have been at least partially the
result of the need for relief.
The degree of mobility cannot be made the basis for judgment, however. A higher rate of mobility does not necessarily reflect unfavorably on the character of the relief population. Nor is a high relief
rate necessarily accompanied by high mobility. Generalizations of
this type are not justified in the light of the specific situation prevailing in the United States. The stability of the European peasant has
never been an ideal after which the American farmer strove; on the
contrary, the pioneer tradition not only created instability but even
regarded it as a virtue. The commercialization of farming tended to
:u The mobility data are limited by the fact that no Information was secured on Intracounty movements and that there was no way of cheeking on farm families that had
moved out of the county.
16 McCormick, T. C., op. oit., pp. 17-20.
10 The back-to-the-land movement would affect the picture only &8 far &8 those returning
became farmen.
Dig tized by
Google
Arlmi11i ,"l lratio11 t Jl yclau x )
On th e Mov e
Digitized by
Google
0191
P.dbyGoogle
Social Characteristics of Households
43
foster mobility, and the expansion of tenancy increased these tendencies. Furthermore, any judgment on stability or instability of farm
laborers would have to be based on a study of individual cases because the influence of the labor market has to be taken into account.
In the Appalachian-Ozark Area, a definite "problem area," there
had been very little movement from one county to another. Seventyfive percent of the farm operators and seventy-one percent of the farm
laborers on relief had lived in the same county since birth (table 14).
This undoubtedly reflects the high degree of stability prevailing in
the general population of the area. The noncommercial, self-sufficing
character of most of the farms and the remoteness of many of the
mountain valleys have created an economic and social structure
almost completely lacking in dynamic factors.'1 8 Correspondingly,
only a small percentage (7.percent) of the farm operators on relief
had moved into the county of residence since 1929, and the number of
immigrating farmers from other States was a mere 1 percent.
TABLE 14.-CHANGES IN RESIDENCE OF HEADS OF RELmF AND REHABILITATION FARM HOUSEHOLDS,1 BY AREA, JUNE 1935
(138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas)
Change In residence
East• West• Apr.•
All
lac •
ern
ern
Ianareas Cotton
Cotton Ozark
Lake
States Bay
and
CutOver Dairy
Com
Belt
w~i
Win•
ter Bazdl.
Wheat Ing
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --
l'.lRII OPIIRATORS ON RJ:UIII'
Number .........•....•• 17,894
Percent •..........•..•.. 100.0
Lived In county since birth. 00. 0
Moved to county In 1929 or
earlier .........•.•..••..•.. 38. 4
Moved to county since 1929. 11.6
From within State..••••
9.2
From another State •.•••
2. 4
2. 152 2,430 6,506
100.0
li3.9
100.0
33.0
100.0
75. 2
100.0
10.6
832
1,480
100.0
39.3
1,552
100.0
0.2
1,IKH
100.0
28.4
476
100.0
19.3
472
100.0
26.0
30.1
16.0
13. 8
2. 2
51.5
15. 5
12. 0
3. 5
18. 0
6. 8
5. 7
I. I
75.2
14.2
9. I
5.1
46.4
14. 3
10. 7
3.6
39.3
19. 5
16. 0
3. 5
66.6
5.0
3.4
I. 6
M.l
25. 6
19. 3
6.3
82. 7
12. 3
8. 9
3.4
1,494
100.0
52. 7
1,388
100. 0
25.8
514
100.0
70.8
142
100.0
29.6
I, 004
100.0
44.4
-100.0
40.0
1,444
224
100.0
38. 4
200
100.0
16.0
328
100.0
33.5
28.0
19.3
11. 7
7.6
S0.6
23.6
18.3
5.3
17. 1
12.1
9.8
2.3
47.9
22.5
11. 3
11. 2
38.8
16.8
12. 2
4.6
41.4
18. 6
14. 3
4.3
42.0
19.6
13. 4
6. 2
-18. 0
36.0
30.0
6.0
47.0
19. 5
10.4
11.1
5,028
100.0
60.0
I, 6116
100.0
40.0
708
470
496
1,060
850
278
148
29.0
10. 4
8. 2
2. 2
42.0
18.0
15.8
2. 2
21. 5
12. 7
7.9
4. 8
80.4
14. 5
7. 7
6.8
49. 2
16.9
12. 5
4. 4
38.9
17. 5
12.8
4. 7
70.8
15.1
11. 6
64.0
22.3
13. 7
8.6
M.8
29. 7
14.11
14. 8
l'.lRll LJ.BORIIBB ON RIIUIII' I
Number •••.•.•..••••••. 6,738
Percent •••.•••••.•..•••• 100.0
Lived In county since birth. 41.6
Moved to county In 1929 or
earlier..................... 38. 7
Moved to county since 1929. 19. 7
From within State ..•••• 14. 1
From another State.••••
5.6
l'.lRK OPIIRATOBB ON llll•
BABWT.lTlON
Number ...••..•.••••••. 10, 734
Percent •..•....••.•.••.. 100.0
Lived In county since birth. 46.8
Moved to county in 19211 or
eerller..................... 39. 3
Moved to county since 19211. 13.9
From within State..•... 10. 5
From another State .....
3. 4
--
100.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0
- -43.6
- -5.1
- -14.l
- -13.-7 -100.0
- -33.9
65.8
13.5
a. 5
With agriculture as the usual occupation.
1 Because of the relatively small number of cases In the sample, comparable data for farm laborer beads
of rural rehabilitation households were omitted.
t
10 The fact that there was a considerable migration from this area to the Industrial
cities of the North and East Is no contradiction of the above statement which refers
only to the population which stayed 1n the area.
D1g11zedbyGoogle
44
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
At the other end of the scale was the Lake States Cut-Over Area,
another self-sufficing, noncommercial, poor land region, where only
11 percent of the farm operators on relief had lived in the same
county since their birth. Part-time farmers who work in the mines
and the lumber camps make up a large part of the general population of that region. As they came into the area with the development
of these industries, a considerable mobility was to be expected. This
is corroborated by the fact that 75 percent of the farm operators on
relief moved into the county in 1929 or earlier, a migration that was
evidently not prompted by the depression and thus was not a characteristic of the relief population as such. Moreover, 74 percent of
the farmers on relief had lived in the county of residence for 10 years
or more (table 15). About 14 percent of the farmers on relief had
moved into the county since 1929. Since more than one-third of
these came from other States, many of them may have been urban
unemployed returning to the land. Others may have been displaced
farmers from the drought areas.
There had been much more recent migration among the farmers
of the Winter Wheat Area than among those of any other region
(tables 14 and 15). Only 19 percent had lived in the same county
since birth, 55 percent had moved to the county of residence in 1929
or earlier, and 26 percent had moved in since 1929. These data may
merely reflect the comparatively recent settlement of the area and do
not necessarily point to a high mobility of the relief population.
Over 40 percent of the farmers on relief had lived continuously in
the county of residence for less than 10 years, a fact which might
indicate that depression and drought led to an increased mobility,17
and that such increased mobility was characteristic of the relief population only. However, three-fourths of the recent movements
recorded had been within the State.
The Spring Wheat Area, in sharp contrast with the Winter Wheat
Area, showed ·little mobility on the part of farmers on relief. In
spite of the drought, only 5 percent of all farmers on relief in the
Spring Wheat Area had moved into the county since 1929. Less recent settlement in the Spring Wheat Area than in the Winter Wheat
Area is reflected in the higher percentage of farm operators who
had always lived in the county (28 percent) or moved to the county
in 1929 or earlier ( 67 percent), with 87 percent reporting continuous residence of 10 years or more.
17 The respective magnitude o( these factors cannot be gauged due to lack of data on the
exact time ot these mo\·ements.
Di'll
zedbyGoogle
Social Characteristics of Households
45
TABLE 15.-LENGTH OF LAST CoNTJNUOUS RESIDENCE IN CouNTY OF HEADS
OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS 1 ON RELIEF, BY ARRA, JUNE 1935
(138 counties representing II agricultural areas]
Length
or last continuous
residence
t Appa• Lake
E as t . ...,
"es . Jach!• States
Cut•
Over
All
areas c~f:!,n C~~ron Ozark
an•
B
a.r
J~ry
'rei:1·
Corn Spring
Ranch•
Belt Wheat Wheat Ing
- - - - - - - - - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --JABIi OPJ:BUOBS
Number................. 17,984
Percent .•••••.•..••••••• 100. 0
2,152
100.0
2,462
100.0
8,510
100.0
844
100.0
1,482
100.0
1,656
100.0
2,0J.l
100.0
100.0
9.9
11.9
80.2
13. 0
11.1
75.9
13. 5
15.6
70.11
6. 7
6. 2
89.1
12. 3
14. 2
73.6
14.4
74. 7
12. 6
70. 4
7.8
87.2
17. 5
68.8
8.4
711.8
Number••••...•..•..••.. 6,374
Percent ••••••.•••••••... 100.0
454
100.0
300
100.0
2,608
100.0
660
100.0
722
100.0
392
100.0
836
100.0
110
100.0
100.0
7. 2
87.6
6. 7
811.4
12.0
81.3
4.6
112.8
11. 8
78. 2
8. 6
11. 9
711.6
11. 2
7. 7
81.1
1. 7
6.0
112.3
10.11
14.6
74.6
11.6
6.8
83.6
Number.•.•.••.•••••••.. 11,612
Percent ..••••••••••••••• 100.0
642
100.0
1,220
100.0
3,902
100.0
184
100.0
7IIO
100.0
1,164
100.0
1,178
100.0
100.0
880
182
100.0
11. 2
9.3
711.6
14. 4
16.2
69.4
7. 7
6.6
llll.7
20. 7
22.8
116.5
13. 2
16.8
70. 0
111.1
14.1
116. 8
7.3
11.2
83. 6
27.4
18. 4
64. 2
16.4
11.0
73.6
Less than 6 years .••••••.•...
lHI years.·--·-············-·
10 years and over••.•.•...•. _
4IIO
474
100.0
-23.-7 - 11.8
---10.9
17.1
6.0
OWlillUlll
-6.3
- -4.9
- -6.-7 -2.6
- -10.0
Less than 6 years •.•••.••....
6-9 years.--·----···········10 years and over ..••.•.•....
292
Tl:IU.lffll 2
Less than 6 yan ............
6-9 years .......•••••••••..•.
10 years and over ••.•••••••..
11. 7
10. 6
77.8
CBOPPIUUI
Number•....••.•...•••.. 1, 9118 .1,0M
Percent ••.••..•••••••••• 100.0. 100.0
Less than 6 yan ............
6-11 years ••.•..•.....••••••••
10 years and over •.•••.••••••
-- i
16.1
17.8
16. 1 I 14.4
ffl.
0
68.8
",
J.a..JIL.lBOUU
Number.••••••••..•.•... 11,788 ·l, 4116
Percent •••••••..•.•••.•. 100.0 100.0
Less than 6 years .•••.•••••• _
6-9 YMn ....................
10 years and over .•••..••••••
16. 6
16. 5
67.0
16. 4
12. 6
72.0
1142 ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------100.0 ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------14.-4 ---------- ----·-- ------- ------- -·----- ------- -------16.11 ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------611. 7 ------- -·----- ------- ----·-- -·-·--- ------- ---·---~
1,402
100.0
614
100.0
144
100.0
1,004
100. 0
1,446
100.0
228
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.5
20. 7
68.8
10.11
6.8
83.3
18.1
12. 6
641.4
13.11
16.11
70. 2
16. 8
111. 8
M.4
18. 4
11.4
70.2
28. 4
27.6
44.l
14.6
18.2
07.3
830
• With agriculture as the Dllual occupation.
• Exclual ve of croppen, ill Ule 2 Cotton Areu.
The East.ern Cotton Belt showed greater stability than any other
area except the Appalachian-Ozark. More than one-half of all farm
operators on relief in that area had lived in the county since their
birth, and three-fourths of them reported 10 years or more of continuous residence. However, 16 percent had established residence
since 1929. It is possible that among these 16 percent, of which the
great majority came from within the same State, there were cases
of back-to-the-farm migration. The data probably overemphasize
·stability, however, due to the tendency of tenants to move frequently
within the county.
137296°-37---ll
D1gt1zc-dbyGoogle
46
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
In the Western Cotton Area, only one-third of the farmers on
relief had lived in the same county since birth, probably reflecting
the much more recent settlement of this area as compared with the
Eastern Cotton. The proportion of farmers who moved into the
county of residence in 1929 or earlier (52 percent) is considerably
higher than the corresponding percentage for the Eastern Cotton
Belt (30 percent).
In the Corn Belt, about one-fifth of the farmers on relief had
moved to their present county of residence during the depression,
and :four-fifths of this migration took place within the State. Foreclosures may have been partially responsible for these recent
movements.
The farm laborers on relief did not differ greatly from the farm
operators with regard to mobility. The percentage of those who
had lived in the same county since their birth was usually either
equal to or, in some areas (Spring Wheat, Lake States Cut-Over,
Hay and Dairy, and Ranching), considerably higher than that of
the farmers. However, migration into the county of residence since
1929 had been more marked in the farm laborer group than in
the farm operator group in all areas but the Corn Belt. The difference was especially striking in the Spring Wheat Area.
The extent to which the location and policies of relief offices and
the existence of C. W. A. and other work projects were responsible
for movements of relief clients cannot be determined on the strength
of the available statistical material. The data on continuous residence in the county indicate a slightly higher mobility of farm laborers than of farm operators but, on the whole, the stability of the
group within county limits is marked. This is probably explained
in part by the fact that the data exclude migrat-0ry workers as well
as those farm laborers who, under the impact of unemployment,
became trans1ents. 18
Relative stability was apparently not a determining factor in
selecting rehabilitation clients. In six areas there were relatively
more migrants to the county among farm operators on rehabilitation
than on relief. Only in the Cotton and Corn Belts did natives of
the county appear to be preferred as rehabilitation clients (table 14
and figure 8).
1
• The data on movements of farmers and farm laborers to cities, presented In chapter
V. Indicate that the number of tarm laborers migrating to cities was twlce as great as
that of farm operators.
Dig,
zedbyGoogle
47
Social Characteristics of Households
1111111111
Moved lo county since 1929
~
Moved to county in 1929 or earlier
~
Lived in county since bir th
Percent
0
Relief
All AREAS
Rehobilitation
EASTERN
COTTON
Relief
WESTERN
COTTON
Relief
APPAL ACH IAN·
OZARK
Rel ief
LAKE STATES
CUT-OVER
HAY AND
DAIRY
CORN BELT
Rehabililotion
Rehobilitolion
Rehabilitation
Relief
Rehabilitation
Relief
RehObilitation
Relief
Rehabilitation
SPRING
WHEAT
WINTER
WHEAT
RANCHING
Relief
Rthabililotion
Relief
Rehabilitation
Relief
Rehabilitation
FIG. 8 - MOBILITY OF HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
HOUSEHOLDS WHO WERE FARM OPERATORS BY
USUAL OCCUPATION, BY AREA
June 1935
-,-10,e, W.P.A.
Digitized by
Google
D
zed by
Go gle
CHAPTER
V
EMPLOYMENT AND RELATION TO THE LAND
M
families on relief in June 1935 were still in
the open country, although families of laborers lived in
villages to a much greater extent than did those of operators. Tenant farmers were more dependent on public aid than were
farm owners in June 1935. The overwhelming majority of both
tenant farmers (exclusive of croppers) and farm owners on relief
received aid while still operating their farms, whereas farm laborers
and sharecroppers on relief were largely unemployed or displaced
from the land. Laborers and croppers had stayed off relief for very
brief periods after losing their usual jobs, while other tenants and
owners who had lost their usual occupation had remained off public
relief rolls for much longer periods. The great majority of the
relief families with farm experience who had left the land had lost
their farms during the depression years. While many rural families
had left their farms, the influx into agriculture of nonagricultural
workers was marked in part-time farming areas.
Rural rehabilitation clients were predominantly selected from the (
farm operator group. The program had raised the tenure status (
of nearly one-half of the sharecroppers who became clients, placing . 1
them in the tenant category. Laborers and nonagricultural workers .~
on rehabilitation became tenants for the most part, but. few tenants_>
or owners changed their tenure status on rehabilitation. The rehabilitation program diverged somewhat from its primary purpose of
aiding farm families to become independent of relief, as indicated
by the fact that some nonagricultural workers were accepted as
clients, and that some of the clients in June 1985 were not operating
farms or engaging in any other employment. Almost all of the
clients had agricultural experience, however, and farm operators far
outnumbered farm laborers and nonagricultural workers on rehabilitation rolls.
OST OF THE FARM
RESIDENCE
Of the farm operators by usual occupation 1 on relief in June 1985,
89 percent lived in the open country and 11 percent in villages, the
proportions varying greatly from area to area (appendix table 11).
Village residents included those currently employed in operating
nearby farms, those who had shifted temporarily or permanently to
1
For deftnltlon of usual occupation, see Introduction, p. :a:, and Glossary, p. 210.
49
Dig,
zedbyGoogle
50
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
nonfarm occupations, and those retired or unemployed for other
reasons.
Most of the farm operators living in villages had evidently come
to the villages from the open country since the beginning of the depression. Unemployment apparently caused much of the movement
of tenant farmers and sharecroppers to villages, as indicated by the
fact that most of those living in villages at the time of the survey
were found to be unemployed. On the other hand, the farm owners
on relief and living in villages were for the most part still engaged
in farming. It cannot be assumed, therefore, that they necessarily
represent retired or unemployed farmers. The type of settlement
prevailing may have favored their location in villages.
Laborers on relief lived in villages to a much greater extent than
did farm operators, unemployment during the depression having
caused many of them to move from the open country.
Of the rehabilitation clients, only 4.4 percent lived in villages
(appendix table 13). Such a small percentage would be expected
since in most cases rehabilitation clients would necessarily have land
to operate in order to obtain rehabilitation loans or grants, and since
the great majority of them were located in the Cotton Areas where
farmers generally live in the open country.
USUAL TENURE STATUS
Farm operators (by usual occupation) made up about three-fourths
of the rural farm relief load in June 1935, while farm laborer heads
of households accounted for slightly more than one-fourth. The
proportions of farm operators were as high as 93 and 86 percent in
the two self-sufficing areas, Appalachian-Ozark and Lake States CutOver, and 90 percent in the Spring Wheat Area. In the Corn Belt,
on the other hand, farm operator and farm laborer households were
about equally represented and among Negroes in the Eastern Cotton
Belt more than one-half of the rural relief households were those of
farm laborers ( appendix table 15). These differences reflect variations in type of agriculture in the nine areas.
Of the farm operators, 35 percent were owners by usual occupation
while tenants accounted for 65 percent (including croppers, 11 percent) (appendix table 12). The proportion of owners ranged by
areas, however, from 12 percent -in the Western Cotton Area to 78
percent in the Lake States Cut-Over Area..
/ Proportionately more farm tenants by usual occupation than farm
1 owners were receiving relief in all areas in both February and June
.' (table 16 and figure 9).2 This was to be expected because the eco• In comparing February and June relief rates, the June rate for relief and rehabilitation combined le more nearly comparable to the February relief rate than ls the
June rate for relief only, since betwe.-n },'ebruary and June many former relief cases
bad been transferred to the rural rehabllltatlon program.
Dig ii Zed by
Goog [e
Employment and R elation to the Land
51
nom1c position of tenants is, on the whole, less secure than that of
owners.
The Negro farm operators on relief in the two Cotton Areas d iffered from the whites in tenure distribution. The proportion of
owners in the Negro relief group was considerably smaller than in
t he white group in the Eastern Cotton Belt and slightly greater in
the Western Cotton Area (appendix table 15).
TABLE 16.-RATIO OF FARM OPERATORS 1 RECEIVING RELIEF GRANTS IN
FEBRUARY AND JUNE 1935 AND OF FARM OPERATORS RECEMNG RELIEF
GRANTS OR REHABILITATION ADVANCES IN JUNE 1935 TO ALL FARM
OPERATORS IN JANUARY 1935
Percent or all
farm operators
onrallel
Area and tenure
Fehru-
ary 1935
Ione
193.'i
Percent
olallfarm
operators
on relief
or rehabllltatkm.'
June 193.'i
Percent of all Percent
!arm operators ol all !arm
on relief
operators
on relief
or rehaFebru- Ione hilitatlon,
ary 11135 1935
June 1935
Area and tenure
---All areas:
Farm operators. ___
Owners __ ____ _____ _
Tenants• ------ ----
Eas~~P~ITon:_______
Farm operators_._ .
Owners. ______ _____
Tenants __________ _
w~ge;:toii:-···-·-
Farm operators
... .
Owners
____________
Tenants ___ _____ ___
Croppers ___ __ _____
Appalachian-Ozark ;
Farm operators. __ .
Owners .. •. . ____ __.
Tenants ___ ______ __
Lake Statea Cut-Over :
Farm operators __ • _
Owners. __ _____ ___ _
Tenants. ----•--· •-
---- ---
10_0
6, 0
14. 8
14_4
5. 4
3. 5
8. 2
5. 3
4. 8
2. 6
3. 9
8. 1
2. 3
1.4
1.9
3. 6
8. 6
9. 3
19. 5
10.1
20.4
36. 2
5, 5
I. 7
6. 4
11 . 2
9. 3
3. 1
11. 1
17. 8
12. 2
6_9
12. 1
7. 1
22. 8
13. 4
8. 0
25.2
23. 5
22. 0
20. 0
33. 2
10. 7
9. 9
15. 4
8.8
5. 4
12. 2
14. 3
7_6
s.o
Hay and Dairy:
Farm operators ___.
Owners_ , ________ __
Tenants._· --····-Coro Belt:
Farm operators. ___
Owners_----Tenants
_____ ---··
_____ _Spring Wheal:
Farm operators _. __
Owners •• _______ ___
Tenants ___ ________
Winter Wheat:
Farm operators. ___
Owners ____ ____ ____
Tenants ___ _____ __ _
Ranching:
Farm operators ____
Owners ___ ___ ______
Tenants ... ••• _____
6.2
3.8
15.1
2.8
1. 7
7. 0
4.9
3. 2
11. 6
7. 0
2.9
11.8
2. 8
1.3
4. 5
4. 7
2. 0
7.9
31, 5
19. 2
51. 7
20. 0
13. 3
81.0
28.2
17_9
45. 3
13. 3
8. 1
19. 1
6. 2
2. 6
10. 0
9. 7
4. 3
15. 6
6. 1
4. 9
8. 1
6. 1
14. 3
9. 4
7. 5
15. 7
18. 4
17. 6
22.8
11. 11
By usual occupation.
• Undupllcated. Cases that received both relief and rehabilitation were co nsl<lered
rehabilitation cases.
• Exclusive of croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
Sources: UnUed State, Oenevs of Agriculture: 1935, and Survey of Current Changes
In the Rural Relief Population.
1
Sharecroppers made up a smaller part of the Negro relief load '
than of the white relief load in the Eastern Cotton Belt, while the
situation was reversed in the Western Cotton Area. It is possible
that Negro croppers were more likely to be retained by the landlords in the Eastern Cotton Belt where tradition is in their favor, 8
but it seems still more probable that the local officials in the old
Cotton South were more reluctant to take Negro sharecroppers on
relief than in the Western Cotton Area. Differences between the
two areas in distribution of tenants other than croppers by color
• Holfsommer, Harol<l, Landlord.Tenant Relation& and R!!llef in Alabama, R~H<.•11 rch
B ulletin. Series II, No. 9, Division or Research, Statistics, and Finance, }'ederal Eme rgency
Relief Adminlstra.tion, No,·ember 14, rn311, p. 8.
oig1•z_d by
Google
Farmers on Relie f and Rehabilitation
52
50--- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - ---,
■ FARM OPERATORS
1!§3 Owners
401---
- - - - --
-
~ Tenant s
rn Croppers
301---------------------N------I
East•n
Cotton
Western Appo· ~ke
Hay
Cotton lochian- States and
Ozark Cul-OV. Dairy
FIG. 9 - PERCENT OF ALL FARM OPERATORS* _RECEIVING RELIEF GRANTS
OR REHABILITATION ADVANCES, BY AREA
June 1935
•Reported In the United Stalll
C1n1111 of A;ric:ulhn: 1935
is also significant in this connection. Such tenants were represented
among Negro relief families in slightly larger proportions than
among whites in the Eastern Cotton Belt and in much smaller proportions than among whites in the Western Cotton Area.
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS
More than nine-tenths of the farm owners on relief were still
on their farms in the spring of 1935,• and were therefore recorded
as being employed at their usual occupation (appendix table 14).
The percentages of such farmers were highest in the Lake States
Cut-Over, Spring Wheat, and Appalachian-Ozark Areas (96--98
percent) and lowest in the Corn Belt (73 percent). The high percentages in the Appalachian-Ozark and Lake States Cut-Over Areas
are easily understood, since both areas are characterized by small
self-sufficing or part-time farms, and the economic resources of many
f arm owners had always been inadequate.5 Among reasons frequently given on the case records for these families receiving relief
were "farm too small," "loss of supplementary occupation," and ''poor
land," all indicating the inadequacy of their farming enterprise even
in good times.
• For deftn ltton of ourrmt 6fflf)lot,ment, see Introduction, pp. J:-xl.
• Reports from various sources. for Instance the county rePQrta of this ■nrve:,, agree
that, In those areas, relief clients were not much worse otr' than the corresponding nonrelief group■ and In aome lnatancea had even Improved their standard of living lllnce
going on relief.
Dig 1I:rnd by
Google
Employment and Relation to the Land
53
In the Spring Wheat Area, many of the farm ownffi.'S still on
their own· farms while receiving relief had been substantial farmers
before they lost their crops and livestock in the drought of 1934,
and their need for relief was, therefore, of recent origin.8
The small proportion of farm owners by usual occupation still
on their farms in the Corn Belt is probably related to widespread
foreclosures forcing many farmers to leave their farms. Some retired
farm owners, whose assets became depleted during the depression
and who thus became dependent on public assistance, may also be
included in the large proportion of former farm owners no longer
on their farms in this area.
Tenant farmers had been unable to remain on their farms to the
same degree as had owners, only 8lS percent of tenants (exclusive
of croppers) on relief being still employed as tenants in June 1935.
The Corn Belt again showed the smallest proportion ( 66 percent)
of any area, a possible indication that the return of retired farm
owners to their farms in this area during the depression may have
displaced some tenants.' As in the case of owners, high rates of
employment at usual occupation among tenants were found in the
Appalachian-Ozark and Spring Wheat Areas (96 and 90 percent,
respectively).
Sharecroppers had the lowest employment rate at usual occupation of all farm operators: 63 percent in the Western Cotton Area
and only 35 percent in the Eastern Cotton Belt. Even though
there were many chronically dependent cases among the croppers on
relief, the conclusion seems inevitable that the restriction of employment opportunities as a result of the A. A. A. program was
partly responsible for the low rate of employment in the Eastern
Cotton Belt.
Employment rates at usual occupation were higher for Negroes
than for whites among croppers and other tenants on relief in both
Cotton Areas. This finding might be taken as evidence confirming
earlier observations that landlords often prefer the more docile
Negro tenant to the white.
Only 14 percent of the farm laborer heads of households 8 on relief
were employed at their usual occupation (appendix table 14). This
low rate would be expected since farm laborers resemble industrial
/
-)
'
/
(
• W111ue, Waller, :Jr. and Blactwell, Gordon W., BW'flev al BW'III Bd~f cro,mJ
for A"""'8trat'11e R6a80M '" 801d1l Dakota, Relleareh Bulletm. 8erlea II, No. 12,
Dlvts:lon of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, p. 2.
• Deport from Federal Emergency Relief Administration Survey of the Baral Belief
Sltuatloa, October 1934, Wblte1lde County, Illinois. p. Ui.
• ID order to ,et an accurate picture ot the employment llituatloa, the ftguN!II tor farm
laborers who were head1 of households are shown separately. No such dlv!Blon wa■
neceual'J' for farm operators, Bl practically all operators (98.6 percent) were head■ of
bo'lltlehold&
01g1• zed by
Goog Ie
54
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
workers in their employment situation, being entirely dependent
on the actual demand for farm labor. If compelled to reduce costs,
the farmer will first reduce his labor costs since this reduction is
most easily effected. He may either decide to increase his own
or his children's working hours or he may take recourse to trading
help with his neighbors.9
The data for all members of farm laborer families show a higher
rate of employment than for heads alone, owing to the inclusion of
unpaid family labor. Even so, the rate of employment at usual
occupation was lower for farm laborers (54 percent) than for any
other agricultural group except sharecroppers.
CHANGES IN OCCUPATION
Changes in occupation played an important part in the farm relief
situation. Although rural workers migrating into the city and
remaining there are outside the scope of this study, farm to ruralnonfarm and nonfarm to rural-farm movements are included.
Influx into Agriculture.
While a number of farm families gave up farming either before
or after going on relief, the ranks of active farmers experienced an
influx of nonagricultural workers. Miners, lumbermen, and suburban laborers attempted to shift to farming and, under the impact
of the depression, industrial workers went back to the land and took
up farming in an attempt to tide themselves over the period of
unemployment. Heads of households usually engaged in nonagricultural industry constituted 48 percent of the rural relief load in
June (appendix table 17). As far as these workers found another
occupation after they lost their usual one, such change, in the majority
of cases, involved! a shift into agriculture ( appendix table 16),
Skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled workers tended to go .into agriculture to a considerably greater extent than did the white collar
workers.
The influx into agriculture was most marked in the AppalachianOzark and the Lake States Cut-Over Areas (involving 27 and 20 percent of all nonagricultural workers, respectively), where loss of a
job in lumbering or mining led the workers to devote full time to
farming. Also, access to the land was comparatively easy for those
industrial workers who either came into these areas from the industrial centers for the first time, or who returned to the areas. How• Such •uhstltutlon of nelg-hbor help has b<>en fM'Qu<'nt during the depression, according
to Josiah C. Folsom, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agrkulture,
See also report from Hund County, South Dakota, p. 10 (flies of Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration).
Dig tized by
Goos le
Employment and Relation to the Land
55
ever, they found the soil usually of such poor quality that it was
difficult to eke out a living and many were forced on relief.
In the other areas, where part-time farming is less widespread, the
shift into agriculture did not reach any significant proportions,
involving only from 2 to 10 percent of the nonagricultural workers
( appendix table 16). These variations reflect not only differing
possibilities for nonagricultural employment, but also varying opportunities for getting back onto the land.
Findings in this study thus confirm those made in the survey of
six rural problem areas 10 in 1934. A pronounced shift from nonagricultural to agricultural employment was found in the same two
areas-Appalachian-Ozark and Lake States Cut-Over. Many such
heads of families in shifting occupations had made no radical change
either in their residence or their mode of living. This was because
they had already been living on small farms, while working in nearby
industries, and the shift in occupation merely represented a failure of
their industrial employment and a consequent major attention to
farming their small pieces of land. The farm, formerly only an
incidental source of income, became the family's sole source of income
and subsistence, and hence a shift in occupation and industry was
recorded.
Leaving the Farm.
For farm families, loss of usual occupation in most cases involved
leaving the farm. In all areas the great majority of the heads of
families with farm experience,11 but not currently engaged in agriculture, left the farm during the 5-year period coinciding with the
depression (table 17). The conclusion seems justified that the depression was the immediate cause for this migration. Leaving the farm
does not necessarily mean migration from the open country to a
village or urban center. Many o:f those who had to give up agriculture as their usual occupation remained in the open country after
discontinuing farm operations. In fact, there has been a tendency -.7
on the part of landlords, particularly in the South, to let former (
croppers, tenants, or farm laborers continue to occupy houses on
their land.
Within the farm operator group, tenants and croppers were found
to have left the farm more recently than owners, over one-half of
them having left the farm between July 1, 1934, and July 1, 1935,
in comparison with only two-fifths of the owners (appendix table 18).
.
5
1• Beck, P. G. and Forster, M. C., Bfz Rural Problem Areas, Rellef-Resourcelf-Rehabilitatlrm, Research Monograph I, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Fed·
ilral Emergency Relief Administration, 1935, pp. 65-66.
n Since 16 yenrs of age.
Dig tized by
Google
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
56
One-fifth of the owners had left the farm prior to the depre$ion
period.
TABLE 17.-LENGTH OF TIME SINCE HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS
WITH FARM EXPERIENCE 1 BUT NOT CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE
LEFI' THE FARM, BY AREA, JUNE 1935
[138 counties representing 9 agrlculturai sreas)
Total
1 year
Area
2yean
Hyears
~)'earl
JO years
and over
Number
Percent
10,700
100.0
67.9
18.1
11.0
8. 7
4. 3
Western Cotton ________________
Appalachian-Ozark ____________
Lake States Cut-Over __________
Bay and Dairy _________________
Com Belt ______________________
~ring Wheat __________________
Inter Wheat _________________
2,530
2,126
762
314
1,574
2, lS.
Ranchlnc------------------ --- -
568
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
116. 1
78.1
62. 2
87.6
116. 9
"5.6
'8.6
62.2
Ill. II
22.8
11. 7
20.2
15. 3
15.5
:11.1
26.1
13.5
14.4
11.6
6.3
12. 6
15. 3
12.8
15..
10.9
5.1
7.0
7. 1
8.8
7. 4
22.3
9. 7
12. 3
8. 5
16. 4
8. 5
2..
1. 1
7.6
~6
6. 1
6. 7
6.0
3.8
8.li
All an,u _________________
------ --- ---
E1111tern Cotton________________ - - - - - -
1 E:rclualve
330
312
of heads far whom lenrth of time alnoe farm a:rperlenoe wu unknown and a:rclualve of pan.
time farm operators.
Farm laborers, the youngest agricultural group, had left the farm
even more recently than tenants and croppers. Leaving the farm
has, of course, a different aspect for farm laborers than for farm
operators in that it is not a phenomenon peculiar to depressions.
Workers who lost their usual occupation during a period of general
prosperity were probably victims of more or less "chronic" unfavorable conditions and included individual instances ·of failure and
poverty which were brought to the surface, once public aid became
available on a large scale. The high percentage for displaced owners
indicates that this group comprised many "chronic" cases, whose
need for relief was only partly a result of the depression. It also
points to the difficulties in the way of farm owners returning to the
land, once they have lost their farms.
It is probable that a large proportion of the heads of families with
farm experience but not currently engaged in agriculture who had
left the farm in the earlier years were usually engaged in nonagriculture. One-fourth of the heads of relief families with farm
experience had been usually engaged in nonagricultural industries
(table 18).
TIME BETWEEN LOSS OF JOB AND OPENING OF RELIEF CASE
Although the time which elapsed between loss of job at usual
occupation and opening of the relief case is in part indicative of the
Cig1 . zed by
Google
Employment and Relation to the Land
57
individual resourcefulness of the relief clients in finding other means
of support, it is largely an index of their economic position-savings,
credit, salable assets, friends, and relatives who could helir-B.nd of
economic conditions in general which would permit them to find
employment in some other occupation.
TABLE 18.-USUAL OCCUPATION OF HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS
WITH FARM EXPERIENCE I BUT NOT CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE,
BY AREA, JUNE 1935
[138 counties representing 9 agricultural are&S)
Total
Usual occupation
Agriculture
Area
Number
Percent l--~-Farm-~-F-arm
__ , ~~
Total
operators laborers
-------------1--- ------ ------ --100.0
75.8
24.2
Ill.I
24. 7
All----------------------------- -10,700
-----------------
Eastern Cotton__________________________ _
Western
Cotton __ -----------------------Appalachtan-Ozarl<_____________________ _
Lake States Cut-Over ___________________ _
Hay and Dairy __________________________ _
Com BeJt ________________________________ _
Spring Wheat ___________________________ _
Winter Wheat. __________________ ----·····
Ranobhlc-----························-···
1
2,530
2,126
782
314
1,574
2,184
330
312
668
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
83.6
85.4
63.0
42.0
65.4
73. 9
82.4
80.8
IIO. 9
M.8
~7
22.0
12.1
14.9
Ill. 8
37.0
28.3
13.0
49.0
68. 7
41.0
211.9
60. 5
64.1
46. 4
64.5
47.11
16. 4
14.6
37.0
68.0
34. G
26.1
17.6
19.2
311.1
Exclll-'ive or heads for whom length or time slnoe farm uperienoe was unknown and exclusive or part.
time farm operators.
Ten percent of the farm laborers stayed oft' relief less than a month
after they lost their usual occupation, while this was true of only
two percent of the owners, five percent of the tenants, and seven
percent of the croppers (table 19). The low wage standard prevailing for farm labor usually made it impossible for the laborers
to accumulate any reserves, and loss of job, therefore, forced them
on relief after a short period. Thus, 62 percent of farm laborer
heads of families on relief, who had lost their usual type of job, went
on the rolls within 6 months after this loss of job.11 The croppers)
showed nearly the same characteristics as the farm laborers: 55 percent were able to stay oft' relief for not more than 6 months after
losing their sharecropper status. In contrast, only 37 percent of the
other tenants and 31 percent of the owners were in this category.
Correspondingly, much larger percentages of owners and tenants
than of croppers and laborers managed to stay off relief for 2 years
or more after loss of their usual occupation.
u This tloeR not necessarily mean that they were unemploy'!d, as some of them may
have found work at another occupation.
Digtized:iyGoogle
Farmers on R elief and R ehabilitation
58
TABLE 19.-LENGTH oF TIME BETWEEN END OF Joe AT LAST UsuAL OccuPATION AND OPENING OF RELIEF CASE OF HEADS OF FARM HOUSEHOWS
NOT CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN USUAL OccUPATION, JUNE 1935
[138 count ies representing 9 agricultural areas)
Length of time between loss of Job and opening of relief
case
Total
-
'o
.,,
Usual oocupallon
"
.8
Farm operators . . .••..• ... . . .
Owners . .. •. .. . . .••• • . .. .
Tenants '··· ···· ·· · ·· · ·· ·
F~r~b~~s:: :·::::::::: ::
1,420
242
652
-~~HJ
3, 002
I~
.;
!
~
;.,;
--
- -
".c
-5" ~
g
~
]
<
s
.c
.;0
8
-- -- - -
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100, 0
10, 4
5. 8
14. 1
8. 0
12, 7
4, 8
I. 7
7. 6
6, 6
4, 6
8. 3
7, 2
19. 0
fl. ~
IO. 3
.a
c
£"'C:
1l
.;0
8
'?
- "' -
--
31U
:Z:l. I
24. 2
41 . I
32. 5
13. 0
13. 2
14. 4
11. 0
10. 5
8
8
~1l
.c-
]_
a.a
~d
1
0
~
-- -- 111.2
14
1!1. ·I0
17. I
7. 2
JO, 8
I
0
0
:
;I;
I
r--
"'...
"<lei
«>
a es f'B
0
~
.,
.;0
.c
15. 7
[2. 3
.8
4. g
:o
- -< -
ft, 9
H., 9
7. 7
2.3
2. 9
ft . 5
12. 8
ft. 8
5, 4
3.2
I Median.
• Exclusive of croppers in the 2 Cotton Area~.
In some cases, the loss of usual occupation occurred only after the
r elief case was opened. Tenants ( exclusive of sharecroppers) and
f arm laborers showed the highest percentages of such cases (14 and
13 perceut, respectively ), whereas only 6 percent of the former farm
owners lost their farms after going on relief.
·1 0 0 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
Ill
Relief
~ Rehabilitation
40
Total
Owners
Tenads Croppers l.dxlrers
Total
Wlile
Cdlor
Skilled, U'lskilled
Semiskilled
NONAGRICll.TURE
AGRICULTI.H:
FIG. IQ-USUAL OCCUPATION OF HEADS OF RURAL RalEF
AND REHABIUTATION HOUSEHOLDS
Jlrlel935
Af~WIIA.
Diy1•zed by
Google
Employment and Relation to the Land
59
REHABILITATION CLIENTS
Usual Occupations.
<
Most of the rehabilitation clients were drawn from relief rolls,
but their occupational composition did not parallel that of the relief (
group. This was because the specific purposes of the rehabilitation
program required the selection of clients primarily from the agricu~
tural groups (appendix tables 13 and 19 and figure 10).
For all the sample areas combined, 89 percent of the heads of
rehabilitation households in June 1935 were agricultural workers by
usual occupation (appendix table 19). Of these, 91 percent
belonged to the farm operator group, and 9 percent were farm laborers ( table 20).
7
TABLE 20.-HEADS OF RURAL REHABILITATION HOUSEHOLDS WITH AGRICULTURE AS THE USUAL OCCUPATION, BY COLOR AND BY AREA, JUNE 1935
(138 counties representing O agricultural areas]
Usual occupation
Total
Farm operators
Area
Farm
laborers
__________,____,___ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - All areas _________________
Ee.stern
TotalCotton:
______________________
White ______________________
Negro ______________________
Western
Cotton:
Totnl.
_____________________
White ______________________
Nei,ro ______________________
Appalachian-Ozark ____________
Lake States Cut-Over__________
Hay and Dairy _________________
Corn Belt. _____________________
Spring Wheat. _________________
Winter Wheat _________________
Ranching ______________________
/
1
Number
Percent
12, 744
100.0
90.8
27.3
45. 0
18.5
9.2
5,6S8
3, [,86
100.0
100.0
100.0
8!1.1
87. 5
91. 7
20.3
21.0
18. 9
39. 7
38.4
41. 9
29.1
28.1
30.9
10.9
12.5
8.3
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
83.8
82.3
89.6
97. 5
98.4
96.1
03. 2
95. 7
97. 9
87.6
11. 7
9.1
22. 3
43.0
84.2
52. 6
17. 7
33. 1
24. 1
41.6
44. 7
46.1
38.6
54. 5
14.2
43. 5
i5. 5
62.6
73. 8
46.C
27. 4
27.1
28. 7
16. 2
17. 7
-----2,102
2,034
1, f,30
404
730
618
1,168
1,144
894
290
178
Total
Owners
Tenants I Croppers
10. 4
2.5
1.6
3.9
6.8
4.3
2.1
12. 4
Exclusive of croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas .
.;
About one-half of the rehabilitation clients were tenants, other
than croppers, while owners made up a little more than one-fourth
[ of the group. In comparison with heads of farm families on relief
) ( appendix table 15), owners, tenants, and croppers were overrepre' sented on rehabilitation while farm laborers showed a marked underrepresentation. These differences varied widely by areas.
The overrepresentation on rehabilitation of Negro owners in the
two Cotton Areas, in comparison with Negro owners on relief, was
especially noticeable. Negro laborers were much underrepresented
on rehabilitation, due probably to their low economic status which
caused them to be considered bad risks for a rehabilitation program.
It is obvious that farm operators would be preferred to farm
laborers as clients, both because it would be a simpler matter to
D1gt1zc-dbyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
60
rehabilitate them "in place," u and because they had had greater experience in farm management and therefore would seem, on the
whole, to be better risks. Arbitrary policies, however, may also be
responsible for this restriction of choice.
About 8 percent of the rehabilitation clients in June were not
agricultural workers at all, but belonged to the nonagricultural
group (appendix table 19). Half of them (4 percent of the total)
were unskilled workers, and another 8 percent came from the skilled
and semiskilled workers, while white collar workers made up about
1 percent of the total.
TABLE 21.-USUAL OCCUPATION OF ffEAos OF RURAL REHABILITATION ffOUSBROLDS, BY CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS, JUNE 1935
(138 oounUes rep-ting 9 agricultural areas)
Current employment status
Total
Employed In nonagrlculture
Unem•
ployed
Employed In agriculture
Usual occopatlon
Num•
ber
and
Farm
White SkDled
Un,
Per• Total Own• Ten• Crop- labor·
and
Total
col•
cent
era ants• pera era
Jar I semi• skilled w~
skilled
-11:-
- - -- - Agriculture ........• 12,744
Farm operators. 11,674
Owners ..••• 3,480
Tenants•--· 6,742
Cro~rs ...• 2,862
Farm la rers .•. 1,170
N®{'ft;\:l~I~;:::
Skilled and
semiskilled.•••
Unsk:llled.. ••••••
I
I
I
1,204
128
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
96. 7
97. 7
99.8
118.0
94.6
76.3
76. 8
64.1
464
822
100.0
100.0
78. 4
76.2
27.6
-10.3
10.6
.8
1.1
48. 9
7.11
10. 9
M.6
67. 2
3.3
96. 4
43. 7
49.4
47. 7
48. 6
8.1
1.8
:M.2
19.3
46. 4
411.2
7.9
6. 7
LO
29.8
116. 7
1.4
1. 4
6. 6
20.3
8.8
1.4
.I
-----,I
.11
18.11
LO
.9
0.2
.2
.2
.1
.8
r>0.')1
---- - 0.1
.1
.1
------ .1
-----.a ··i"s·
····=r
4.8
Ill.II 16.11 ...........
8.1
.4
u
8.11
------ ····-·
0. 1
.1
..............
4.1
2. I
.II
.1
L9
••
23.4
.2
:LO
-----·.4
8.11
6.2
19.11
llO. I
18.11
llCU
Exclusive of croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
Professional, proprietary, and clerical workars.
Less than O06 percent.
Employment Status.
As originally set up, the rural rehabilitation program was designed
primarily for families that would be actively engaged in farming.
However, there were some variations as the program developed.
Four percent of all heads of rehabilitation households usually en1-,raged in agriculture were reported as unemployed in June 1935
(table 21). This unemployment figure indicates that not all cases
under care of the various rehabilitation agencies could be called
rehabilitation cases in the accepted ·sense of the term. From the fact
that these clients were unemployed and seeking work, it must be
assumed that they were no longer active rehabilitation cases. They
were on the rehabilitation rolls because they once received advances
is
For definition, see p. 17, footnote 10.
Digitzed by
Google
A R ehabililalion Client
Digitized by
Google
01911.!Zed by
G oo g I>
Employment and Relation to the Land
61
in some form or other-a cow, some feed, food supplies-from the
rehabilitation agency, which they had not yet fully repaid. It is
possible that they were later dropped from the rehabilitation rolls
as poor risks or for noncompliance with their rehabilitation contracts. But it must also be kept in mind that the rehabilitation
program was often regarded not as a program for rehabilitating
farmers, but as a special type of general rural relief program which
need not apply any definite selective policy with regard to its clients.
This was largely the case in the South, for example, where the
program had its greatest development.
In some cases nonagricultural workers and farm laborers became
rehabilitation clients without actually being settled on the land.
Fourteen percent of all clients who were farm laborers by usual occupation were currently employed as farm laborers, whereas five percent of all nonagricultural workers were currently employed at their
usual occupations and one percent at farm labor (table 21). Some
of these workers were probably engaged in nonfarming aspects of
rehabilitation projects.
Advances in Status.
Whereas 96 percent of the owners and 95 percent of the tenants, (other than sharecroppers, remained at their usual occupations under
the rehabilitation program, 44 percent of the croppers climbed up
the agricultural ladder, becoming tenants (table 21). Probably as/
far as the cropper clients concluded new contracts under the rehabili- _
tation program, tenant agreements were thought more appropriate , ,
than the customary sharecropping arrangements for the purposes of
actual rehabilitation and were, therefore, furthered by the rehabilita~
tion agencies.
Only 1 percent each of croppers and other tenants on rehabilita./
tion had gone so far up the agricultural ladder as to become owners.
The percentage was higher for the farm laborers (6 percent),
whereas 20 percent of the nonagricultural workers had become farm
owners. Almost one-half of the farm laborers and nonagricultural
workers became tenants (exclusive of croppers), however, this being
the easiest way to return to the land. It is possible, of course, that
some of these had carried out the shift to tenancy before they became rehabilitation clients. This explanation would apply in those
cases where nonagricultural workers returned to the open country
and took up agriculture again to tide themselves over a period of
unemployment.
Only 8 percent of the farm laborers and 7 percent of the nonagricultural workers became croppers. This shift does not involve any
capital requirements and may also have occurred before the client
entered into a rehabilitation agreement.
137296°-37-6
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
Ci
I
zed by
Go gle
CHAPTER
VI
FACTORS IN PRODUCTION
F
ARM OPERATORS on relief manifestly produced less on the average
than their neighbors not on relief. The distinction between
those farmers who sank below the subsistence level and those
who did not, except in cases of affliction by natural disasters, such
as drought, flood, or crop pests, was closely allied to differences
in control over the factors of production-land, livestock, experience
in farming, and personal ability. This and other relief studies have
given definite evidence that the farmers on relief were at a disadvantage in respect to available land and livestock. They were experienced farmers, but their formal education was less than that of
farmers who managed to stay off relief.
ACREAGE OPERATED
The average acreage operated by farmers on relief was found to
be less than the acreage for all farms 2 in every area surveyed in
June 1935; in most areas it was far smaller (table 22).
The owner group showed the greatest difference between the size
of relief farms and of all farms ( figure 11). In some instances-Western Cotton and Ranching Areas-the farms operated by owners
on relief had only about one-fourth of the acreage reported in the
1935 Census for farms operated by all owners in those areas.
1
TABLE 22,-SIZE OF FARMS OPERATED BY FARMERS ON RELIEF IN JUNE 1935
AND BY ALL FARMERS IN JANUARY 1935,1 BY TENURE, BY CoLOR, AND BY
AREA
(138 counties rep1'85entlng 9 egrlcultunl areas]
Average number of acres operated
Owners
Relief
Croppers
Tenants•
Census
1935
Relief
Census
JQ35
Relief
Censua
1935
-------------1---- - - - - - - - - ---1---AU areas ___________________________ _
86
Eastern
________________________________ .
TotalCotton:
White
____________
----- ---- ---- ----- --_
Negro ___
. _______._____________________
Western
_____________________ -- . _______ .
Total_Cott,m:
White _______________________________ _
Negro _______________ . _____________ ....
Appalachlan-01.ark _______ . __ . ___________ .
Lake Stat<JS Cut-Over ____________________ _
Hay and Dairy __________________________ _
Com Belt_ _______________________________ _
Spring Wheat. ______________________ -----Winter Wheat__ _________________________ _
Ranching ________________________________ _
1
Unild State, Cen..u of Aoricultur,: 19 ;5_
52
55
36
49,
55
36
34
40
171
80
126
38
40
116
123
74
33
64
26
36
72
48
29
37
49
20
30
176
192
73
79
81
70
21
71
82
124
113
121
61
46
52
---'I--- --- --- ---
83
97
94
338
146
114
157
745
423
234
8\XJ
60
29
310
115
166
50
63
34
35
66 ---------- ----------
110
134
164
4S3
304
445
• Exclusive of croppers in the 2 Cotton Areas.
1The 1935 Censns of Agriculture data for computing medians were not yet available
at the time the report was prepared; consequently, the arithmetic average is used.
• The Census II.gores Include those farms whose operators were on relief. As these
relief farms were concentrated in the lower brackets, the difference between relief and
nonrellef farms w.as greater than shown in table 22.
63
oig1 -z-d by
Google
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
64
Average number of acrH operated
180
OWNERS
Total
Relief
TENANTS
Total
Relief
CROPPERS
Total
Retlef
FIG. II - SIZE OF FARMS OPERATED BY FARMERS ON RELIEF IN JUNE 1935
ANO BY ALL FARMERS REPORTED IN THE
1935 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE
There was less difference in size of farm between tenants (exclusive of croppers) on relief and tenants in the general population.
It is probable that since the tenant class was of greater economic
homogeneity, it was more uniformly affected by the depression
than were the farm owners. Among owners, only the lower stratum,
the marginal group, was forced by the depression to seek public
aid, while the larger owners, on the whole, could rely on their own
resources to weather the storm.
The difference in size of relief and total farms was least pronounced for the croppers, since cropper farms usually have a high
percentage of land in cotton or tobacco and a.re adjusted in size
to what one man can cultivate.
Farmers with comparatively large farms apparently found it relatively easy to become self-supporting again. A comparison of the
February and June data on the acreage of relief farmers in all
tenure groups showed a decided decrease in the median acreage
in June as compared with February (table 23).
The differences in average size between February and June are
striking because the combined number of farm operators on relief
and rehabilitation in June was about seven-eighths of the number
on relief in February. Owing to the turn-over in the relief population, however, they were not the same individuals. Some farmers
had become self-supporting and had been replaced on relief rolls by
others who had exhausted their resources. The change in average
size of farms means, roughly, that those with the largest farms became self-supporting, those with the next largest farms were chosen
as.rehabilitation clients, while those with the smallest farms remained
on relief. As recovery in agriculture becomes more general, the relief
Dig,
zedbyGoogle
Factors in Production
65
TABLE 23.-ACREAGE OPERATED BY FARM OPERATOR HOUSEHOLDS ON RELIEF
IN FEBRUARY AND JUNE 1935 AND BY RURAL REHABILITATION HOUSEHOLDS
IN JUNE 1935, BY CoLOR AND BY AREA
[138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas)
Median acres per household
Owners
Relief, Relief
Febru- lune'
~
1935
Croppers
Tenants 1
l;irr:,
tion,
1une
1935
Relief, Relief
Febru- June'
fg{s
1935
Reha- Relief,
bilit&- Febru- Relief,
tlon,
ary
lune
~~:
193'1
1935
Rehabllltation,
~~
- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - --- --- --- --- --- --AllareBIL.------------
Eastern Cotton:
Total ________ ----- -- -- -White _________________ _
Negro _________________ _
Western
TotalCotton:
__________________ _
White
__ ----------------_
Negro __________________
Appalachian-Ozark ________ _
Lake States Cut-Over______ _
Hay and Dairy _____________ _
Corn Belt __________________ _
~~~r
W'h~t_-::::::::::::
Ranching
__________________ _
GIi
38
46
87
89
60
34
46
46
44
34
63
84
99
867
159
170
27
83
88
111
24
29
46
77
848
144
162
82
38
89
31
33
20
36
26
21
20
83
M
.0
76
~
44
68
68
87
360
198
149
43
84
14
88
106
145
345
145
145
79
43
10
4h
711
103
832
96
120
43
26
23
28
33
20
20
ID
20
27
27
32
30
31
32
27
40
70
92
120
341
159
160
111
30
30
29
17
28
29
27
•
83
86
28
-------- -------- ---------------------- --------------- -------- --------------- -------- --------------- -------- --------------- -------- --------------- -------- --------
a Exclualve or croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
group will probably contain a larger proportion of chronic or
marginal cases as measured by size of holdings.
Acreage alone is a crude measure of farm production. Unfortunately, the relationship between the quality of the land and farm
relief incidence has not been accurately appraised. General evidence
of this relationship is apparent from the high relief incidence in the
poor land areas, such as the Appalachian-Ozark and Lake States
Cut-Over, but this is not entirely conclusive, as other factors, such as
size of farms and loss of supplementary employment, are also
operating in these areas.
FARM
EXPERIENCE
Farm families were not forced on relief by lack of agricultural
experience. The great majority of the heads of farm families on
relief had had 10 years or more of farm experience (table 24), indicating that the farm relief group was composed mostly of persons
for whom agriculture had been the lifelong job. The length of farm
experience varied, however, with tenure status, partly due to existing
age differences among the various agricultural groups. Of the farm
owners, 82 percent had had 10 years or more of farm experience.
Only 57 percent of the farm laborers had had as much experience.
Nearly 70 percent of the tenants other than croppers and 63 percent
Dig tized by
Google
66
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
of the croppers reported farm experience of 10 years and over. On
the other hand, 29 percent of the farm laborers and 23 percent of the
croppers had been engaged in agriculture for not more than 6 years,
whereas only 11 percent of the owners and 19 percent of the other
tenants fell into this category.
TABLE 24.-LENGTH OF FARM EXPERIENCE OF HEADS 1 OF RURAL RELIEF AND
REHABILITATION HOUSEHOLDS, JUNE 1935
[138 counties representing 9 a~rlcultural areas)
Total
Years engaged In agriculture •
Usual occupation
Number
Percent
1-3
4-6
7-11
10
and
over
------------!--- --- --- --- ---+--ll!.Ull:r
Fe.rm opemtors __________________________ _
Owne~-------------------------------
Tenants
Croppers•----------------------------____________________________ _
Fann laborers ___________________________ _
18,026
6,:100
8,586
3,o«
6,722
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
II. 7
4.0
8.11
7.1
10.4
10.8
8.6
12. 2
111.11
18.8
10.6
7.2
12.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.11
4.8
11.7
7. 7
12. 4
18. 8
19.3
1L2
7.S
13.8
13. 8
72.11
82_3
811. 3
63_2
67. 2
REHABILITATION
Fann operators __________________________ _
Owners _____________ •. ___ . __________ ._
Tenants•-------------- ______________ _
Croppers
Fann
laborers___
.• -------------------------_________________________ _
13.102
3,732
7,970
1,400
MO
8. 7
11.6
70.8
8.8
12. 7
81.1
67.8
14.8
17.4
53. 7
IIO.l
• With ngrirulture as the usual occupation.
• Since a~e 16.
• Exclusive of croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
A farm background was practically universal among the rehabilitation clients, and length of farm experience had evidently been
a determining factor in their selection. Although only 89 percent
of the rehabilitation clients were agricultural workers by usual
occupation (appendix table 19), 98 out of 100 clients reported having
had some farm experience since they were 16 years of age.
As in the case of heads of relief households, the length of farm
experience of rehabilitation clients differed considerably among the
various occupational groups, partly because of the differences in
average age of these groups. Eighty-one percent of the farm
owners who were rehabilitation clients had had 10 years or more of
farm experience, while among the farm laborers only fifty-four
percent had had such extensive experience. Of the tenants and
croppers, 68 and 60 percent, respectively, reported at least 10 years
of experience ( table 24).
Whereas 29 percent of the farm laborers and 25 percent of the
croppers on the rehabilitation program had had only 1 to 6 years
of experience, only 20 percent of the other tenants and 12 percent
of the owners had had so little experience.
OWNERSHIP OF LIVESTOCK
Many farm operators with adequate land resources were hampered
in their efforts at self-support by lack of sufficient livestock. Some
Digtized:iyGoogle
67
Factors in Production
had lost their work stock and food animals through chattel mortgage
foreclosure. Others had sold or eaten their domestic animals and
were without breeding stock.
TABLE 25.-PERCENT OF RURAL RELIEF AND NoNRELIBF HOUSEHOLDS THAT
OWNED No LIVESTOCK, JANUARY 1, 1934, BY SEX OF HEAD AND BY OCTOBER
1933 OCCUPATION OF MALE HEAD
Percent or households
Sex or head and October 1933
occupation ol ma.le hl'Sd
Relier
All heads _______________
Male heads ___________________
Farm owner ______________
Cropper_ - - --------------Other laborer
tenant __
----------Farm
_____________
N onagriculture ___________
Unemployed ______________
Fems.le beads _________________
Without hop
Without oows
Nonrelier
Relier
Without poultry
Nonreller
Relief
Nonrelier
68
47
72
115
45
M
65
45
63
42
31
13
M
15
69
153
41
33
50
27
86
83
84
85
76
72
87
89
35
85
85
88
Ill
145
39
29
87
93
87
84
11
10
7
48
67
17
20
12
47
57
61
52
72
53
1 The smaller percentages for croppers and tenants than ror owners are due to the concentration or owners
In areas where few hogs were kept, especially the Dairy Area.
Source: McCormick, T. C., Comparative Studr of Rural Relief and Non-Relief Hmudiolu, Reaearch
Monograph II, Division or Socia.I Research, Works Progress Administration, 11135, table Q,
Although no information on ownership of livestock was obtained
in this study, data for January 1, 1934, are available from a survey
of relief and nonrelief households.• Relatively fewer relief than
nonrelief households were found owning livestock, and the relief
families owning livestock had fewer animals than did families not
on relief (tables 25 and 26 and appendix table 20).
TABLE 26.-AVERAGE NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK OWNED BY RURAL RELIEJ' AND
NoNRELIEF HOUSEHOLDS REPORTING SUCH LIVESTOCK, JANUARY 1, 1934,
BY SEX OF HEAD AND BY OCTOBER 1933 OCCUPATION OF MALE HEAD
Average number or cows Average number or hogs
Sex or head and October 1933
occupation of male head
Relier
Nonrellef
Relief
Nonrelier
Average number or
poultry
Relief
Nonrellef
All heads _______________
3. 0
5. 7
3. 7
11.1
37
81
Male heads ___________________
Farm owner ______________
Cropper __________________
Other tenant _____________
Farm laborer _____________
Nonagrlculture ___________
Unemployed ______________
Fems.le heads _________________
3.0
3. 5
1. 4
3. 9
LB
L4
1. 4
2. 2
6. 2
6. 8
1.8
5. 8
1.6
1.9
2. 4
4.2
3.8
4-6
2. 6
4- 7
LB
2. 1
1.9
2. 5
11. 4
13. 0
3.9
10. 8
2.11
6. 0
38
49
81
110
23
26
52
32
23
27
711
M
32
40
23
66
4.3
8. 2
Source: McCormick, T. C., Comparative Studv of Rural Rtlitf and Non-R,litf Houuho/d1, Research
Monograph II, Division of Socia.I Research, Works Progress Administration, 1935, table R.
• McCormick, T. C., Comparative Study of Rural Relief and NOflrRrlle! Householda, Research Monograph II, Division of Soelnl Research, Works Progress Administration, 1935,
pp. 45--50, 98---99. Beck, P. G. and Forster, M. C., Siq; Rural Problt'ffl Areaa ReliefResource11-Reliabilitatlon. R<'srnrch Monograph I, DlviRlon of Research, Statistics, and
Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1935, pp. 129-130, also present data
on ownership of livestock of rellef families In six areas of high relief Intensity.
Dig ii Zed by
Goog [e
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
68
Pa.rt of the differences in livestock ownership between relief and
nonrelief farmers was associated with differences in size of fann
between the two groups, the relief group being concentrated on the
smaller farms. Size of farm, however, cannot explain all of the
difference between relief and nonrelief farmers in the extent of livestock ownership. In all but one acreage class smaller proportions
of relief than nonrelief farmers owned work animals and in most
acreage classes the relief operators owned fewer animals than the
nonrelief ( table 27).
TABLE 27.-PERCENT OF RURAL RF.LIEF AND NoNRELIEF FARM OPERATORS,
OTHER THAN CROPPERS, WHO OwNED No WORK STOCK, AND THE AvERAGB
NUMBER OF WORK STOCK OWNED ON JANUARY 1, 1934, BY FARM OPER·
ATORS WITH WORK STOCK, BY ACREAGE GROUPS
Peroon t of farm owners
and tenants without
work stock
Relief
All acreage groups. ...................... .........
Nonreliel
34
Average number of
work stock owned by
farm operators with
work stock
Reller
Nonreliel
4. 2
3. 6
18
1----1----1---
Under 10 acres. .. ......................................
JO to 19 RCr('S..... .. . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . ... . .. • . • . . . .. . .
20 to 49 acres....... . ............................ . ......
liO to 99 RCl'08 ....... .......................... . . • . . . . . . .
100 to 174 RCl'08 ... ............................ ... .......
175 to 259 RCreS . . •••••••••••••••••• •• • •• • • •• •• •• •• • ••• ••
llllOto 379
80
71
48
29
18
RCreS ............................. ...........
(1)
1.6
62
J.4
1.5
39
1.9
2. 3
8.2
4. 6
2. 1
2.11
3. 7
7
0
13
10
12
5
35
23
(1)
1.6
16
12
6
13
12
380 to 499 acres... . . . ....... . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
500 to 740 acrM......... . ............. .. ...... . .... .....
750 to 999 acres . . . . • . . . • • • . • . . • . • . . . • . . . . . • • . . . • . . . . . . • .
1,000 to 4,999 acres .•... .••.•••• ............. .•• . ••••....
6,000 IICl'eS a.nd over .•..•..•..•..••.••.•.••...•••.••.••.
72
(')
4. 4
6.11
7.2
6. 0
6. 8
6. 4
9. I
~•)
1)
8. 7
(1)
II. II
11. 7
I Leas tha.n 10 CRSeS. Ave1'111!8 not computed.
Sonrce : McCormick, T. C., Compmztitie Studr of Rural Rtlitf and l\"on-Rtlief HOUlldlo/4&, R88!'AJ'Ch
Monograph II, Division ofBociRI Research, Works Progress Administration, 1935, table P.
Relatively more farm owners than tenants owned cows, hogs, and
poultry in most areas surveyed. In both tenures more nonrelief
than relief farmers owned such livestock, and greater numbers of
all three types of livestock were owned by nonrelief farmers ( tables
25 and 26 and appendix tables 21 and 22).
In the case of sharecroppers, who owned less livestock than other
southern farmers, there was little difference between relief and nonrelief groups in the number reporting livestock. Relief status also
made little difference in the ownership of livestock among farm
laborer heads of families.
The extent of ownership of livestock varied considerably from
area to area, depending on the prevalent type of fanning and size of
farm. In such part-time or truck farming regions as California,
Oregon, and Massachusetts, at least three-fourths of the farmers on
relief and about :half or more of the nonrelief group had no work
animals, whereas in the Wheat, Cash Grain, New Mexico, and
Digitized by
Google
Factors in Production
69
Tobacco Regions, at least five out of six of both relief and nonrelief
groups had horses or mules (appendix table 20).
The difference between relief and nonrelief groups in the proportion owning work stock was particularly marked in the Old South
Cotton, Corn-and-Hog, Cut-Over, and Dairy Regions. Only in the
Tobacco Area did relatively more relief than nonrelief farmers own
work animals.
Generally in areas where high percentages of farm operators
owned work animals, the average number of animals owned was
also large (appendix table 20). Farm operators on relief in most
areas who owned any work stock at all usually had one team, but in
the Mountain, Cash Grain, and Wheat Areas they averaged more
than three animals each, while the nonrelief farmers in these and
the Corn-and-Hog and Southwest Cotton Areas averaged four or
more work animals apiece. In most areas nonrelief operators owned
an average of at least one more work animal than did relief operators.
EDUCATION
It is readily understandable that farm tenants and laborers could
become dislocated from the land and thus lose their ability to earn
a living, but it is more difficult to conceive why, except in case of
crop failure, an owner of land with a house for shelter and with
work stock, cows, pigs, and poultry should become dependent upon
public aid. However, even when such measurable factors of difference between relief and nonrelief farmers are accounted for, there
still remains the intangible complex of personality traits which
determine success and failure.
One of the few measurable indices of difference in the quality of
the relief and nonrelief populations is the difference in educational
attainment. This is shown by data from the relief and nonrelief
study previously referred to (table 28). These percentages are
used for comparison of relief and nonrelief groups in the whole
TABLE 28.-GRADE ATTAINMENT OF HEADS OF RURAL
HOUSEHOLDS, OCTOBER 1933
luuEF
AND NoNRELIEF
Percent distribution
Grade attainment
Relief
Total _____ -- --- ---- ---- ------ - -- -- -- ------------------- ____ -------- --------
No schooling _________ ----------------------------------------------------------Partial grade school only________________________________________________________
Completed grade school oD)y____________________________________________________
Partial high school only ___ -----------------------------------------------------Completed high school only_____________________________________________________
College.--··----------------------------------------------------------·----------
Nomelief
100
100
1----1----
8
3
46
29
12
31
36
3
!~
8
2
7
Source: McCormick, T. C., Comparative Stu<l1J of Rural Relief and Non-Relief HouBeAolds., Research Monograph II, Division of Social nesearch, Works Progress Administration, 1936, tables J and K.
Cig1 . zed by
Google
70
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
rural population, however, and are not indicative of the grade
attainment of the farm operator group on relief.
The grade attainment of heads of open country households receiving relief in October 1935 is shown in table 29 and figure 12. Since
most of these are agricultural households, the data may be considered
as representative of the educational status of the farm group.
TABLE 29.-GRADE A'ITAINMENT OF HEADS OF OPEN COUNTRY HOUSEHOLDS
ON RELIEF, OCTOBER 1935
(138 oountle• repre.senting O agricultural are••]
Percent
distribution
Grade attainment
Number._____________________
Percent-.----------------··___
No schooling________________________
Partial grade school only____________
23. 5.'lO
100. O
Grade attainment
1----1
JO. 7
69. 4
Percent
distribution
Completed grade school only_______ .
Partial high school only ____________ _
Completed high school only. _______ _
College __________________ • -- • -- • -- -- -
22.0
5.8
1.5
.II
When the heads of families on relief, 35 years of age and over, in
the open country in October 1935 are considered, the educational
attainments appear even lower (appendix table 23). Of the heads
35--44 years of age, 10 percent had never completed a grade in school,
while 14 percent of those 45-54 years of age and 21 percent of those
55-64 years of age had had no schooling. The better grade attainment record of the heads 16--24 years of age and 25-34 years of age
reflects the improvement in rural educational opportunities in the
past generation.
On the average, heads of open country relief households had completed at least the seventh grade in all areas except the AppalachianOzark and Cotton Areas (appendix table 24). In four areasPercent
0
10
20
30
40
No schoolino
Partiol
orode school only
Completed
orode school only
Portiol hiOh school only
Completed high school only
Sum totol of oll bors • 100~
College
F1G. 12- GRADE ATTAINMENT OF HEADS OF OPEN COUNTRY
HOUSEHOLDS ON RELIEF
October 1935
DigtizedbyGoogle
60
y dn11~ )
tl rmen l Arl111 i 11i.• trntio1 1 ( .ll
Rur al Sch oo l
Digitized by
Google
Dil,JI! !e-:J by
Goos [e
71
Factors in Production
Spring and Winter Wheat, Ranching, and Corn Belt,-the average
head of an open country relief household had completed the eighth
grade.
Differences in grade attainment by areas reflect well-known differences in educational opportunity. Negroes in the Eastern Cotton
Belt had received just half as much education, on the average, as
the whites. White heads of open country families had not completed the sixth grade, while Negro heads had not finished the third
year of school on the average. In the Western Cotton Area the
average school attainment of Negroes was about a year less than that
of whites.
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
Dig tized by
Google
CHAPTER
VII
RELIEF TRENDS, 1933 THROUGH 1935
Federal Emergency Relief Ad.ministration was
established in the spring of 1933,1 provision was made for
extending unemployment relief to farm operators who could
not make a living on their farms as well as to unemployed farm
laborers and to farmers who had lost their land.
In October 1933, 5 months after the inauguration of the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, an estimated 417,000 farm operators ( over 6 percent of all farmers in 1935), plus an undetermined
number of farm laborers, were receiving Federal-State assistance
through the Emergency Relief Administrations (table 30). During
the next 12 months, which witnessed the widespread drought of 1934,
the number of farmers on general relief or rehabilitation rolls
increased 58 percent, the estimated number rising from 417,000 to
659,000.
Both drought and depression effects were cumulative during the
months following ·october 1934. In spite of the fact that all
indices of rural prosperity were showing an upward trend from their
low point in 1932, the peak period for Federal assistance to farm
families came during the winter of 1934-35. From October 1934 to
February 1935 the estimated number of farmers receiving general
relief grants or rehabilitation loans increased about 4 percent,
reaching a peak of 685,000 cases, more than 10 percent of all farmers
in the United States at that time 2 (table 30 and figure 13). These
included 598,000 farm operators on general relief rolls and 87,000
farm operators receiving aid in the form of rehabilitation loans. In
addition, an estimated 279,000 farm laborer families were on general
relief rolls making a total of 964,000 agricultural families in rural
areas receiving assistance. 8
W
1
HEN THE
See chapter II.
• United Btatos Census of Agric11lt11re: MS.
• For an estimate Including farmers or farm laborers living In cities and total rural
rehabilitation cllents under care, see chapter I.
73
Digtized:iyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and R ehabililal ion
74
TABLE 30.--NUMBER OF FARM OPERATOI\S rn H u n AL AREAS RECEIVING
FEDERAL ASSISTAN CE, BY TYPE OF ASSISTANCF., OCTOBER 1933 THRO U GH
1
DECEMBER 1935
N um ber
Percent
M ont h
T otal
- - --
- - --
October 1033 ___ __. ·- - ..
Octobn IV34 . . . .• • •• •• •
F e bru:ir l 9J5 _________
June w:!.5
October 1935••
December
------------
1935::::::::
- -
GenPrnl
re lief '
l
- ·- -
-
-
i\.'.U.111 10
41,. flOO
6 1~. l< I\J
.1 11 r,'}
i.l~JK , l("Wl
.~~II , 111. ,0
3\AJ, flOII
3"" !. tll ~l
3tK',, 1-.JU
54,000
41 7. 1)(1()
,-
200.om
R,hnlli!I ·
L11t
Works
u • Program :
Tot.n l
General
re lief
RehBbili- \York~
t nt lon
Pr gr m
- - - ----1---
--- -... . ~
11\, l ~~I
·---------
!>,. r1.10
2t~. ,• • ,
[,\{. IJOll
1 156,
100
IW
ml
It\()
34. 000
lof\, 1100
l flO
100
100
93
7 ____: : : : . :
87
66
76
14
13 - - - - - - - · - -
a. ·---- ·----9
15
39
(7
t Oene.ral r eUer nnd " '" orks P ro1!n un cases as est im otrd ; rclrnh11i tar Ion cases as reported.
1 <'ns<'s that rceeiec, I ~e ne I relie f a nd W orks l'ro~r. m e ,. rni11 ~s d urf n · the same m onth 11.1'8 119 a general
mle ollr ,c.:1ted to the \\"or ks. Prn ~m111 ca 1egory X(' hl .. ively in t his ta hle . l l few such duplicated cases a re,
h owe ,·er . cou nted in hn t h catc~oriea . L ike "·ise, cases t hnt received both general relief and reha b ilitat ion
a d,-an :i during be s.1111e m onth nr ~enerall )• allocated to the rehabilitation category exclusively but
few duplic11 t!ons or this t ype nre co u nted In both cate ories.
• Sligh tl y less Lhan 2 perc<'nt or t hese farm open,tors lived In small towns of 2,500 to 5,000 popul8tiou..
Data are es tlma l-Od a s or e nd vf m on t h.
• N umber of clie nts n•, iv Ing nd,·unoos durln~ the mont h. Prior to July 1, IOU, re habilitation clients w ere
Included In t he F edera l ~'.mer~e ney Relief Ad minis t rat ion program. On that d ate they were taken over
by t he J~8ellieme nt Adm iu is u nt ion . The relatively s mBll n um ber of clients to whom State rehabilitat ion corporat i ins con t inued I ll m ake BdvBDces alter J uly 1 are not Included.
• E .xclusi vo or C i \' lllun , , o n :-,n , ·1111t.m Corps.
• Loan cases 26, no; gra n t c.»es 1:iu.000.
Sour : Survey of C urren t C hangell In t he Rural Relief PopulaHon; M011thlr Reporu of 1M Pt4eral
Emugtnc7/ &lit/ AdminillratiOfl; a nd Resettlement Admlnistr:> Ion.
After February 1935, the number of farmers receiving aid began
to decline. By June, the estimated number of clients stood at 594,000,
about 13 percent less than in F ebruary. During the 4 months following June 1935, the rate of decrease was accelerated as a. result of
several factors, the most important of which were: (a) curtailmen t
60 0
600
.
...~
=
-0
u
0
400
.flC:
0
400
~
a
0
j
,-.
l
I200
200
Oct.
1933
Ocl.
1934
Feb,
1935
Jun.
1935
0c,.
Dec .
1935 1935
FIG. 13- NUMBER OF FARM OPERATORS BY USUAL OCCUPATION
RECEIVING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
IN RURAL AREAS
October 1933 - December 1935
AF-2157, W. P.A.
Digt1zeJ!JyGoogle
Relief Trends, 1933 Through 1935
75
of the number receiving rehabilitation loans as Resettlement slowly,
got under way (see pp. 21 and 22); (b) restriction of general relief·
funds as plans got under way for abandoning the general relief program and for inaugurating a works program; and ( c) the progress
of economic recovery.
During the last months of 1935, the number of farmers receiving
Federal assistance rose again. Many families that were able to support themselves during the summer months needed aid with the
approach of the winter season. The Works Program employed some,
the Emergency Relief Administrations continued to extend general
assistance to others, and the Resettlement Administration made a
limited number of loans. These means of assistance proved inadequate to meet winter needs, and in November 1935, the Resettlement
Administration began to make emergency subsistence grants which
were comparable to general relief grants under the F. E. R. A.
The combined number of farm operators aided under these several
programs was estimated at 396,000 in December 1935, an increase of
about 4 percent since October ( table 30 and figure 13).
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FEBRUARY 1935 GENERAL RELIEF
LOAD
First Receipt of Relief.
The bulk of the February 1935 cases had come on relief in 1934 or
1935. Ten percent of all employable • rural cases on relief in February sought aid for the first time during January or February of 1935,
and about fifty-five percent first received relief in 1934. Twentyfour percent, however, had first received relief in 1933, and eleven
percent had first received aid prior to that year (table 31).5
TABLE 31.-YEAR OF FIRST RECEIPT OF RELIEF BY EMPLOYABLE• RURAL
HOUSEHOLDS,' BY RESIDENCE, FEBRUARY 1935
[13ll counties representing 9 agricultural areas)
Percent
Number
Year or ftrst accession to relief
Rural
Tota)___________________
1935--------------------------1934___________________________
1933.-------------------------1002___________________________
Open
country
VIilage
Rural
Open
country
___ ___
71. 898 ,_____
100. O ,__
49,202 ____
22,696 ,_____
,____
,,
7,286
39,435
17,407
1, no
4. 745
27. 880
11, 792
4,785
Village
2.541
11,555
5,615
2. 985
10. l
54.9
24. 2
10. s
100. 0 ,_
100. 0
9. 6
66. 7
24. 0
9. 1
lUI
ro.9
24. 7
13. 2
' A case was classified as employable IC it contained 1 or more members, l!Hl4 years of age, workiniz or
seeking work.
• Eiclusive or cases whose relier history was not determined.
•A case was classifled as employable 1! lt had one or more members, 16-64 years of
age, working or seeking work.
1 Data are presented by "open country" and "vlJJage'' due to lack of Information on
time of acceBBlon by "agricultural" and "nonagricultural" groups. These two methods
D1gt1zedbyGoogle
76
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Geographical Location.
Agricultural cases on relief in February 1935 were concentrated in
drought-stricken and poor land areas.
In the Spring Wheat Area, the section hardest hit by drought,
nearly one-third of all farm operators were on relief in February
1935 (table 37). The relief intensity rate for this area was three
times greater than that for all areas for which information was
collected. Other areas hard hit by the 1934 drought also had high
proportions of farmers on relief, notably the Western Cotton and
·winter Wheat Areas.
Areas of concentration outside the major drought sections were
the poor land areas-Lake States Cut-Over and Appalachian-Ozark.
On the other hand, the proportion of farmers on relief was below
average in the Corn Belt and in the Hay and Dairy Area, relatively
prosperous regions, and in the Eastern Cotton Belt, where the rural
rehabilitation program had had its greatest development.
Rea1on1 for Acces,ion,.
Drought was the largest single factor forcing fann families on
relief during the months preceding February 1935. More than 37
percent of the open country cases were farmers who were known to
have sought relief as a direct result of crop failure or loss of livestock
(table 32).
About 17 percent of all open country cases on relief in February
were households whose breadwinners had lost their jobs within 4
months of the accession date and had been forced to apply for relief
for this reason. This group was made up for the most part of
unemployed farm laborers, although it included some farm operators
who had lost their off-the-farm employment.
Loss of job was given as a reason for accession only in instances
where such loss represented the most recent change in economic
status which cost the household its self-sufficiency. In those instances where the wage earner had been unemployed more than 4
months before his household used up its savings and sought relief,
the reason given for accession was "loss or depletion of assets."
About 24 percent of all open country cases receiving relief in February 1935 had sought relief after loss or depletion of assets. Among
these were farm operators who had lost their farms as well as
laborers who had lost their jobs.
An additional 10 percent of the cases had been accepted for relief
because their current income had been reduced to a point where it
of classifying heads of relief cases do not give Identical reenlts since some agriC"Ultural
workers reside in villages and some nonagricultural workers reside In the open country.
Moreover, not all open country and village heads are gainful worker,. However, the
great bulk of open country heads are agricultural workers and the great bulk of
village heads are nonagricultural workers.
Cig1 . zed by
Google
77
Relief Trends, 1933 Through 1935
was insufficient to meet minimum budget needs. The remaining 11
percent consisted of cases that had sought relief only when the household lost its last or only breadwinner, due to old age, death, disability, or separation, and of cases opened for such miscellaneous
reasons as illness and loss of support from relatives and -friends
(table 32).
TABLE 32.-REASONS FOR ACCESSION TO RELIEF OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS, BY
RESIDENCE, FEBRUARY AND JUNE 1935
[138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas)
February
Percent change February
to June
1une
Reason for accession
Open Village
Rural country
Rural
Open
country Village
--Number ____________ 84, IOI
Perc-ent ____________ 100.0
Loss or depletion of assets_
Crop
failure
or Joss of
Jlvestock
_______________
Loss of job _______________
Insufficient Income. ______
Became unemployable ___
OLher reasons- ___________
Rural
Open
country Village
--
--- - -
56,736
100.0
Zl.365
100.0
58,516
100. 0
35.802
100.0
22, il4
100.0
-30.4
-36.9
-17.0
37.3
17.2
10. 0
4. 2
7.1
3. 4
39.1
11.0
5. 6
9.0
14.6
24. 4
12.2
5.1
11. I
22.1
17. 7
13.1
4. 7
10. 7
2. 7
35.0
10.9
5.8
11.7
-61.4
-30.1
-17.8
-23.5
-0.6
-112.6
-35.0
-17.0
-29.0
-5.3
-34.8
-25.6
-17.4
-14.8
+7.1
- - - -- - - - - - - - -26.6
- ---31.9
- -32.6
-17.5
-11.G
24. 2
33.9 -15.2
31. 7
26. 3
24. 3
10. 3
4. 7
7.8
First-Period Cases in the February Load.
About two-thirds of all open country households receiving relief
in February had remained continuously on the relief rolls since they
first received aid. The proportion was about the same for cases
added because of crop -failure or loss of livestock and those added
because of loss or depletion of assets. Of those households receivipg relief as a result of loss of job, a larger proportion had been on
and off relief rolls since they first received aid, whereas, among
households added because they became unemployable, nearly three-fourths had received relief continuously since they first went on the
rolls (table 33).
TABLE 33.-REASONS FOR ACCESSION TO RELIEF OF OPEN CoUNTRY HOUSEHOLDS IN THEIR FIRST RELIEF PERIOD, FEBRUARY AND JUNE 1935
[138 counties repmsentlng 9 agricultural areas)
February
Reason for aooesslon
1une
First-period cases
Total
cases
First-period cases
Total
cases
Number
Number
Percent
Percent
--- --- --------Total-------·-·····-··-- - -···· ----- Loss or depletion of iwets _________________
C'rop failure or Joss of livestock ____________
Loss of job_.--------·-·-··-··-··-- ________
Insutllclent Income __ -----·---··--- _______
Became unemployab]e ____________________
Other reasons __________ ------- ____________
56,736
---13,713
21.171
9,754
5,649
2,300
4,059
36,197
~
8,952
13,992
6,662
3,313
1,736
2,542
35,802
19,890
156.6
7,928
6,338
4,686
1,696
3,842
6,558
4,300
3,344
2,386
I, 134
2,078
58.0
55.4
52.8
50.9
66.9
54.1
63.8
-----11,312
65.3
66.0
58.0
58.6
i2. 6
62.6
137296°-37--7
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
78
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
CHANGES FROM FEBRUARY THROUGH
JUNE
1935
Farm families left the relief rolls rapidly after February 1935.
Of all agricultural cases on relief in February, only 42 percent
remained on relief through the month of June, while 58 percent were
either closed or transferred to the rural rehabilitation program before
June 30 (table 34 and appendix table 25). These proportions were
true of farm owners and farm tenants other than sharecroppers, but
among sharecroppers only 27 percent of the February cases were
carried through June on general relief rolls. One-half of the farm
laborers remained on relief through June. In contrast, the majority
(63 percent) of the nonagricultural cases on rural relief rolls in
February still received assistance in June.
TABLE 34.-ACCESSION, SEPARATION, AND CARRY-OVER RATES' OF RURAL
HousEHOU>S RECEIVING RELIEF, BY USUAL OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD,
FEBRUARY THROUGH JUNE 1935
[138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas]
Percent or February
cases
Usual oocupetlon
February
('8889
Carried
tbrou~h
June
Total ___________________
Agrirulture ____________ -- ----Owners ___________________
Tenants•----------------Croppers _________________
Laborers _________________
Nonagriculture _______________
Accessions March-June per 100 .,._
In February
Beperated
prior to
June•
Total
New
Reopened
71,340
49.9
ro.1
17.8
7.6
IO. I
«,Ml
10, 1195
42. 3
42. 7
42.1
27. 2
ro.1
57. 7
57.3
57.9
72.8
49. 9
37. 5
13. 6
15. 6
13.5
9. 7
13. 7
24.2
5.1
6.3
4.8
3. 7
6.3
11.5
8. 5
10.3
8. 7
6. 0
7.4
12. 7
17, (32
5,486
10,738
26,689
62. 5
1 CIISeS opened and closed In the Interim, March through June, but which did not receive relief In February
or June, are not Included In the rates as here computed. Separations Include cases on relleC!n February only
and accessions include cases on relier in June only.
2 Including transfers to rural rehabllltatlon.
• Exclusive or croppers In the 2 Cotton Areaa.
In the Western Cotton Area, where large numbers of clients were
transferred from general relief to the rural rehabilitation program,
only 28 percent of the February farm relief families remained on
general relief in June. At the other extreme was the AppalachianOzark Area where relatively few rehabilitation transfers occurred.
Here more than two-thirds of the February cases remained on
relief in June (table 35).
Few farm families that left relief during the spring months returned to the rolls before the end of June. 0 Reopenings were more
numerous among nonagricultural heads (table 34). Extension of
• Not all June cases that were reopened during the months March through June
received relief In February. Some were closed prior to February and reopened after
February. A few were opened, closed, and reopened after February.
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
Relief Trends, 1933 Through 1935
79
special aid under the rural rehabilitation program, and a favorable
planting season in most of the country in 1935 probably accounted
largely for the greater ability of farm families to remain independent
of general public aid.
TABLE 35.-CARRY-OVER RATES OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING RELIEF,
BY USUAL OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD AND BY AREA, FEBRUARY THROUGH
JUNE 1935
(138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas]
Percent or February cases carried through June
Agricultural heads
Nonagrf.
All beads l-----,-----~----,---------1 cultural
heads
Total
Owners Tenants ' Croppers Laborers
-----------1---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---All areas_----------------- Eastern Cotton:
TolRL --------------------White _________ --- ---------Negro _____ -- - -------------We.•tern Cotton:
Total._-------- -- ---------White
_______ --------- --- --Negro ______________________
Appalachian-Ozark ____________
Lake States Cut-Over __________
Bay and Dairy ________________
Corn Belt_ _____________________
~ g Wheat_ _________________
Inter Wheat _________________
Ranching_ - ---- ---------- ------
49.9
42. 3
42. 7
42.1
27.2
50.1
112. 5
40. 7
38.6
45. 3
35. 5
32. 6
41. 7
35. 4
37. 7
27.8
32. 2
29.1
39. 7
28. 0
Zl. 7
29.1
43.9
38.5
51.0
M.11
64.2
32.6
35. 7
25. 0
71.1
66.9
60.2
48.3
M.6
47.1
48.6
28. l
13.8
15. 6
10. 7
70. 7
39.6
36.6
31.9
63.5
26.0
46.3
25.1
28.0
16.6
69.0
38.3
39.1
29.1
60.2
41.1
49.1
26.5
29. I
21.3
43. 5
49. 3
31. 2
M.8
89. 7
55.0
68.6
M.2
M. l
48. 1
S3.8
M.2
62. 7
73. 7
70. l
M.11
60.11
68.2
31.4
~.5
68.5
42.9
43.3
39.6
61. 7
39.8
47. 7
M.5
66.3
60.1
t Exclusive or croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas-
TABLE 36.-PERCENT CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYABLE 1 RURAL
RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS, BY USUAL OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD AND BY AREA,
FEBRUARY THROUGH JUNE 1935
[138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas]
Usual occupation of head
Agricultural heads
NonAll
, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , agricultural
heads
Total
Owners Tenants• Croppers Laborers
heads
-----------1---- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---·1---All areas __________________ .
Eastern Cotton:
TotRL
_________ ----- ---- -- _White _____________________
Negro_--------------- -- ---Western Cotton:
Tota!_
___ ------------------_
White _____________________
Negro _____________________ _
Appalachian-Omrk ___________ _
Lake States Cut-Over _________ _
Hay and Dairy _______________ _
Corn Belt_ ____________________ _
~fi:f:r
ih~i:::::::::::::::::
Ranching _____________________ .
-32. 5
-44.1
-41. 7
-44.4
-64.1
-36.2
-13.l
-38. 7
-39.1
-37.9
-49.1
-51.0
-46.1
-45. 2
-40.4
-61.5
-51.4
-56.1
-39.9
-55. 6
-55. 7
-5.5.1
-43.4
-46.8
-311.2
-10.T
-7.9
-17.4
-68. 7
-M.1
-69. 7
+1.1
-22.0
-36.4
-38.0
-33.0
-38. 2
-27.4
-66. 7
-61.4
-75.6
-82. 7
-80. 5
-86. 7
+3.0
-50. 7
-55.1
-55. 7
-30.6
-67. 5
-34. 5
-68. 7
-66.1
-79.3
-2.8
-53. 7
-53. 7
-61.5
-40.1
-47. 5
-37.1
-69.0
-66. 8
-75.3
-46.8
-38.8
-63.8
-7.0
+5.9
-33.3
-29.1
-33.9
-17.4
-32.5
-25.1
-22.7
-32.8
+3.3
+2.0
-27.5
- - - -------1----1----1----1----
-I.I
-47.3
-47. 7
-49. 6
-36. 3
-47. 0
-34.3
-21.T
-17.4
-14.S.
-16.~
t A case was classified as employable If It contained l or more members, 16-64 years of age, working or
seeking work.
• Exclusive or croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
Cig1 . zed by
Google
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
80
Not only did greater proportions of agricultural than of nonagricultural cases leave relief rolls in the spring of 1935, but relatively fewer agricultural than nonagricultural cases came on relief
during the period (appendix table 25). As a result, the farm group
declined 44 percent from February through June, while the nonfarm
group declined only 13 percent (table 36).
· Relatively more owners than tenants came on relief during the
season. Croppers not only left the relief rolls faster than any other
group but they also came on the rolls at a slower rate. While farm
. laborers in the February case load went off relief less rapidly than
did other agricultural heads, they came on relief during the 4
months following February at about the same rate as did owners
and tenants.
REDISTRIBUTION OF THE GENERAL RELIEF LOAD, JUNE 1935
As a result of different rates at which various groups in the rural
relief population left the rolls or came on relief, the relief population
changed considerably between February and June in both its geographical and its occupational distribution.
: Geographical Redistribution.
In the Western Cotton Area, as an extreme example, the number
. of farmers on general relief in June was less than one-third of the
number on relief in February. This area, which had contained 24
percent of all farmers on relief in the nine areas sampled in February, contai~ed only 13 percent of them in June (table 37).
TABLE 37.-ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FARM OPERATORS RECEIVING RELIEF
IN NINE AGRICULTURAL AREAS, FEBRUARY AND JUNE 1935, AND THEIR
RATIO TO ALL FARM OPERATORS IN JANUARY 1935
(138 oountiM reprMenting 9 agrlcnltnral areas)
Fann operators on relief
Area
Number
February
All areas •.•••••......•.•..
Western Cotton .......••••.••.•
Appalach!an·Ozark ..•.•..•...•.
Eastern Cotton ..... _..•••..... _
Com Belt ......................
Hay and Dairy •.•.•.•••..•.....
Spring Wheat ...................
Lake States Cut•Over.•..•.....
Winter Wheat •.••..•••••.•••...
Ranching .••••.•••••.•••........
1
.
Farm operators on rellef
as percent of all farm
operators In 11135 1
Peroent
lune
February
lune
February
lnne
404,000
214,000
100
100
10.0
5..
96. 000
74,000
69,000
M,000
36,000
29,000
26,000
16,000
4,000
2!!, 000
73,000
33,000
22,000
16,000
19,000
13,000
7,500
2,500
24
18
lll.5
5.5
12. l
18
17
13
9
7
7
4
1
84
12. 2
16
10
8
9
6
3
1
7.0
6. 2
31.6
22.0
13.3
9.4
4.8
United Slate, Cen.,u, of Agriculture: 1936.
01g1• zed by
Goog Ie
2. 3
2. 8
2.8
20.0
10. 7
6.2
6.1
Relief Trends, 1933 Through 1935
81
The Appalachian-Ozark Area showed the opposite tendency. As
a result of lack of movement off relief rolls, the proportion of all
farmers on relief in this area nearly doubled, increasing from 18
percent in February to 34 percent in June.
The total farm operator general relief load declined from 10.0
percent of all farm operators in the United States in February to
!5.4 percent in June. 7
Occupational Redistribution.
Farmers and farm laborers accounted for 63 percent of all employable heads of February rural relief cases with occupational
experience, nonagricultural workers accounting for only 37 percent.
Due in large measure to transfers of farmers to the rural rehabilitation program, the agricultural proportion of the total decreased to
52 percent in June, while the nonfarm proportion increased to 48
percent. The proportions of sharecroppers and other tenants in the
rural relief load showed the greatest reductions between February
and June ( table 38).
TABLE 38.-USUAL 0cCUPATION OF EMPLOYABLE HEADS 1 OF RURAL RELIEF
HOUSEHOLDS, FEBRUARY AND JUNE 1935
(138 counties rep""'8ntlng 11 agricultural arees]
Rural relief cases
Usual occupation
Number
February
Total ____ -- -- ------ ------ -----· ------- -- ---- -----
Percent
June
February
June
71,340
48, 112
100.0
100.0
44,Cllll
10,995
17,432
6,486
10,738
26,689
2',976
6,418
82.11
15. 4
:U.4
7. 7
15. 1
37.4
61.11
13.3
20.2
4. 2
14. 2
48.1
1----~----1-----1----
Agriculture
----- _____ ----- ------------- - ---. -______
------_
Owners____
____________________
. __ . ____________
Tenants•---· _______________ ._.-----.---- --- --- --- . Croppers
___________ -- _____ ----- ----- -- ---· --- -- ----_
Laborers __________________________________________
Nonagriculture_____________ . - ____ . - ________ - __________ _
11,684
2, o:u
6,850
23,136
1 111-M years of age and working or eeeking work.
• Exclusive of croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
'Farm operators on general relief rolls declined during the spring of 19311 much
more raoldly in the nine agricultural areas than outside those areas. Estimates indicate that for the' country as a whole farm operators on relief decreased from 598,000 in
February to 390,000 In June, a decline of only 35 percent. During this same time
farmers on relief In the 9 areas sampled dropped from 404,000 to 214,000, a decline of
47 percent (table 37). This dllferenttal rate of change was a result of concentration.
within the areas, of loans extended under the rehabilitation program, much of the
decline In general relief case loads being due to transfers of farmers to this special program.
It ls estimated that 67 percent of all farm operators on general relief were located within
the nine agricultural areas In February. By June this proportion had declined to 1111
percent.
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
82
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE JUNE 1935 GENERAL RELIEF LOAD
More than three-fourths of all agricultural cases on general relief
in June 1935 had received relief each month since February (table
39). The other 24 percent of the June load was made up of cases
added during the 4 months following February. Hence, while the
bulk of the June cases were continuous from February, 15 percent
were reopened cases and 9 percent were cases that came on relief for
the first·time during the spring of 1935. The proportions differed
little among the various occupational groups.
TABLE 39.-UsuAL OccUPATION OF EMPLOYABLE 1 HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF
HOUSEHOLDS, BY PERCENT CARRIED OVER FROM FEBRUARY THROUGH JUNE
1935 AND BY AccESSSIONS FROM MARCH THROUGH JUNE 1935
{138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas!
February cases
June cases
Percent distribution
Usual occupation
Percent
over
Number carried
through
June
Nu:nber
Carried
over from
February
Reopened
MarchJune
~ned
arrbJune
Total_ ____________ ... __ .
71,340
49. 9
48,112
73.9
14.9
11. 2
Agriculture._. _____ •.... ______
Owners.. _________ . _______
Tenant,•- ___ . __ . ______ . __
Croppers. ____________ ....
Laborers ______________ ....
Nonagriculture ... __ . __ .. _____
44,651
10,995
17,432
6,486
10,738
26,689
42. 3
42. 7
42. 1
27.2
60. I
62.~
24,976
6,418
9,684
2,024
6,860
23, 136
75. 7
73.2
75. 7
73.6
78.6
72.1
15. I
17. 8
16.6
16.3
9.2
9.0
11. 7
14.6
8. i
10.1
9.8
13.3
1 1~
years of age anrt working or seeking work.
•Exclusive of croppers in the 2 Cotton Areas.
Only 22 percent of all June open country cases had come on relief
because of crop failure or loss of livestock. The proportions that
were opened or reopened because of loss or depletion of assets, insufficient income, and miscellaneous reasons showed gains over
February ( table 32).
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GENERAL RELIEF LOAD, JULY
THROUGH DECEMBER 1935
At the end of June 1935, plans were under way for getting the
new Federal Works Program into operation and for tapering off
the activities of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. At
that time it is estimated that 390,000 farm operator heads and 147,000
farm laborer heads of rural households were receiving general relief.
During the last 6 months of 1935, about 215,000 farm operator
families were accepted for general relief by agencies expending
F. E. R. A. funds (table 40). About 41,000 (19 percent) of these
additions were families not previously known to the accepting
Dig t1zed oy
Google
Relief Trends, 1933 Through 1935
83
agencies. The other 174,000 were families which were forced to
return to relief after a period of self-maintenance.
Some light is thrown on the type of family represented by the
41,000 farm operator families who were new to relief agencies by
figures available for the cases opened from July through October.
In those 4 months, 21 percent of all accessions of farm families
and 30 percent of nonfarm families came on relief for the first time.
A higher proportion of such cases was found among farm laborers
(22 percent) and croppers (42 percent) than among owners (15
percent) and tenants (16 percent). The smallest proportion of
cases coming on relief for the .first time was found in the northern
States,8 where only 10 percent of the farm operators and 20 percent
of the farm laborers had not previously received relief. The highest
proportions were in the New England States of Connecticut and
Massachusetts 9 (appendix table 26).
The accession of 215,000 farm families during the last 6 months of
1935 was more than offset by about 551,000 farm families that left the
relief rolls of agencies financed by the F. E. R. A., making a net
decrease of 336,000 farm families (table 40 and figures 14 and 15).10
TABLE 40.-FARM OPERATOR ACCESSIONS TO, AND SEPARATIONS FROM, THE
RELIEF ROLLS OF AGENCIES EXPENDING FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION FUNDS, JULY THROUGH DECEMBER 1935
Item
All accessions ...•••.••..• •·- .•. _..••.. -··· ••• •. ••.. •.... '. .......... .
New cases ..........•..•...••......•••••.•.... •.................
Number
Sample
Estimate for Percent
counties 1 United States
19,970
3,764
Reopened cases •••••••••..•.••...• . •• •. , .••••... .•..............
16, :aJ6
All aeparatlons ..... _....••....•...•......••••••.••..••.•.........•..
To Works Program ........ ···- · ·············· ··· ·-·············
To Resettlement Administration'· ... .•••.•• ....... _-······ __ ..
Other rea.,ons ......•............... •.••. .•... .. •.•. --··· -··- _-··
M,890
18,661
3,690
33, 53\l
216,000
41,000
174,000
100
19
81
6111,000
186,000
37,000
328,000
100
34
6
00
1 The 300 counties and 83 New England townshipe Included in the State sample contained 8.8 percent of all
rural families In the United States in 1~30 and 10.0 percent of all farm operators In 1935.
• Whereas only an estimated 37,000 cases were transferred directly from general relief rolls to rehabllltation
during the period, an undetermined number or cases which had gone off relier for other reasons were given
Joans or grants.
Only M,000 farmers and their families remained on F. E. R. A.
relief rolls at the end of December 1935 (appendix table 27).
Reasons for Accessions, July Through October.
It may seem paradoxical that during the time when the Federal
Government was completing plans for getting out of the business
of direct relief, a fifth of a million farm operator families should
• Analysis la made by regional groups of States In this section rather than by agricultural
areaa In order to have the advantage of a larger IIIUllple, first available In June 1935. See
appendix B.
• The number of cases In the sample was very small, however.
:ao Also, see appendix tables 38 and 39.
D191
zedbyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and R ehabilitation
4
700
Total cosa lood at beginning of period
·
during period
-
I::!] Seporotlons
IZ:2 New COHI durin9 period
BIIIII Reopened coses during period
60 0
500
;
8
.
'o
400
..,
C
...j
300
200
100
0
Morch I ll'r<>u9h June 30
July I
1935
1935
F1G. 14 - CHANGES IN ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FARM OPERATORS
RECEIVING GENERAL RELIEF•
March through June 1935 *•
(EallmGted from survey of 13 8 counties)
• From 09encle1 expendln11 F: E. R. A. fund a
**Exclusive of those cau1 that were o~ned or reopened
and also closed durlft\l the four montl\l' period
Al-114•,
•11a. ,
be accepted for direct relief. It appears, however, that the same
factors which brought families onto relief in the earlier periods
were still operating in the last half of 1935.
500, - -- - - -- - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
.
400
.
30 0
l!l
u
0
Totol coH l ood 01 li'51 of monlll
~ Seporolions durlno month
r::z::I New coses during montl\
11!9 Reopened coses d~rino montl\
'O
C
~
:,
20 0
...
0
.c.
100
0
July
August
September
October
November
December
1935
Jonuory
1936
F1G. 15 - CHANGES DURING MONTH IN ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FARM
OPERAlORS RECEIVING GENERAL RELIEF•
July through December 1935
(Eallmated from 1urvey of 300 counties ond 83 New Englond townsl\lps)
illiFrom ogencles expendino F.E.R . A. funds
AF-1101,w. P.A.
D1gt1z
byGoogle
Relief Trends, 1933 Through 1935
85
TABLE 41.-REASONS FOR ACCESSION TO RURAL RELIEF OF
HOLDS, JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
FARM
HOUSE•
(300 counties and 83 New England townships)
Usual occupation of head
Reason for accession
I
Farm operators
i - - - - - , - - - - - - - c - - - - e - - - - Ie1~rs
Total
Number_------------------------------------Percent
______________________ .. _______________
Owners
Tenants 1 Croppers
13.
384o
100.
4. 294
100. 0
ft, 488
100.0
2, ft02
100.0
7,808
100. 0
32. 3
36.11
34. 4
111.1
6.3
1.8
11.3
.6
16.4
11.8
fl.4
II.II
II.II
.II
17. 7
10.3
6.6
4. 7
10.8
.7
17. 2
II.II
12. 4
6.11
14.8
.1
12.3
8.8
6.6
28.6
63.3
.7
12. 5
8.0
5.0
2, 4
---------1--Loss or depletion of assets ... ______________________ _
10. 3
13. 0
8. 7
9.8
Crop failure or loss of livestock ____________________ _
LossPrivate
of employment:
employment __________________________ _
n
~ eZ~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Jnoreased needs ______ . ________ . _____ . __ -----------_.
Administrative ruling __ . __ . ____ . __________________ _
All others.. _________________________________________ _
• Exclusive of croppers In the Southern States.
Crop failure and livestock loss were the most important factors
responsible for farm operator families going on relief during the 4
months July through October 1935. 11 They accounted for 37 percent of all farm owners and 34 percent of all tenants who went on
relief during the period ( table 41).
The States where the largest proportions of cases came on relief
because of crop failure or loss of livestock were North Dakota and
TABLE 42.-FARM
OPERATOR ACCESSIONS TO RURAL RELIEF ROLLS, FOR ALL
REASONS AND BECAUSE OF CROP FAILURE OR Loss OF LIVESTOCK, BY STATE,
JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
(300 counties and 83 New England townships)
c - added becaUMI or
crop failure or loss or
Total aocessioll8
State
livestock
Number
Total, 32 States _____________ ---------------------------------North
Dakota __ ------------------------------------________________
Mlsllouri____________________________________________________________
13,384
4,322
32. 8
SM
650
114. 3
406
1116
830
262
120
440
62.1
61. 02
63.
218
208
678
200
234
112
86
274
80
74
61.4
41. 3
40. 4
40. 0
31. 6
494
366
260
7, 076
146
108
66
840
29. 6
29. 6
25. 4
11.11
1----~------I, 3112
1, 174
86. 2
South Dakota______________________________________________________
Montana __
--------------------------------------------------_______
Louisiana
_________________________________________________________
-Tennessee ______________________________________________________ -- - •
Nebraska•• ___________________ . __________________________ • _________ Texas ______________________________________________________________ _
Colorado______________ ._._. __ • _______ • _____________ • _____ -- • __ -- - • - •
Ohio•••••••• - - • -- --- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -- -- • • - - - • -------- • • • •
Booth Carolina ••• _______ •••..•• ____ • ___ •••••••••. _______________ •. _
Florida •• ________ -- ___ - •• - - -.. - --·---- ••••••• - -- - - - --- - --- -- -- - - - -- Georgia __ .. _... __ . ________ •.....•••••••.••• ___ ._._ •• __ •• _.• _. ___ ._ ..
19 other States._. _____ •••.. ________________________________________ _
nnata not complete for November and December.
Percent
86
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Missouri. In seven additional States, however, at least 40 percent of
all farm cases added from July through October were accepted for
this reason (table 42).
Other major factors causing farm families to seek relief during
the period July through October 1935 were loss of employment or
decreased earnings (table 41 and appendix table 28). These factors affected farm owners, tenants, and croppers about equally (27 to
29 percent). They were much more important in the case of farm
laborers 12-more than 63 percent of all farm laborers added to relief
rolls during the period had recently lost their jobs, and an additional 13 percent applied for relief to supplement decreased earnings. Loss or depletion of assets and administrative rulings reinstating families previously declared ineligible for relief each accounted for about one-tenth of the reopenings of farm operators
and 5 to 6 percent of the reopenings of farm laborers. Nearly
15 percent of all reopenings of farm tenant families ( other than
cropper families) were due to administrative ruling.18 A few cases
were enrolled as new cases due to the administrative practice of transferring certain cases from State and local agencies to the Emergency
Relief Administration and to the formation of new relief units
within the general relief population.
Increased needs with the approach of the winter season, loss of
assistance from relatives and friends, and other reasons accounted for
about 20 percent of the farm operator and 10 percent of the farm
laborer additions to relief rolls.
Reasons for Separations, July Through October.
Of farm operator families who left the relief rolls from July
through October 1935, 42 percent became self-supporting through
their own efforts ( table 43 and appendix table 33), largely through
the sale of farm produce (71 percent), and to a smaller degree because of sufficient earnings from employment off the farm (29
percent). Such employment opportunities were greatest during July
and August, declining very rapidly in the fall months.
Approximately 22 percent of all farm families who left the relief
rolls up to the end of October did so because of employment of a.
member under the Works Program. Another 6 percent of the
farmers became clients of the Resettlement Administration, 6 percent
found other sources of income or relief, and 9 percent were declared
ineligible for relief on the basis of reinvestigation and administrative
rulings.
u For data by regions, see appendix tnbles 29-32.
•• Thie hli,;h ratio was a result of a large number of eases In the State of Oklahoma
that bad received no relief during the preceding month and henee by definition were
closed and reopened.
Dly1
zedbyGoogle
Relief Trends, 1933 Through 1935
87
TABLE 43.-REASONS FOR SEPARATIONS OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS FROM RURAL
RELIEF ROLLS, JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
[300 counties and 83 New England townships)
Usual occupation of head
Farm operators
Reason for separation
Total
Owners
Tenants I Croppers
Farm
laborers
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------1----1---Number _______________ . ____ . _________ . ____ .. _
Percent __________ •. ________ . ____ • ________ . __ ..
Sufficient means for self-support ___________________ _
Private employment•----- ______ ----- _______ . __
Crops marketed •• _. ___ •.. _•••. _.•.• __ ._._ .. __ ..
Works Program employment. _____________________ _
Civilian Conservation Corps __________________ _
Works Progress Administration and other _____ _
Transferred to Resettlement Administration _______ _
Other
income 1 • policy.
--------_
_ --------------------------Administrative
____________________________
Moved or failed to report __________________________ _
All others ____________________ .... __ ..••• ___ .• __ •• __
26,091
100. 0
41.9
12.1
29.8
21.8
8. 6
13. 2
6. I
5.9
8.8
7. 2
8.3
9,293
100. 0
13,032
100.0
3,766
100.0
13,694
100.0
42.0
26.5
48.8
47.6
1.3
21.6
---1---11----1--48.3
12. 8
35. 5
20. 1
9.5
10.6
6. 5
5. 6
8.0
5. ~
5.9
10.9
31. 1
17. 2
7. 3
9.9
7.4
14. 6
10.11
42.0
10.11
31.1
.II
6.1
6.1
8. 5
11.4
II. 0
7.8
10. 1
8.0
5.6
15. II
.7
3.5
8.3
8.6
8. 7
I Exclusive of croppers In the southern States.
• Including regular government employment.
• Assistance from local relief agencies, relatives, and friends, and from mlscellsneollll sources.
Sale of farm produce and Works Program employment accounted
for the greater part of the farm owner and tenant closings, and
private or Works Program employment was chiefly responsible for
removing farm croppers and laborers. Private employment was relatively most effective in making farm operator families self-supporting
in Connecticut and Massachusetts, where Works Program employment was of less importance than in any other area in 1935.a
Whereas about 13 percent of all farmers who went off relief during
the period July through October left to take jobs under the Works
Program (exclusive of C. C. C.), the great bulk of relief closings
due to Works Program employment took place during November and
December. It is estimated that 34,000 farmers received their first
Works Program wages during July, August, September, and October, while an additional 152,000 farmers received their first Works
Program checks during November and December ( table 44).
Industries Responsible for Closing Agricultural Cases.
Approximately one-fourth (24 percent) of all agricultural cases
closed during the months July through October received sufficient
earnings from private or regular government employment to support themselves (appendix table 33). Only about two-thirds (65
percent) of these workers were reemployed in agriculture, however.
More than one-tenth (11 percent) obtained employment on street
and road construction projects, and an additional one-tenth were
employed in rural manufacturing industries, such as building con:w For data by regions, see appendix tables 34-37.
Dig t1zed by
Google
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
88
TABLE 44.-SEPARATIONS FROM RURAL RELIEF BECAUSE OF EMPLOYMENT
UNDER THE WORKS PROGRAM, JULY THROUGH DECEMBER 1935
[300 counties and 83 New En~land townships]
Estimate for United States
Sample counties
Month
All heads
July-December ..•......
July ....•••.•.................
AugusL .••••••.••.•.••.......
September............•.......
October...•...................
N ovem her ....................
December ..•.•.•.............
Farmoper• All others
ators
All heads
38,7911
6113,000
90
1,415
1,000
21,000
40,000
74,000
191,000
326,000
57,460
J8,e61
116
1,817
3,547
6,
16,772
28, 6711
26
402
1,014
.,29
2. 024
5,391
9,804
2. ,';33
4,,'\05
11,381
JS, 875
Farmoper• All others
ators
186,000
-----------4,000
JO, 000
20,000
M,000
98,000
487,000
1,000
17. 000
30. 000
64,000
137. 000
228,000
struction, canning factories, and lumber and furniture factories.
About 5 percent were emploY,ed in mining, in forestry, or in fishing.
Nearly 3 percent went into trade; about 1 percent entered the field
of public and professional service; and somewhat more than 1
percent became domestic and personal servants (table 45).
TABLE 45.-INDUSTRY OF REEMPLOYMENT 1 RESPONSIBLE FOR CLOSING RURAL
RELIEF CASES, BY REGION, JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
[300 counties)
Industry of reemployment
Total
t
30
States•
11
13
northern southern
States
States
II
western
States
---------------------1----1---- ---- ---Number.................................................
Percent.................................................
Agrlculture. .........•.•...•...•...•.•.......••.•......•.•....
Forestry Rnd fishing..........................................
Extraction of minerals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. •• •••••• •• .• . •
Manufacturing and mechanical industries.....................
Building construction.....................................
Food and allied industries. . . . . . . • .• ••.•. •. . . •. • . • ••• . • . • .
Auto factories and repair shops............................
Lumber and furniture. . . . .. .• . ..•.•.... .•.. ...••..•.. .••.
Textile....................................................
Other and not speclHed. . . . . . . . . . . . . .•• . •• • . . . .. •• . •• • .•• .
Transportation and communication...........................
Street and rood construction. . . • .• . • . . . . . .. • . • . • . • .•• ••• • .
Other transportation and communication. • • • • . • • . . . . • . . . .
Trade.........................................................
Public and professional servlce .•••..•••••••• ·--···············
Domestic and personal service._..............................
6, 062
JOO. O
1, 7114
100. 0
2,864
100.0
2. 7
2. 0
2. 6
1--------1--115.3
113.3
67.6
2. 8
2. 4
10. 4
8. O
2. 2
. II
2. 2
.8
2. 1
9. 6
4.1
1. 8
I. 0
LO
18. 8
.2
1. 4
18. 6
11. 1
2. 7
14. 6
8. 9
1. O
1. 6
• II
.8
2. 8
2. 3
2.1}
9.6
63.11
3.0
2.8
H.1
LIi
t.3
LI
6.11
.4
8.1 -··-··· 2.4
.4
2. 9
1.5
11.8
10.1
10.!I
1.11
2. 8
1.0
7.1
8.04.1
2. 0
LI'>
or workers usually engaged In agriculture.
• Exclusive or cases for which industry of reemployment was unknown.
1
Dig 11zed by
1134
100.0-
Goog [e
.s
CHAPTER
VIII
PROGRAMS OF RECONSTRUCTION
T
HE RECONSTRUCTION of American agriculture demands the
conservation of the human values in rural life as specifically as it calls for the conservation of soil and natural
resources.
Households whose breadwinners had been chiefly experienced in
agriculture constituted at one time about 20 percent of the national
relief burden and included a wide variety of people. Farm families
on relief varied in many respects : in their distance from the landsome living on the farm and unsuccessfully attempting to make a
living, while some, for various reasons, had migrated from the land
and had not successfully adapted themselves to village and town
occupations; in their previous relation to the land-some having
been owners, some tenants, some laborers; in the extent to which
they had been subject to loss of supplementary occupations and to
the impact of natural disasters such as drought and flood; in the
extent of their unemployability because of old age, physical handicap, and absence of a male worker in the family group; and in the
type of farming they practiced. They likewise varied widely with
respect to ownership of land, livestock, and equipment, and in
the possession of personal qualifications essential to success in
agriculture.
The differing combinations of these varying factors produce
strikingly different situations in the major agricultural regions, indicating the necessity of sufficient regional variations in constructive
programs to make possible their adaptation to peculiar regional
needs. In some areas tenancy is the paramount problem, in others
drought, in others small farms and pressure of population, and in
still others, loss of supplementary occupation.
Examination of the problems of farmers on relief calls attention
to the need of programs both to assist recovery and to prevent widespread rural distress in future crises. These measures are concerned both with the economic well-being of farm families and the
social structure of rural communities. They must involve the improvement of farming both as a source of income and as a way of
living.
89
DigtizedbyGoogle
90
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION
Part-Time Farming.
The promotion of part-time farm and part-time industrial employment has been suggested as a partial remedy for farm depression problems. It is true that the combination of agricultural and
industrial enterprise has been successful in keeping some families
off the relief rolls, but the most authoritative studies show that the
majority of these families were those with regular income from industrial employment, and that the commercial farmer is seldom
successful in supplementing his income with industrial employment.1 Such studies also indicate that there is little prospect of
marked increase in the number of part-time farmers ( excepting
among those industrial workers already employed who may supplement their wages with the products from a garden or a cow) unless
there is a fundamental change in the geographical distribution and
the hours of industry.
Submarginal Land Retirement.
The necessity of removing submarginal lands from agricultural
production is one of the most evident long-time needs, as there are.
many families which have drifted to these lands under the impression that they will yield a livelihood, and many others which have
remained while productivity declined below the economic margin.
The following methods of retirement have been suggested: .
(a) Purchase by the Federal Government and transfer from
agricultural use to other uses, such as forestry, public grazing,
game preserves, recreation. The acquisition of all lands which
have been judged submarginal would, however, prove prohibitive in cost and would again build up a vast public domain.
(b) A legal zoning process in rural areas which would operate
similarly to restrictive zoning in cities. This is a process which
would have to be carried out State by State and county by
county, and which would encounter many legislative and constitutional snags.
(c) A zoning process without legal sanctions which would
designate lands unfit for commercial agriculture, and by a.
process of education guide settlers away from these and toward
other areas. Such a movement would be supplemented by such
measures as the withdrawal of public services from the proscribed areas, the curtailment of road extension and repairs, and
the abandonment of schools:
1 Allen, R. H. ; Cottrell, L. S., Jr. ; Troxell, W. W. ; Herring, Harriet L.; and Edwards,
A. D., Part-time Far'ffling in the South,:ast, Research Monograph IX, Dlvlslon of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration, 1937.
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
Er(J(frd <:roJJ/a11d
Dig t1zed by
G ogle
o,
1L
vGoogle
Programs of Reconstruction
91
Soil Conservation.
Soil conservation programs propose to restore fertility to those
lands which through erosion or soil exhaustion have been greatly
impaired in productivity but which are still in some measure productive. As long as rivers are clouded with silt, the farmers on their
tributaries are losing the natural fertility of the land faster than
they can replace it. Only when the streams run clear will the
account with nature be balanced.
Soil conservation measures are, therefore, a sound basis for
human conservation.
Crop Control.
Measures to control surplus production have proved their worth
both in keeping people off relief and to a limited extent in removing
people from relief during the depression. Future security for the
farmer and parity in prices depend upon the continuation of crop
controls to be evolved from the present program which ties together
soil conservation and crop control.
It is clear, however, that the planning of agricultural production
must be adjusted to rural population trends, or such measures as
may be inaugurated will be defeated at the outset.
TENANCY PROBLEMS
For some areas the reform of the tenant system and the arrest of
the spread of tenancy are of paramount importance. 2 Tenancy
proves a stumbling block in the path of other constructive efforts,
such as the promotion of diversification, soil conservation, and cooperative marketing. Constructive measures suggested in this field
include proposals for reform within the tenant system and proposals
to promote the ownership of family-sized farms to replace tenancy.
Suggestions for improving tenant relationships within the
system include proposals for stronger protective State laws, especially those relating to the leasing system; improvement of tenant
living conditions through better housing; diversification of crops;
reform of the crop and credit system; a more thorough and realistic
system of rural education; and supervision of the type provided by
the rural rehabilitation program.
The promotion of land ownership has been widely discussed for
years and has been the subject of much investigation. No concrete
governmental programs designed to accomplish this goal have been
put into effect, however. In the light of the experience of European
nations, progress along this line will be slow, requiring a generation
or two to accomplish large-scale results.
• Woofter, T. J., Jr., Landlord and Tenant on tM Cotton Plantation, Research llfonosraph V, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1936.
Dt
I
zedbyGoogle
92
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
The essentials of a land ownership program are:
(a) Making available to the tenant small family-sized tracts
of good land. Usually the best commercial cropland is concentrated in the larger holdings which, when sold, are kept in as
large tracts as possible and not cut up into family-sized farms.
New land brought into cultivation through clearing and stumping, irrigation or drainage, must usually be developed in large
tracts for economy, and it is beyond the means of the small
farmer to carry on such operations unaided.
(b) Providing long-time credit on easy terms. The usual
period of 3 or 6 years for repayment of mortgages is too short a
time for the prospective purchaser to acquire full equity, especially under the unstable conditions faced by the cotton farmers
or by farmers in areas subject to drought or crop failure.
The small cash incomes produced on family-sized cotton
farming units emphasize the need of keeping initial costs of
these tracts low. Even a 40-year amortization of a $4,000 farm
would require payments on the principal of $100 per year, which
would constitute a heavy drain on a cash income such as the
1934 tenant average of about $200.
(c) Provision of supervision in the nature of adult education
which will not only give the farmer the benefit of improved
agricultural practices but will train him in the habits necessary
for successful management of his own enterprise.
SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
Measures intended to secure economic parity for the farmer, such
as those embodied in carefully planned control and marketing programs, are necessary to safeguard agricultural income, but equally
important is the need for programs which will take into account
human and social factors in safeguarding rural values in future
crises.
To meet the needs of diverse farm groups, a variety of programs
has been evolved from the single program of the dole offered in the
early days of the F. E. R. A. Rehabilitation was early set up as a
goal for those cases whose head was employable and judged capable
of agricultural success. During the summer and fall of 1935, the
unemployables were gradually transferred back to State and local
care, and in 1936 the Social Security program rapidly assumed
responsibility for the aged, for the blind, and for dependent children.
The rehabilitation program was soon limited to those whose success in regaining a self-supporting status seemed most assured. The
concrete test applied in acceptance of a client on the rehabilitation
program was whether or not, in the opinion of the supervisor and
local committee, he was a promising enough risk to warrant the
Dly1
zedbyGoogle
Programs of Reconstruction
93
judgment that he would be able to repay such loans as might be
necessary for his return to successful agricultural production.
The removal of the handicapped farmers to local re!ief and of
the better prospects to rehabilitation left a group of employable
persons whose prospects were not sufficiently bright to make them
good loan risks. These remained on Federal relief. Almost 200,000
farm operators and over 200,000 farm laborers from this group were
assigned to W. P. A. projects early in 1936. Also, late in 1935
and early in 1936 the Resettlement Administration began to care
for a number of these cases on a grant rather than a loan basis.
Thus, the emergency has evolved a three-fold program for meeting
the needs of distressed farm families.
1. Supp~rt of the unemployables through general relief and
aid to Social Security classes.
2. Rehabilitation of farmers by Government loans made on
the basis of a farm plan adapted to the family size and land
type of the client and carried out under supervision.
8. For farm families with able-bodied members, not considered
prospects for rehabilitation, financial aid either in the form of
work relief or grants which would provide the necessary cash
with the minimum time taken from farm work in busy seasons.
Placing members of these families other than the head on programs such as the C. C. C. should be a. chief reliance of such a
program. This type of aid needs to be accompanied by special
educational and retraining efforts to bring these families up
to the rehabilitation level.
Direct Relief.
Often the full time of the farmer and his family is needed on
the farm and direct relief programs are the most advantageous
method of extending aid. However, to neither the farmer nor the
community do la.sting values accrue from the dole.
Work Relief.
Work programs have been used to advantage both for maintaining
family morale and contributing social utility to the community.
These have been especially adaptable where crop failures have
made farm work unprofitable. Building of farm-to-market roads,
development of soil and water conservation projects, processing
surplus commodities, and improvement of rural institutions have
all been accomplished by work relief. The following conditions
need to be observed, however, in such a program:
(a) A work program is not well adapted to conserving agricultural assets unless it is concentrated in off-seasons or unless
137298°-37-8
Cig1 . zed by
Google
94
Farmer, on Relief and Rehabilitation
members of fann families other than the operators are available for employment. Because of efforts to operate on marginal
lands, because of large families, or because of natural disaster,
such as drought or flood, many farm families need cash when
the loan of such cash would be economically unsound. Still
every effort should be made to provide this cash through grants
to families temporarily in need, in order that fanners may,
remain on their farms and preserve their agricultural assets.
( b) This points to the consideration that in many instances
direct relief, such as Resettlement emergency grants, is most
suited to the needs of the farmer. Though perhaps 1~ calculated to preserve his self respect, such grants, nevertheless, leave
him free to devote his full time to recouping his farm assets.
(c) Work projects which tend to draw farmers into towns
and villages should be minimized.
Rural Rehabilitation.
Loans for productive goods were early substituted for subsistence
relief for farmers. It is evident that if many of the disadvantaged
farmers are to be put back on their feet some such aid is necessary.
The essentials of the rehabilitation program are:
That it provides the necessary credit at a reasonable rate of
interest.
That it provides an individual farm plan worked out to fit
the land, family, and situation of the farmer.
That it provides advice and supervision in the execution of
this plan.
These are proving basic measures for restoring thousands of disheartened farmers to self-sufficiency.
Population Policy.
A definite population policy should be stressed as basic to any
system of agrarian reform. It must be recognized that the farm's
most important crop is its children and that thl'\ farm homes are
rearing people for the cities. There is also a tendency for natural
increase to be greatest in those areas least capable of supporting
increased population. It is from these blighted areas that people
move to cities most rapidly in times of industrial expansion and to
which they return in times of industrial deflation; and it is in these
areas that large numbers of youth mature without substantial opportunity. It is apparent, therefore, that guided migration is a
basic need in rural reconstruction. Such guidance must take the
form of -an intensive search for areas of opportunity wherever they
exist, or can be created. The advice of the agricultural expert should
be substituted for that of the speculator in worthless and semiworthless fann lands.
Digitzed by
Google
Building a Farm-l o-,l larkcl Road
Digitized by
Google
Dt
I zf>;j
by
Goos le
Programs of Reconstruction
95
A recent report on migration and economic opportunity in
regional analyses of the population situation asserts: a
Though it is suggested that the Cut-Over Region might, by
migration within the region, take care of all but a few thousand
of its present population, the three other chapters present very
different conclusions. In the case of the Great Plains, it is
argued that the minimum exodus "consistent with the safe use
of the land" would be a quarter of a million people, and that the
ideal economy would require the removal of nearly three times
as many. Similarly, the authors of the chapter on the Coal
Plateaus of the Southern Appalachians suggest that some three
hundred and fifty thousand people should leave their crowded
region, and de,gcribe this figure as a minimum which would by
no means bring living levels in the area up to the average rural
standards of the rest of the nation. Even more staggering
figures are suggested for the Old Cotton Belt and its dependent
areas, with estimates of the need of migration ranging, on various hypotheses, from one and one-half to six or seven millions.
If these analyses are sound, they indicate that each of these three
regions is doomed not only to continuing but to increasing
poverty unless it is relieved of large numbers of people.
Although these figures are based on the minimum of assumptions
favorable to retention of population in these areas, and the picture
may be, therefore, somewhat exaggerated, the magnitude of present
population maladjustment is apparent. Coupled with the rapid
natural increase in population in these areas, the future difficulties
of adjusting manpower to resources assume the aspect of a major
national problem.
It is, of course, not advisable for a democratic government to go
into the wholesale movement of people. On the other hand, when
a farmer wishes voluntarily to leave an area in which he cannot
support himse1f, the minimum service he should have is advice and
counsel as to where better locations are to be found, education in the
type of farming best suited to his new location, and possibly loans
which will enable him to make the desired move.
Cooperation.
The stimulation of mutual aid among farmers can, in many respects, give to the American rural social fabric the strength of the
agrarian organization of European countries. In marketing and
in purchasing, cooperation is gradually being recognized as one of
the hopes of the smaller farmer.
• Goodrich, Carter, and Others, Migration anti EcoMm«D Opportunity, Philadelphia :
Unlveralty of Pennsylvania Press, 1936, p. 495.
Digitized by
Google
96
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Many of the advantages of large-scale mechanized operations can
be made available to the operator of the family-sized farm if expensive heavy farm machinery and pasture lands are held in common.
Also, in meeting the everyday problems of planting and harvesting,
purchasing and processing, and problems of diet and health, mutual
aid would prove beneficial, particularly to the youngest farmers and
to those with the fewest resources.
Higher Standard of Living.
One incentive to increased production is the increase in the number
of things wanted. Fundamental improvements in rural housing,
diet, sanitation, and education will never be thorough until the desire
for these improvements is widespread and strong among the farm
families, especially among the farm women. The improvement of
production alone does not automatically raise the standard of living.
The benefits of increased production have to be converted into better
living through the process of education.
Rural Institutions and Services.
Interwoven with the problems of increasing the opportunity for
rural employment, raising the standard of living, and the general
strengthening of the foundations of rural life is the necessity for
strengthening rural institutions and services, particularly the institutions of education and health and the service relating to technical
advice in farm problems.
Sounder financial support of rural institutions is dependent upon
equalization between the country and the city of opportunities
afforded by publicly financed agencies. Surplus wealth, regardless
of where it is produced, is so greatly concentrated in the cities that
the tax base of public services in rural areas is comparatively meager.
This points to the need of equalization funds for health, education,
and public welfare which will smooth out the financial inequalities
between rural States and States which contain points of financial
concentration-between rural counties and industrial cities.
NEED FOR A LONG-RANGE COORDINATED PROGRAM
Hitherto, farmers have been confused by the numerous programs
and the rapidity of administrative changes. Aid to farmers has
evolved through the stages of direct relief, work relief, rehabilitation,
and Works Program employment. The inauguration of each new
program necessitated a period of adjustment and experiment during
which administrative policies and procedures were not always clear.
The destitute farmer has often been left with a marked feeling of
insecurity. Successful rehabilitation is not to be accomplished in a
Digitzed by
Google
97
Programs of Reconstruction
few months; it is a step-by-step process. To accomplish it there
must be continuity of administration, guided by a consistent policy.
Furthermore, the lines of administration in the local unit-the
county-have not always been clearly demarcated, with the result
that changes in policy in Federal, regional, or State headquarters
have often left the local administration, as well as the client,
bewildered regarding the proper course to pursue.
In other words, the administration has been groping through an
unprecedented situation without an adequate chart or compass. The
experience of the past 3 years has marked the course for the Federal
Government to pursue. Definite, enduring accomplishment in alleviating rural distress will, however, depend on coordination from
Washington down to the county, and a. continuing course of action
uninterrupted by sudden shifts in policy.
The more fundamental measures for building an agrarian civilization of the highest order in the United States are evidently long-time
measures, not planned for quick results. This is especially true of
tenancy reform, of programs for crop control, of the development
of a. population policy, and of the improvement of the rural standard
of living and rural institutions.
The broad regional incidence of some of the measures of agrarian
reform emphasizes the necessity for national coordination of constructive programs, and the need for equalization of opportunity
emphasizes the need for Federal funds in support of these programs.
National neglect of these problems probably costs more in the long
run than their constructive solution. If future financial crises a.re
not again to plunge millions of farm families into distress, it is
along these lines that Federal and State Governments should proceed.
o,,
I
zed by
Google
D1gluxlbyGooglc
APPENDIX A
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
99
C1g1• zed by
Google
8
TABLE 1.-TYPE OF REl.mF llEcEIVED BY RURAL HouSERows, BY CURRENT 0ccuPATION OF TBE
H&u>,
BY
CoLOa, AND BY
ABBA,
FEBBUARY
1935
(138 counties re~ntlng 9 agrlcultmal areu)
Type
or relier
All areu
I
Eastern Cotton
I
Total I White I Negro
I
I
App&•
lacblan•
Ozark
Western Cotton
IJt!~ I
Cut
30, :IM
100. 0
2,957
100.0
2, 1153
100.0
N4
100. 0
7, 274
100.0
4,1182
100.0
2,292
100. 0
7, 703
100.0
1, 876
33. 8
17. 5
7. 7
36.11
16. 6
8.8
29.0
19. 9
6. 5
84. 4
28. 1
28. 11
16. 0
-45.-6
--- -20.-7 --- - - - - -- --·
38. 8
41.0
Drought only
Work only. ··· ·· •········ ····•···•··•• •· ·•· ······ ····
Direct onl1 · · · · · • · · • · ·
Work anldirect . ..... ::···· ··········· ·· ···· · ······ ·::
0
cg
N
OWNJ:RS
Number ••••.•.• .••. •..•.••.. . ... ........ ... .. ...
Percent .••• • . •••. ... .•••. . •...• ............. ... . .
~
~
Droogbt ooly . ..••.•. ..••.......•...•.•.......... .. . ...
C')
Work and direct .••.•.•• •....• . •. ... .......•... •. •. .•..
0
a(i.)
~~t°o~i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
38. 6
25.4
16. 3
10,727
100. 0
- -19. i
Drought ooly .••••.•.••••..••••••••... . . . .... ... ..•.•. .
Work ooly ... . .. . .••.. •..••.• . ..... .. .. .. •. •. .......• . .
Direct ooly . •• •......... ..... . •• ••. •. .. . .. . . ... •...••. .
Work and direct •••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••
29.8
28.'
23.3
29.6
764
100. 0
6118
100. 0
,7. 4
26. 3
166
100.0
1,644
100.0
1,0M
100.0
678
100. 0
66.2
21.3
18. 3
4. 2
--- - - ------46.-- 6-- ---------- - 46.8
----84.6
48. 5
211. 2
28.0
22.9
28.6
311. 8
25.6
20.8
7.2
40. 2
28. 11
22. 1
8. 8
1ft, 1211
100.0
I, 031
100.0
717
100.0
3H
100.0
8,389
100.0
2,
100.0
23. 4
32. 4
24.1
16. U
29.1
11.8
36. 7
29.1
14. 5
TJ:l'IANT~ 1
Number ..• . ..•••••.••••......... . . . . .... .•.•. ...
Percent ••••.....•••••.•••......• •• .. •..•• ........
----27.------- -----------,1.s
47.1
3
Hsy
and
Com
211.4
- - - --- --- --- --- !I0.11 -------- -------- ---- ---us
34. 8
44. 6
38.6
39.8
24. 6
61.3
:H. 2
14.8
8. 1
,94
- -
38. 81
7
87.
14.'
9.1
8116
100. 0
63. 6
27.0
H. 0
6, 4
2,872
100.0
100.0
------31. 0
27.0
2. 0
41. I
22. 6
ISpring IWinter'
Ro.ncb•
31.0
29. 6
8.6
3,320
100.0
2,834
00. 8
7. 4
7. 8
69.6
15.1
20. 6
799
1131
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
------21.1
83.1
4. 8
:14. 0
12. 4
I.I
a. 4
19. 6
47.4
11.11
I I
__,I _-1---1---1
---1---1----
2, 116G
100. 0
401
1, 460
100. 0
I, 416
100. 0
727
100. 0
1. 083
100. 0
276
100. 0
100. 0
211.0
27. 1
23. 9
00. 2
10. 0
6. 11
4. 6
68. 8
17. 9
18. 7
80. 0
18. 7
0. 4
2. 9
16. 0
18. 6
63.8
11. 7
I, 751
JOO. 0
623
100. 0
230
100. 0
311. 3
19. 0
29. 11
17. 0
27. 6
29. 2
35.0
8. 3
4, 7371
100.0
418
100.0
I, 4M
100. 0
I 2. I
1. 6,
6
31.
31 . 3
26. 7
32. 8
61.0
~-1
8. 8
8. 3
9
38.
2. 81
593
100. 0
I
--1---1---1---,---,---1-6.0
24.0
34. a
30.0
30. 6
84.8
42.2
:K.8
12. 6
s;:
~
Ov~ Dairy Belt Wheat Wheat Ing
I Total I White I Negro
- - - - - -- -l---1--1- - -I- - - l - - - l - - - l -1----1---i---i---i---1---1---OPERATORS
- -N- - - FARK
p=~r. . . . ... . . . . .. .... . . . . . ..
~
G. 7
60.0
13. 3
21. 7
10.1
u
a.e
21. 7
M. 1
12. 2
§
::i:,
~
(1)
§
~
::i:,
~
:::i-
Q
Q"
-
....
~
§'
Number
CIIOPHIIS
Percent_::::::-_-_:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
3,4131
100.0
Drought only _________________________________________ _
Work only ____________________________________________ _
Direct only ___________________________________________ _
Work and direct ______________________________________ _
I
I, 1121 100.0
8481
100.0
3241 2,241
100.0
100.0
1,4221
100.0
819 ,----------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,-------100.0
---------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
:: ~ 1---u2- ---4&2-
34. 7
37.fl
IIO. I
7.11
37. 7
38.1
15.11
8.3
29.4 ---------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------36. 7
. -- ---- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------27. 4 ---------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------6.5 ---------- -------- ----------------------
---
------
23. 4
H.6
211. fl
28.2
2111
28.11
28. 6
47.2
311.2
I, 5113
100.0
384
100.0
182
100.0
100.0
326
100.0
100.0
100.0
llOI
100.0
40. 4
16.4
50.3
28. 1
33.5
38. Ii
115. 4
18.8
14.1
8.0
13. 4
7. 7
16. 2
8.8
34.8
24. 4
14,001
100.0
1,850
100.0
875
100.0
1176
100. 0
2,792
100.0
1,675
100.0
1, 117
100.0
2, 758
100.0
12.4
22. 1
69. 4
6.1
8. 7
12. 5
74. 2
4.6
3,518
32. 9
28. 9
25.11
--------
--------
FARM LABORERS
Number ________________________________________ _
Percent ______ . _____ . _________ -- ----------- -----..
Drought only ______________________ . __________________ .
Work only ____________________________________________ _
Direct only. ________________ . ____________ ----- -- -- ----.
Work and direct _____ .---- -- ----- ------- --------- -- -- ..
ll02
2411
251
100.0
272
100.0
5.fl
15.5
75. 7
3. 2
2. fl
32.0
48.1
17.3
848
100.0
2,716
100.0
I, 7117
100.0
498
100.0
242
100. 0
.9
20. 2
115. 8
13.1
5.9
11.7
73.5
8.9
2. 8
7. 4
82.6
7.2
3.1
31. 7
63.9
11. 3
14. 1
32. 3
43. 2
10.4
40. 71
27.
22.3
9.9
1,223
6,167
1, 2118
6,746
6,411
1,043
665
1,092
39.0
47. 6
12. 4
42.0
32.9
24. 6
15. 5
60. 2
23. 1
23.0
59. 6
16. 3
46. 4
27. 5
25.0
64.9
15. 6
15. 6
34. 9
6.6
23.8
311.9
42. 2
19. G
80
- - - - --- -10.-5 - - - --- --- - 40.0 ---------30. 7
27.fl
---------------------15.8
47.2
51.3
35.0
40.8
33. 7
21.6
28.0
20
(1)
(1)
(1)
(I)
(1)
92
100.0
33
(I)
(1)
(I)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
14
- - - - - - --17. 4
75.0
3.3
4. 3
(1)
--------
--------
NONAGRICULTURAL WORKERS
Number _______ . _______________ -----------.-----Percent_ _____ . _______ . __________________________ _
Drought only .. _________________________________ . _____ _
Work only ____________________________________________ _
Direct only ___________________________________________ _
Work and direct. _____________________________________ _
UNEMPLOYED
Number ________________________________________
_
Percent. __ - ____________________ - ___ . _-__________ _
Drought only __________________ . ______________________ _
Work only ____________________________________________ _
w~~ta~dycttreci:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
0
cg
N
"'c;
1 Exclusive or croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
1 Percent not oomput.ed on a base ol lllllS than
~ 1---zrf1---a1:1- ---io:s-
1::
115. 9
10. 2
57. 8
18. 7
39. 3
23. 0
74. 3
14. 9
10. 9
18. 3
115. 3
6. 5
30,371
100.0
6,219
100.0
3,560
1, 1159
100. 0
4,741
100.0
.I
43.8
32.9
23. 2
9. 7
34. 5
33. 6
22. 2
-3.fl
38. 9
35.3
22. 2
100.0
--------------64.2
58.9
20. 7
26.1
15. I
211.0
I
500
100. 0
1. 6
12. 2
82.0
4.2
~
~~
:3
~
j
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- C)"
------12. 6
1.1
.6
I. 2
I. 1
2. I
13. 9
34. 7
1.3
~
c.o
IIO cuea.
Cl.
'<
(';
0
~,.._
f'v
I-&
~
TABLE 2.-TYPE oP
REuEr
R.EcEIVED BY RURAL HousEBOLDS, BY CURRENT OccuPAnoN OP THE HEAD, BY
Cowa,
AND BY AREA, JUNE
1935
(138 counties representin11: 9 agricultural areas)
Eastern Cotton
Type of relief
ll-I
Western Cotton
I
I
Total
I White I Negro
Total
I White I Negro
Appa~~
Ozark
Lnke
Hny
and
Dairy
States
Cut•
Over
Com
Belt
I
I
Spring Winter Ranch•
Wheat Wheat
Ing
J'ARll OPERATORS
Number ________________ ----- -- --__ --- ---- -------
Percent _____________ --- ________ --- _____ . - __ . ____ -
17,380 ~
100.
0
____,
__
1,074
100.0
7921
100. 0
282
100. 0
I
1,876
100. 0
I
1,448
100. 0
I
428
100. 0
7, 8941
100. 0
1, 160
100. 0
I
1,600
100. 0
I
1. 074
100. 0
I
1,878
100. 0
I
404
100. 0
420
100.0
47.-5- - 1
25. 5 - -69.4
611.9
1 -72.3
~!~!t:;Ji~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: - - ;58.8
- - - 1 -7- - 1
1 - - -71.4
1 - - -62.16 - - - 1 - -23.1
- 1 - -43.
-1
- 1 - '"·
- -31 -76.3
- - 1 - 20.0
-31.6
16. 3
14. 0
24.3
49. 7
25. 9
37. 11
M.6
19. 6
47. 6
21.6
18. 6
7. 4
68.1
41.
15.3
20.9
20. 7
OWNERS
19. 9
14.3
14. 6
13. 1
10. 5
27.2
9.3
6. 1
37.1
16.3
11.11
___
82
3,096
6,942
U2
298
M
288
206
960
290
804
114
800
258
Numhe•-·----·-·---·---------------------------100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
___,
Peroont ••.•.•.•...........•.•.•. _________________ 1-_100.
_
-0- -100.
1 -0- - 1
---1
---1
---1
---1
---1---1
- - - 1100.0
- - - 1100.0
- - - 1100.
- -0- 1100.0
---1--
·work onlY--.--- --·--·---··------ -- --- --- - - ---- ---·- --Direct only __ ._-··--------------------_---- _____ ------_
Work and direct _____ ----.----·-- --- --- --- --- ---- ------
Number ____ . __ _TENANTS I
52. 81
32.1
15.1
Percent__-· ___ -·· _____________ . __ ... ___ --· ______ _
0. 454
co
Work
Direct onlY---------------··---------·---·---------···-only_--·-·---- _________________ --· _____________ _
Work and direct_._. __ --·---·-----··--·-·-·-··-·-·- ___ _
62.9
21.8
15.3
~
CROPPERS
0
~
0
Cf
'<
(')
0
~.-(\)
100. 0
Number-·------······---··----------------·-··--
Percent_. ___ -·- _----·-- ---·--·----- ______ -· _____ _
084
100.o
Work only.-·---·--·--·---·----····-----·-- __ -------·--
62.0
21. 3
Direct only __ . _____ ---··-- _____ --··---·-·--- __________ _
Work and direct _________ ---·---·----·----·-·----------
I
51.0
31.5
17. 5
45.6
33. 5
19. 9
376
100. 0
I
3411
100.0
I
45.1
U.3
19.6
16. 7
100. 0
I
40.4
31.6
28.0
34.1
43. 6
22.3
I
228
22.2
44. 5
33.3
266
100.0
148
100. 0
M.9
29.9
15. 2
I
24.3
62. 2
13. 5
I
49.6
31.6
so
100.0
I
72. 6
13. 9
13. 5
I
30.0
47. 5
22. 5
18. 8
950
100. 0
57.3
27.2
15. 5
638
100.0
788
100. 0
I
73.6
12. 7
13. 7
I
71. 2
13. 8
15.0
454
100.0
74. 0
10. 1
15. 9
I
Number- •. ·--·-·--·-·-------·------------------
I
I
I
I
I
i
~
~
c::,
;:,
--~::ti
~
48.8
36.6
lt. 6
69.41
20.11
9. 7
21.2
51. 3
27.5
38.0
55. 5
6. 5
72.4
22.1
5.5
45. 8
20.9
33.3
72.4
8.5
19.1
14. 7
76.8
162
100. 0
4, 7981
100. 0
100.0
200
800
100. 0
784
100.0
1,074
100.0
310
100.0
162
100. 0
~
67.11
19.8
12. 3
70.1
18. 8
11.1
32. 0
42. 0
26.0
48.3
39. 7
12. 0
72.2
21. 4
43. 2
6.4
39.9
77.4
7.1
15. 5
28. 4
M.3
17.3
Q
0-
8. 5
§
~
rn. 9
~
::,.
--~·
s·
§=
1---···----1········1--·-··--1-···-···1·····-·-1--·-··--1-··-···-
184
100.0 __________ -·------ ---·---- --·-·--- ________ -·------ -·-·····
:J1::::::::::i::::::::1::::::::1::::::::1::::::::1::::::::1::::::::
13. 0 ---···-·--'·····--- --······ ---·---· --·-·-·- ---·---- ······-·
J'ARll LABORER.II
Percent __ -··--···-···· _____ -·- -··. ______ -· ___ -· __
I-'
0
to
I
I
I
36
150
34
H
1. 198
210
1:u
136
212
176
34
150
268
110
(1)
(1)
100. 0
100. 0
100. (!
(1)
mo mo
mo
mo
mo
mo
100.0
(')
----1---1---1---1---1---1---1----1---1---1---1---1---1---
;:,
:~r1 ............................................
0
i i~:t
Work and direct • •••••••••••• •• •• ••••••• • •. •• ••• •••••• •
42.
40. 41
17. 6
I
27. 4
II0. 4
44.8
23. 11
22. 2
31. 3
10. 3
76. 6
13. 2
n2
100. 0
246
100. 0
166
100. 0
88. II
11. 4
21. 7
119. 8
8. 0
22. 7
(I)
(I)
(1)
73. 3
12.0
H.7
(1)
(I)
(1)
~~
32. 0
67. 3
10. 7
:JS. I
IMl.4
&l ll
11. 0
311. 4
41111
100. 0
61111
100. 0
122
100. 0
74
100. 0
100. 0
74. 7
7. 6
42. 2
47. 8
10. 0
60. 8
18. 0
31.2
73. 0
16. 2
10. 8
44. 9
49. 0
6.1
2, 149
JOO. 0
2, 01 6
100. 0
4211
100. 0
2111
100. 0
100. 0
28. 2
58. 6
13. 2
49. 6
36. 0
15. 5
63. 2
14. 0
22. 8
19. 6
23. 0
M. 5
17. 1
:14.2
( 1)
m
NON4011ICULTUUL WOBIIB8
Number • •• •••...• •. •.•. .••• . ••. •..•. ••••• ••• . •.•
Percent .• . ••• ••• ••• • •.•.•••• •••... . ••• •••••• ••• •.
2,880
100. 0
I
430
308
100. 0
100. 0
1- - - -~- - - L- - - l i - -- 1 1 - - - l - - 6-1. 3
M. 7
22. 9
46. 3
36.11
t2. 9
Work only .• •••• •••• •••••• • • •• •••.. • • .••. •. •. ••• . •. • •••
16. 11
60. 6
28. 4
18. 7
31. 6
t2. 3
D irect only .. •. . •• •• •• •••• •• •• •• •• . •. . •••• •• •• ••• •• . ••.
26. 6
36.0
31. 6
18. 8
H . 11
U. 8
Work and direct • •• •• •• •• • •• ••••••• •• • •••• •••••••••• •••
122
100. 0
600
100. 0
148
100. 0
37. 7
67. 4
4. 11
62. 8
26. 8
10. 4
17. 5
62. 2
20. 3
293
100. 0
2.832
100. 0
763
100. 0
- -17. 7
118
- - - - - --- - --
tlNIM PLOT&D
Number ••• · - · · ·· ·· ·· · ······· ·· ·· · · ····· · ······· ·
Percent • .•••••.. .. ••. ••.. •. ••. •. •.. .. . . . .•.. ••.. .
Work only ..• •• •••• ••••• •• ••• • •• •••• •• • ••• ••••••• • ••.••
Direct only . . . .•• •• •. ••• ••• • • ••••••. ••. . . •••• • ••. • •••..
W orll: and direct ••• • ••••.•.•• • ••. •• •. . . . ••. . . • •• •. •••• •
1
12,3/11
100. 0
I
46. 8 1
36. 0
17. 2
1. 978
100. 0
I
66.9
20. 11 1
22. 2
1, 378
100. 0
I
M.
19. 07 1
:14.3
eoo
100. 0
67. 5 1
25. 2
17. 3
1,601
100. 0
67. 9 1
27. 8
14. 3
1,208
100. 0
69. 111
25. 7
14. 4
411. 61
36. 9
13. 6
62. 21
31.8
16. 0
20.
M. ◄3
24.3
- - - - - - - --
I
402
- 4- - -- 57.
28. 4
c,,
s:::
-
~
"t:I
~
1
1
E xclusive o( croppers In the 2 Cotton Areu.
Percent not oomputed on a base of less tbaA 60 cues.
:3
~
:::,
i:l
~
~
-
O"
~
~
0
co·
;:;.
N
~
O'
'<
CJ
0
~,..._
(v
....
~
TABLE 3.-AVERAGE AM:oUNT
OP
REuEr REc:ErvED
BT RURAL HouSEBoLDS, BT TYPB OP Rm.mr, BT
CoLOB, AND BY AREA, FEBRUARY 1935 1
CURRENT
OccuPATION OF
THE HEAD,
BT
b
II>,.
(138 countlea rep~ntlng 9 agricultural areas)
Type of tellef
All
areas I
E~tem Cotton
Total
I
,
1
I White I Negro I
Western Cotton
Total
J
Lake
Sta~
Cut•
Apfl'I•
lachlan•
Or.ark
I White I Negro
Hsy
and
Com
Belt
Dairy
Over
J
Bprlng J Winter J Ranch•
Wheat Wheat
Ing
"'1j
----------------------l-l---1---1-1---1---1---1----1---1---1---1---1---1--l'ARK OPERATORS
Total........................................... .
$1.~. 00
Work only............................................ .
Direct only ........................................... .
Work and direct ••.••.....•.....••••..•••••••••••..•..•
15.95
9.94
19.85
sn.n
$10.150
----Drought only......................................... .
15.85
$7.21
---------------------II.~
12. 25
11.92
$8.711
$10. Ill
S8. 81
$I0.27
$23. 18
$25.41
s111. oo
10.64
11.46
8.64
14.11
8. 62
11.27
7.35
13. 23
IJ. 27
11.!MI
28. 78
26. 87
18. 06
33.29
16.91
19.19
13.08
29.60
32.90
22. 26
15. 91
14.M
21.31
25. 24
16. 61
34. 69
11.00
-8.~
-
II. OIi
11.82
24. 28
24.M
10. 35
8. 08
11.58
12. 46
11.29
II. 29
13. 74
22. 20
26.91
17.39
35.34
5. 73
13.51
7.06
14.61
10.34
9.V3
11.41
8. 18
13.91
12. 73
13. 95
8. Of
10.31
3.96
11.68
I $23. 60 I $14. 81 I
$22. m
30.96
15. 01
13. 28
8. 56
17. 48
26. 75
23.48
18.16
34.23
16. 45
21.60
14.10
22. 20
29. 50
25. 29
17. 75
34.44
14. 75
16.87
11. 01
28.33
22. 48
21. 21
15. Q.5
28. 86
14. 20
13. 76
11.00
13.87
25.47
22.35
18. 59
34. 09
111. 32
I 28. 23 I
19. 71
I lM. 84 I
15. 18
24.19
18. 63
20.16
13.44
31.00
28. 22
28. 23
18. 50
32. 23
17. 51
111.83
13.95
29.86
38.88
22.89
Ill. 63
32. 07
15. 41
12. 87
8. 50
19.00
27. IH
25. 14
17. Of
34.46
OWNERS
Total. ......................................... ..
16. 23
Work only............................................ .
Direct only .......................................... ..
Work and direct ...................................... .
16. 99
11. 69
21.611
-- --Drought only......................................... .
17. 48
---------------------15.92
16. 92
10.56
JO.
02
10.92
12. II
8.97
12. 711
0
co
~
~
0
Cf
'<
(')
0
~.-(\)
15.41
Drought only ........................................ ..
Work only............................................ .
Direct only .......................................... ..
W orlt and direct ...................................... .
16. 28
16. 59
9.40
20.111
5. 311
14. 45
6. 66
16. 67
4. 77
II. 70
9.00
11.01
7.36
10. O'J
10. 23
11.46
10. M
10.59
8.98
8. 73
16. 20
13. 26
11. 45
8. 28
16.21
11.88
11. 94
6. IIO
15.07
-------JO. 99
5.31
13. 31
6. 76
13.97
3. 75
11.36
10. 00
11.07
8. 112
16. 20
II. 59
10. 71
8. 86
8.115
I
--1------,1---1---,---1---1---,---
CROPPZBS
Total ....•••.....•.•.•.•.•.•...•.................
Drought only ......................................... .
~~~oo"~ry
........................................... .
Work and direct ...................................... .
II. 17
-
11.54 ••...... ........ ........
~05
~M
~73
6.~
6.34
~86
12. 54
13. 10
14. 27
II. 73
s.~
l'ABK LABORJCRS
Total............................................
Drought only..........................................
}r~O~fy~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Work 1\11~ 41rect••.•••• ,., ........................ ,....
13.00
7.86
I
10.-12
s.u
5. 15
9. 53 l·--+-----1
7. 94
9.M
10.150
~32
11. 411
11. 14
6.48
12. 19
6. 77
6.83
6. no
an
s.~
s.a
,___ ,___ ,___ ,___ ,_ __
7.40
s.oo
I
12. 711
I
31. 115
I
21. 64
---l----1---1---1---1---1---I---'
13. 82
7.05
7.35
6.41, .•••.•...• , 29.50, 30.50
~t }~
1~ IIO
10. 13 ,
._ n
10. 96
12.
021 a.7. 4213
1. 56
11. 76
u. 00
6.112
74
o.
4.88
6. 52
8. OIi
t.84
§
::i:,
-....
-l
(1)
11.29
8. 70
12.14
--------------11.18
11. 23
~
(1)
TENANTS I
Total .......................................... ..
~
(1)
8. 75
11. 44
25. 00
25. 92
3. 31
6. 00
10. 41
IU3
41.110
~- 00
19. 70
211. 25
15. 54
22. 45
13. 52
23. 21
u.4335.75~3fl.50
111. 62
Ill. 22
19. 71
18. 2-'i
II. 08
26. 55
211. 33 ...•.•..
22. 00 •• ..••••
14.40
3.;. 67
::i:,
~
Q
O"
-g·
....
§=
NOlllOD:VLTUUI. WOll.:UU
Total •• ••••• ••••••••••••.••••••. •.•.••••••.••.• •.
12. 10
I
l!::
,--ia:~·
15. 39
I
l----
~:i1~!1~~~:::: :::::::::: :: :: : :: : ::: : : : : : : : : : : ::: : : : :
Direct only . .... . .... ... . ... .. .... .. . .. ...... . ..... ... .
W orlc and direct •••• ••••. ••.• ••••••.•. ••• .••• •••• ••• . ••
10. 65
20. 16
VNUIPLOYED
Total •..•• •.•• •.. . . .. . .....•••.•. .••..•.•••• •••• .
w~!i~::::::::::::=·::::::::::::::::::::::::.
Drought only... .... .. .... . . . .
11. u
I
12. 44
8. 20
I
1. a1
5. 67
12. 25
17. 38
8. 49
14. 63
8. 53
6. 28
II. al
8. 27
8. 45
6. 54
10. 73
11. 13
12. 38
8.48
10. 88
I
7. 54
8. 97
8. 15
6. 79
10. 89
11. 26
11. 25
10. 311
11. 85
8. 89
---8.-·
05
8. 37
13. 82
18.65 I 14. 44 I 17. 80 I 14. 73
15. 95
- --1- - - 1 - - - 1 -- - •- - -1 - - 14. 25
76
12.
96
24.
27
14.
al
18.
9. 12126.44
111. ;11
17. OIi
16. 84
17. 57
211. 28
21. 78
13. 27
12. 72
10. 19
14. 41
10. 45
16. 63
11. 61
11. 23
23. 14
18. 79
28. 27
211. 65 24. 71
S7. 80
111.11
11.34,
K2111
~~I
n~I ~-~I
~441 ~03
21.59
l- -·1-1,-:--:-t---i----1--=-_:_
10.43
9. 80
11. 82
18.601---.zoo· · · ······ 1 16. 00
JO. 33
12. 59
12. 01
15. D5
6. 05
7. 70
6. 36
II . 15
9. 71
14. 61
13. 17
20. 65
Exclmh•e of cases which were opened, reopeood, or closed durlnc the month.
• Exclusive ol croppers in the 2 Cotton Areas.
1
I
11.24
8. 03
16.12
12. 14
8. 31
16. 611
27.00
11. ;o
20. l!O
43. 25
16. 211
47. 50
10. UO
-- ---124.
-79
-1-22.
-1 ---25-1 -59 • -21.0'l
64- • 17.
13. 14
Z . 25
11. 04 1 -14.
18. 01
11. :l7
18. 91
14. /i4
10. 9 1
17. 17
II. 25
7. 64
O'l
30.
21.01
31. 71
28. 58
15. 77
36. 78
21. 21
11.78
~
~~
=
~
5
:;,
O'
~
Ot
0
<5'
;:;.
N
~
0-
'<
C')
0
0
00
,........
(v
....
0
QI
TABLE 4.-AVERAOE A.MOUNT OF RELIEF RECEIVED BY RURAL HOUSEHOLDS, BY TYPE OF llEuEF, BY CURRENT OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD,
BY COLOR, AND BY AREA, JUNE 1935 1
5
-,:,
(138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas]
Eastern Cotton
Type or relier
All
areas I
,
Total
Western Cotton
,
I White I
Appalarhian•
Ozark
1
Negro
Total
I White I Negro
Lake
States
Cut•
Over
Hay
and
Dairy
Corn
Belt
I
I
Spring Winter Ranch•
Wheat Wheat
ing
----------------------1----1---1---1---1---1---1---1----1---1---1---1---1---1--FARM OPERATORS
Total. •.•.•.•••••.•........••••..••..•........... l
Work only .•..........•••.....•..•..•...•••.........•..
Direct only .....•.•...•.........•.•.•.........•.•......
Work and dlrect ..•.•.•.•.........•.•••.........••••...
$15. 02
I $14. 16 I ss. 38 I s10. 82 I s11. 24 I $9. 41
s11. 59 1$24. 46 I S22. 92 I $15. 02 I s2us 1$14. 48 I $19. 79
II s12. 64 i---1---1---1---1---1----1---1---1---1---1---1---
13. 54
13. 25
23. 67
16.14
6. 93
15. 96
16. 10
10. 92
4. 57
15. 57
10. 53
8. 52
14. 89
10. 88
9.05
15. 12
9. 19
i.50
14.00
II. 54
9.16
16.49
16. 49
15. 20
16. 26
9.41
11.37
12. 61
8.24
12.01
17.14
8. 38
21. 41
20. 63
34. 03
25. 35
l~.47
34.50
13. 36
15. 97
31. 21
Ii. 44
13.65
30. 24
13. 29
16. 73
19.03
20.05
Ii. 61
31.84
~
3
~
C
:::i
Total.
OWNERS
---------------------·------------
-----
24. 30 122. 46
- - - - i - - - i - - - · - - - i - - - , - - - i - - - i - - - l ~ 26. 01
Work only ..•••••••.........•..••.........•.•••.....•..
20.58
13. 06
14. 71
8. 20
14. 75
19. 73
9.00
11.88
21. 09
Direct only .......•.•.......•.•................••......
4. 17
6. 60
9. 40
18. 68
14. 93
7. 41
8. 23
6. 84
6.96
Work and direct. .•...•...•.•••••
17. 74
18.12
16.67
14.14
14. 75
18.55
32. 61
33. 81
12.50
25.85
----TENANTS I
Total ...•.•.........•..••.•...........•.•........
Work only ..•.......•••••••.•.•......................••
Direct only .....•.....•.......................•........
Work and direct ..•.......•.•......••...............•..
Cl
co·
~-
i
0-
'<:
C;
0
a
~
Total
CROPPERS
------------ ---- --- ---
16. 63119. 63
16. 12
14. 66
23. 50
17. 25
17. 78
14. 81
29. 83
----;:ss
17. 49
34. 27
20. 21
I 25. 26 I 23. 39 I 15. 58 I 21. 81 I 13. 86
- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -l---l------+---·>---1---l---1- - - , - - 14.41.
11. 67
14.19
7.54
11.00
11.23
10. 42
11. 32
13.12
11.99
23.1.
16.25
ft.12
15.10
17.67
8.81
15.25
12. 61
4.02
14. 60
10.44
9. 79
15. 9'
10. 58
9.86
16. 98
9_ 71 .
9.56
15. 70
11.
9. 00
16. 32
----- --- -- ---
10. 63
11.19
11.78
9. 23
10. 18
10.64
Work only.•••••.•.............•...............•.••••••
Direct only .......................•.•...•....•••••.•..•
Work and direct ............•••••.•.....•.•...•.•••.•.•
10.42
7.86
14. 40
12. 28
7. 56
15. 21
12. 82
8. 19
15. 08
9.33
6. 16
15. 56
9. 78
8. 27
13. 83
10.04
9.83
14. 00
13. 10
7.61
10.45
4.82
8. 98
9.40
12. 31
18. 18
9.11
4.93
11.87
7.86
3. 67
7.89
8. 40
12. 70
- -- ---
13. 60 121. 03
12. 41
17. 47
321 · 21.
88
17. 95
41. 23
24. 83
18. 18
34.88
13. 71
16. 50
33.68
17. 42
12. 58
30. 50
12. 4~
16. 55
19.50
18. 78
17.86
20.93
Total ••••••••••....•..•.....•.•.•••••.•.....•.•.•
11. 75
9.03
9. 03 •••••••••.•••••••••••••••...•..•...•.......••••••• ·••·•·••
6. 57
-------- -------13.33
-------- ------------------------ ----·----------------- -------- -------- -·-·------------- --------
9.00
13. 06
9.11
9.W
8. 72
11. 35
7. 69
9. 14
)3. 10
8.92
6.67
10.00
9.65
10.44
20, 55
---
(II
(II
§
~
::i:,
(II
:::Q
....0"
FARM LABORERS
Work only ....•..••••..................•..•.•.••••.....
Direct only .......•...............•.•..••.•••••.•.•.•.•
Work and direct. ••.•.•.•••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••
--....
::i:,
21. 2i
20, 31
15. 33
20.85
14. 94
19. 71
29.33
16. 00
28. 25
21. 13
18. 05
30. 00
15. 63
14. 21
17. 58
16. 50
22. 68
26.64
13. 42
23. 00
15. 67
4. 00
23.00
19.00
- - - --- --- - - - - - - - - -
-§=
-
s:::i·
lfON.t.GRICULTURil WORUB8
Total ____ -------- -- --- --- -- --- ----- -------- --- --Work only ________________________________ ____ ________ _
onlyonly
__ . ________________
------------------------Direct
Work and
__________________
_____________ _________ _
!WI 113.
- -15.
-681a. 2'1
19. Oli
U!.36
- 9. ;g
71
a. 39
~ I111.oe1
---1-
12.
6. 76
12. 68
10. 30
a. 34
14. Ill
13. M
21. 31
7. 03
14. Oli
21.14
7.62
14. 7t
17.lK
12. 79
14. 28
0. 36
10. 63
17. 44
14. 8li
25.81
13. 76
6. 8li
15. 88
15.35
7. 88
16. 80
10. 16
5. 08
12. 92
11. 62
7. 78
5. 00
12. 00
10. 89
8.15
14. 41
uniI u~I1---1---1----1---,--~-~I ~Ml n1tl aa 13. 20
22. 38
20.M
40.13
3o. 18
18. 31
37. 89
18. 29
13. 10
25. 67
14. 156124. a2
13. 32
25.76
26. 2a
20. sa
12. 58
17. 61
22. 49
38. U
21. 07
37. 95
11. 80
8. 97
15.92
UNBllllrLOYl:D
Total_ -- _- -- --- -- - --- -- - --------- ---- -- - ------- - ·
Work
______
--- ______ _. _- --- -_____ ---- - -- -- -··
--- -·.
--Directonly.
only ___
.. _________________
________________
Work and direct _______________ ·--------·-----·-·-- ·--· i
• E1clusive of cases which were opened, reopened, or closed during the month.
• Exclusive or croppers in the 2 Cotton Areas.
6. 311
14. 15
11. 00
8.55
11.93
a, 74
14. 75
10. 06
5.42
----
11. 55
31 . 49
21. 82
14. 52
30. 62
23. ~
17.65
2'1. Oli
I21.81
n
20
14. 17
32. 58
19. 70
15. 33
13. 64
n15
11.112
20.33
17.48
19. 611
1
_ _ _ , _ __
15. 49
12. 61
26. 61
19. 70
16. 14
30. 94
Cl}
s::
:g
~
:3
~
:::s
N
~
<:I"
~
er.
0
ci:i"
;c.
j;j"
~
CT
'<
C';
0
0
-
(}Q
('\)
~
0
~
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
108
TABLE
5.- AM:oUNT OF RELIEF
REcEIVED BY RURAL HouSEBoLDS WITB AoBICULTUIIB
.AlmA, JUNB 1935 1
AS THE USUAL 0ccuJ>ATJON OF THE HEAD, BY COLOR AND BY
(138 counties representing U agricultural areea)
Total
Num•
~
Per•
-
Amount of relief
$1 to
~
$10 to
m
$20 to
~
$40 to
~
$80 to
m
$80 to
m
$100and
~
----------1--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --All areas.............. ZI, 3Q4
Eastern Cotton:
Total. ••.•••••••••......
White .••....•.•••.•••..
Negro ......•••••.••..•..
Western Cotton:
Total .•..••••.•••..•....
White •••••.............
Negro ..........•.•......
Appalachlan·O•ark ..... __ ..
Lake States Cut•Over ..••..
IIay and Dairy .........•.•.
C'orn Belt ........•..........
wr~':!r ihh~i::::::::::::::
Ranching •.....•............
100.0
38.8
37. 7
!U.0
3. 7
3,308
2, l&l
I, 124
100.0
100.0
100.0
63. 2
46.8
85.5
37.2
39.8
32.0
7.4
JO. I
2.3
2. 7
3,764.
2,946
818
6,622
952
2,370
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
67. 7
65. 7
M.6
36. 4
32.3
43.1
32. 2
31.8
36. 9
34. 7
35. I
45. 7
6.0
6.9
.6
2,ns
2. 212
666
722
64. 8
48.0
16.8
12.0
26.2
20. 9
37. 3
10.0
I. 8
.2
.7
2.U
8.0
85. 7
42. U
32. 6
33. 8
21.6
40.4
.8
11. 3
11.1
4.6
8.2
6.0
2. 8
0. 7
0.1
. 4 ·••·-··· ····---• 6 ·••••••• ·····-·• 2 ····-··· ··--···-
.a ........ ········
.I
2. U
2.1
.6
1.8
(')
1. I .... _..•
.I ·---····
.2
0.1
.3
.3
1.1 ............•..•
• Exclusive of CMeS which were opened, reopened, or closed durlni the month.
I Less than 0.06 percent.
D1g1
zedbyGoogle
Supplementary Tables
109
TABLE 6.-AGE OF HEADS OF RURAL REHABILITATION HOUSEHOLDS WITH
AGRICULTURE AS THE USUAL OccUPATION, BY AREA, JUNE 1935
[138 coun ties representi n g 9 agricultura l a reas]
T otal
A ~e in years
.:\res a nd usual occupa tion
Num ber
Percent
16-24
25--34
35--44
45- 54
55---04
- -- - - - -- - -- -- -- - !· - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - All are11.S:
Own rs .. •.. •. . .. • . • .... ••.... .• .•. . .
T ennn1s • . • . ... . •..... . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .
C rop1)ers •. ... . ... • • ... . .. . . . ... . ... . .
1'\ u m la borers ____ ___ ____ ____. _______ _
Eastern l'olton:
O \\·nc --- - - -- - -- - - -- ----- - ----·· ·· · ·
T enn.11ts . •••• • •. • ••••• •• • • • • • • •..•••..
~~::n;~,irei-i:::::::::::::::::::::::
Western C oLton :
Owners . •. .. •• . ..• •....• __ .. _. . • . .. . .
T ena nts . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . ... . -- -- --C ro ppe rs . . . ... . .. .. . • . . . ..... .. •.. . . _
F arm I borers .. . . .•. . __.. __ __._ .. __ . .
Appa lnch l11n ·Oz11rk :
O"·uers . ... .. .... .• . ------ -..• . ••. -- ·
3, 468
5,. 78
2, 2H
1, li0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
2. 8
6. 4
\l . I
1 .3
12. 5
3 1. ti
33. 0
42. 1
31. 0
2H. 3
:is. 9
20. 2
3.1, 2
22. i
lH. 7
IJ. 2
20. 5
11.6
9. 4
6. 2
1.1 52
100. 0
IIJ0.0
I00 . 0
100. 0
4. 2
7. 0
9. 2
21. 2
13. 7
29. 7
:H 3
41 . 2
29. 0
2S. 6
211. 6
16, i
32. J
24. 4
17 . 5
13. 2
20. 8
4, 2
7. y
9. 0
13. 4
8. 4
30. 4
32. 6
4 1. 5
Zl . i
30. 4
330
100. 0
100. 0
100. U
100. 0
35. 3
19. 4
2'22
14. 0
24. 4
11.9
ll. 3
4. 8
31 4
J9H
100. 0
100. 0
3. 8
~- 5
11. 5
30. i
(')
38. g
31. 2
24. 8
19. 1
( ')
21. 0
10. 5
42. 7
18. 4
11.6
2, 25~
1, 650
672
238
908
5[)~
Te nn nts . .. .. .. • . . . ... .. . ... . .•• . ... . .
F a rm lll horers . . ... . .. • . .. . .. .. . . . ....
Lake S1.s t es (' u t•O ,·er :
Own rs . . .... . . . .. . .. • .. . . . .... .. . . ..
Te na n L~. . . •. . . .. . .. . .... .. . . . . .. .. •. .
:Far m la borer~--- - .. .. . ..... __ . . .. . . . •
Hay und Dair y :
510
() v.·ners • .. • . _____ • •. • . - - • .• •. . - .. -- - -
6 12
'fena.nt s. __. . _____ . ____-. - --- - --- . - -- F 11rm la borers _________ ___ ___ ______ ___
Corn Bolt :
Owners . ____ _____ ______ _- - - . .. - . - . - - 'l'enan L, •. . . _ . __. __ ____ . .. - ..... . . - - .
Farm lnhorers . •. . .•• •.. •••• . . . . • . • .. .
Sprln
g ners.
Wheat
()w
__:___ _____ __ __ _____ __ _. _____ _
' r enau ls ... . . . __ . __ . _. . . . - - _-- - -- -·. - •
Form lnborers·__ ___.. . __ __ __________ __
Win ter Whea t :
) ~·ners. __ ____ . __ ____. .- .. - - - - - - - - - · T enant"- ---- . . .... _. _. . ...... •... .. . .
Jo"'arna laborers-__ _________ -- - --- - --- - - Rnnch ln ~:
Ow ners • • ... ... . . . .. .. .. .. .. . ... . . . . .
Tennnts . . . . .. . ... ... .. . . .... . . . . . . .. .
Farm la borers . . . . . . . ... ... . .. . . •.....
I
18
( I)
100.0
8fi
1r,i.o
Ill
( ')
51
46
202
100. 0
100. 0
I. H
(')
I. 9
3. 5
26. 3
( 1)
0. 8
30. 2
27 . •5
34. 9
(')
(I)
10. 5
~i2. 3
J S. 0
2.5. 6
23. 3
------ -- -------31. 4
24. 8
( 1)
(' )
( ')
<')
( 1)
100. 0
2. ~
n. 7
12. 8
12. 9
29. 9
53. 9
32. i
31.U
20. 5
32. 7
24. 1
12. 8
.6
4. \l
17. 6
37. 5
29. 7
3 1. 2
b04
IOO. 0
78
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
( 1)
i0
214
6
(' )
21; 9
(IJ
(' )
1.9
(')
( I)
(' )
(' )
IC0. 0
1m.u
(I)
2U
100. 0
100. 0
( ')
14 . 3
J S. 3
17. l
31. 8
18. 9
(' )
31.4
27. 1
13. 3
Y.4
7. 7
21. 2
13. 8
1~. 8
8. 3
20. 3
7. 5
(I)
3 1. 4
22. 9
20. 6
12.1
-- ---- -- ------- - ------ -32. 4 I 32 . .,
10. 8
12. 2
3 4. 1
(' )
·--~6'. ~.
( I)
E xc!md ve of croppe r, in the 2 Co tton Are
not comp uted on a base ol less t ba n 50 cases .
1 Peroont
137206°-37--9
Diy1!zed by
Google
~
TABLE 7.-
FAM ILY CoMPos1T10N oF
Ru ML
RELIEF H o usEHOLDS, BY UsuAL OccUPATION OF THE HEA.D, BY Co1..0R, AND BY
AoEA,
J UNE
1935
........
(13S counties representing 9 agricultural areas]
Western C'oLLon
E astern Cotton
F amil y co m pcJ:.:it ion
All area.s
I
Toto.I
- - -- -- - - - - - - --
Ap pa•
I
- -- - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - --
I White I N egro
I Jachian·
T otal
I Whi te I l\"egro
Ozark
Lake
State.s
<'ut•
Ovn
!lny
and
ll ul ry
Corn
Belt
I
I
Spring Winler R anchWhea t W heat
ing
1- - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1- - -,- - - - 1 - -- 1-- -- 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 --
- 1- - -
N umher _____ __ _ _
Percen L- . -- . - . . ..... .
ll ushnnd-"i fe _____. _. .
11 usband-wife - ehilrlren . ___ __ ___ _
Non rnrn il y man ····· ·· -- - · · ·· -· · · · -- --- - Nonfnmil y wonurn .. .... . . ____ . ____ ____ _.. . .
F nthe r - ehihl ren . ____·- . ___ -· - - . . . ·· - .1\lnrher-childre.n _.. . • . ___ . .. · - _..
18, 1261
100. 0
2. 170
100. 0
~- I
7-1. 8
7. 0
-~- 3
11. ~
00. 3
5. 3
2. 6
3. 9
10. 7
6, 418
100. 0
I 100,
I, 606 I
bt14 I 2, 4961
0
100. 0
100. 0
I, 9561
100. 0
540
100. 0
6. 514 1
846 1 1. 41!81
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
75. 5
6. 4
1.3
2. 3
6. 6
9. 7
6~. 1
10. 4
l. 4
2. 8
7. 6
; _9
10. 2
75. l
6. 7
.9
2. 0
4. 2
10. 3
78. 0
4. 6
10. 7
17. 4
60. 3
7. l
2. 8
1. 8
10. 6
.4
2. 6
3, 4
10.0
64. 4
II. 5
3. 0
4. 1
7. 0
458
100. 0
386
100. 0
72
100.0
300
100.0
218
100, 0
82
100. 0
2, 610
100. 0
8. 0
66. 9
11. 2
2. 4
3. 0
8. ~
8. 3
54. 6
8. 3
7. 9
2. 6
18. 3
6. 2
51. 9
8. 3
7, 8
2. 6
21. 2
19. 5
58. 3
8. 3
8. 3
2. 8
2. 8
11. 3
56. 0
13. 3
4. 0
4. 0
11. 4
9. 2
6 1. 5
JO. l
3. 7
2. 7
12. 8
Ji. l
41. 4
22. 0
4. 9
7. 3
7. 3
Number _ __ __ ____ ,. ____ _______ _________ __ _____ ____
P ercent. .. .. -.
9, 684
100. 0
646
100. 0
410
100. 0
236
100. 0
1, 238
100. 0
1,028
100. 0
Ilushnnd- w lle . _- -·- - - · ·· . · · ·· - · · . - · -·
Ilushand- wile-children ___ ___· - __ ____ ___
N onlnrnil y man . . . . . ·- ·· -- ··- - ·· · · ·· · ·· -· ·· --·· · · ·· ·· ··
N onlo.mily woman _-· --··-· · · · · · --_ · - __ --· . . -· · · .. --•·
Father-children _ . . • . .. •. · ·· - · . ... • . .. . . .. __- · . • ... • ..
l\fother- ch1ldren_ . ... •• ... ••...•.•... . • . •• ..•• . ••• .. . .
0.0
80. 9
4. 7
.4
2. I
2.0
8. 7
73. 4
4. 3
1.2
3. 4
9. 0
7. 3
76. 6
2. 4
1.5
4. 9
7. 3
8. 7
80. 5
5. 8
.3
2. 3
2.4
9. 2
81.3
5. 3
J. :!
2. 6
9. l
68. b
4 6
2. 5
s. :J
ti f,
l , 5641
100. 0
2, 076 1
49fl
100. 0
100.
7. I
80. 3
8. 4
2. l
2. 4
12. 4
76. 3
6. 4
.3
3. 3
I. 3
662
100. 0
726
100. 0
394
100. 0
864
100. 0
110
100. 0
1. 3
67. 4
IO. l
2, 5
2. 7
IO. O
IO. 0
62. 8
12. 7
1. 8
3. 6
9. 1
6. 3
71.6
13. 0
.8
4. 2
4. 1
12. 2
69. 5
10. i
1. 0
2. 0
4.6
5. 8
74. 3
12. 3
.7
3. 0
3, 9
18. 2
-~2- 7
18. 2
210
100. 0
3, 904
100. 0
184
100. 0
762
100.0
I, 170
100.0
6. 7
76. 2
8. 6
1.9
3. 8
8. 4
8. 7
86. 0
2. 2
6. 5
87. 9
3. 7
.8
80. 0
8. 2
.8
17. 3
69. 0
9. 3
. 3 -- - ---- 2. 2
2. 0
I. 7
2. 4
476
100. 0
6. 7
74. 4
9. 7
2. 5
2. 1
4. 6
O W S E RS
!\"umber . . .. .. _
Percen t. .... . . . .
0
tQ
;;;
"'crCl
-<
C")
0
a
,-(v
ll ui;ha nd - w lle .. •• . . . . . . . . _. ... . · - . • . .. . . ... . . . . . . . ..
II us band- 1\·ll~--chlldren ________ _
N onfamily m an ... .
Non fomily womnn ... -- •- - -·-- - · .. . __ __-- · - -· -· -- ---- - ·
Fut her- chi ldren ___ _____ _____ ____ ___ ____ _____ _- - -- · - __
Mother-chi!Clren _.. •• . ·· ·· ·--- ·· .. _. .. .. · · · · · · · · · - · · ··
":ri
s.,
Q
F., lt)f OPF. RAT OR:j
294
100. 0
7. 3
8. 2
70. 8
JO, 2
2. 7
2. 7
5. 4
1, 212
100. 0
386
100. 0
182
100. 0
12. 5
78. 6
4. 9
8. 1
84. 5
5. 6
17. 1
73. 6
6. 7
4. 4
.2
.2
J. 0
-- -----3. 6
Tlf. SANTS l
11.0
67. 8
7. 6
.9
.8
11.9
-----1.9
--2. 3
2.8
81.0
3. 9
.4
2.0
4.
a
--------- --- --2. 2
.3
.8
----------·---------3, 8
1, 6
1.6
80. 2
8. 8
2. 2
I. 1
3.3
~
c,,
0
:::
~
-~-
~
Q
:::
Q.
:::0
~
~
Q
0-
~·
~
......
~·
Q
......
::;·
:::
CROPPERS
Nurnher _________________ ---------- _____ --------Percent _________________________________________ _
Husband-wife _______________________________________ _
Hushnud-wile-children _____________________________ _
Nonlamily man _______________________________________ _
Nonlamily woman ____________________________________ _
Father-children _________________ . ___ . _______________ .
Mother-children ____________________________ . ______ . __
2,0241
100.o
l,0061
100.0
8IO
100.0
13.0
70.5
5.0
1.0
4.1
6.4
14.1
67. 2
4.5
1. l
4. 7
8.4
11.4
71.3
4.0
I 100.0
2561
•5
5.4
7.4
22. 7
53. 9
6. 3
3. l
2.3
11.7
I 100.0
2481----------,--------,--------,--------,--------,--------,-------_________________________________________________________ _
9581
·100.0
710
100.0
II. 9
74.1
5.6
.8
3.4
4.2
12. 4
78. 3
3.9
10. 5
62. I
10.5
2.0
10.5
------3. 4
3.2
3. 2
FARM LABORERS
Number ________________________________________ _
Percent_ ____________ .... ________________________ .
Husband-wife. ____ ._. _______________________________ _
Ilushand-wile-children. _____________________ . ______ _
N onlamily man ______ . __ . _____________________________ _
Non family woman ____________________________________ _
Fathcr-chilc!ren _______________________________ . _____ _
Mother-children _____________________________________ _
6,85011,5021
100. 0
100. 0
8101
100. 0
69211.44811,1301
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
318
100. 0
516
100. 0
I 100. 0 I 100.
I,
I 100.
I,
I 100.2440 I 100. 0
0
0
204
334
100.0
14.8
63.1
18.0
24. 5
66. 7
8.8
13.8
71.8
10.8
.I
.8
---------------
1.2
144
004
454
19. 4
44.5
34. 7
13.1
75. 5
8.2
14. 0
72.8
10. 9
13.6
64. 2
9.8
1.9
2.9
7.6
10. 2
46.5
7.3
7.1
3.6
25.3
10.6
59. 3
7. 4
2.2
3. 2
17.3
9.8
31.5
7. 2
12. 7
4. I
34. 7
13. 7
64. 4
7. 9
1.4
3. 4
9. 2
13.8
67.6
7.8
.9
3.4
6. 5
13.2
52.8
8. 2
3. I
3.8
18. 9
15.9
69.4
II. 2
.4
2. 7
.4
Xumher ____ _
Percent_ ______________ . __________ . _____ . ____ . ___ _
23. 136
100.0
2.416
100.0
I, 746
100.0
670
100.0
l, 798
100.0
1,418
100.0
380
100.0
7,458
100.0
2,016
100.0
4,412
100.0
3,312
100.0
644
100.0
424
100.0
656
100.0
Hushnnd-wile ______ . _.. _____________________________ _
Husband-wife-children_._. ____ ._. ___ ._. __ .... __ . ___ _
Nonrnmily man _______________________________________ _
Konf:tmily wmrnrn ______ ______________________________ _
Fathrr-ehildnm _
Mother-children .. ______________________ . ____________ _
12. 4
65.0
II.I
2.9
2. 7
5.9
14.5
56. 6
7. 2
6.9
I. 7
13.1
12.8
61.0
7. 3
5. 5
1.8
10. 7
18. 8
43.0
6.0
10. 4
I. 5
19. 4
13. 2
54.3
8.1
6.0
2. 5
15. 9
13.1
61. 2
6.8
4. 6
2. 3
12.0
13. 7
28.4
13. 2
11. I
3.2
30.4
11.9
68. 7
10.5
1.5
3. 3
4.1
11.6
60.4
21.8
1.0
3.1
2.1
12.5
70.3
10.0
1.8
2.1
3. 3
12. I
65.9
10. 8
3. 9
2. 4
4.0
9.9
68.0
10.0
3. 7
2.8
5.6
15. 1
62. 2
10.4
1.9
5. 7
4. 7
11.6
57.0
16.8
4.0
1.5
9. 1
---------------------- ---------------------1.4
3.2
2. 2
3.3
2. 4
-------- --------
NONAGRJCt:LTt:RAL WORKERS
C')
s::
~
~
:3
~
~
::s
:;3
0-
~
C4
1
Exclush·e of croppers in the 2 Cotton Areas.
0
uS
,'
N
6.
~
(')
0
a
~
.....
.....
.....
TABLE
8.-FAMILY CoMPOSITION OF RuRAL REHABILITATION HouSEROLDS, BY UsuAL OccUPATION OF THE HEAD, BY CoLOR, AND BY AREA,
JUNE
~
~
1935
t,,:,
(138 oountles representing 9 agricultural areas)
Eastern Cotton
Family composition
All areas
Western Cotton
I
I
Total
I White I Negro
I
Total
I White I Negro
Appa•
lachian·
Ozark
Lr.ke
States
Cut•
Over
Hay
and
Dairy
Corn
Belt
I
I
Spring Winter Ranch•
Wheat Wheat
Ing
----------------------1----1---1---1---,---,---1---,----1---,---1---1---1---1--rARM OPERATORS
Numher ...........•...............................
Percent. ...••.•••.•.•••••.•.•.••••••••••••••••••.
11, ,)66
100. 0
Hmband-wifo ...........................•...........
Jlushand-wife-children ............................. .
Nonfomily Ul'.ln ________________________ • ______________ _
Nonfamily woman ____________________________________ _
Father--;,hil,Jren .....•.................................
Molher--;,hildren .............................. . ....•..
10.0
7~. 8
5.3
.2
2. 5
I 5,100. 0 I 3,100.1380 I
OC,6
I, 9281
JOO. 0
6.3
85. 3
3.6
2. 2
9.6
80.3
4.0
.3
2.8
3.0
2. 2
2. 5
14. 9
72. 3
4.8
.5
3.8
3. 7
3,472
100.0
I, 152
100.0
754
100. 0
398
100.0
10. 1
74.9
7. 5
.5
3. I
3.9
11. 4
72.9
5.6
.9
3.8
5. 4
8.0
76. 9
5.3
.5
3. 7
5.6
18.1
65. 4
I, 704
100. 0
I 100.34210
I.
1.2
Ii. 7
65. 2
6.6
.6
4. 4
6.5
238
100.0
148
100.0
100.0
6. 7
81.1
4.1
1.5
4.0
6.0
9. 2
72. 4
6.0
.8
5.9
6. 7
880
1.3781
2.
2581
JOO.
0
100. 0
100.0
In!
100. 0
.I
12. 6
80. 2
3.9
362
100. 0
13. 7
n.o
4. 5
.I
2.6
2.1
-------2.1
600
7121
~o
~o
5.9
85.4
3.4
I ~o
I, 1221
I, 066
JI. 4
81.4
4. 9
.4
I. 5
.4
~o
2.2
3.3
10. 3
76. 7
9.6
.2
1.8
1.4
314
100. 0
512
100.0
614
100.0
202
100.0
5. 1
82. 2
4. 4
10. 2
71. 5
12. 1
12. l
73. 6
10. 4
.3
2. 0
1. 6
12.9
i9. 2
5.9
1.0
1.0
10. 3
72. 7
11.0
----------------3.1
2. 7
I ~o
284
~o
156
100.0
9.9
79. 6
6.6
9.0
76. 9
6.4
.6
.7
2.6
6. 1
296
70
100.0
74
100.0
8561
6.8
84.8
G.5
-------------- -------I. 4
4.2
OWNERS
Number..•..•...•...............•••....••.....•..
Percent.•.•......................••••••••.•......
0
(Q
r:.
[
;:,
'<;
C')
0
~
h
Husband-wife ........ -•·············•· .............. _
Hushand-wife-children
.............................
Nonfamily man _______________
. _________________ . _____ ._
Nonfnmily woman ............................. . ...... .
Fnther--;,hildren .•.•.•.....•....••••••••••...•.•...•.. .
Mother--children .................................•....
6.0
-------2. 7
5.4
90
13. 3
67. 8
6. 7
2. 2
II.I
8.V
----------------3.2
2. 7
5.1
3.5
--------
100. 0
5. 4
83.8
11.4
68.6
5. 7
- --- - -- .7
11. 4
2. g
I. 3
8.8
--------
5.4
78.4
5.4
-------2. 7
8.1
TENANTS I
Number ......................................... .
Percent ......................................... .
5,880
100.0
Husband-wife ....................................... .
9.6
81.6
Husband-wife--;,hildren .............•.•..........•...
Nonfamily man .....................•.••••••..•......•.
Nonfamlly woman .................................... .
Father-children ...................................... .
Mother-children ..................................... .
4. 6
.1
2. 4
1. 7
8.6
81. 4
3.3
.2
3.3
3.2
I
7521
100. 0
IM
100. 0
13.3
79. 8
4.0
15. 4
67. 9
10. 3
2.1
2.6
8. 8
,---1---+----t---5. 7
87.1
2. g
-------2. 0
2. 3
13. 2
72.5
4. I
.5
6. 2
.. 6
13. 7
n.8
6. 0
2. 2
L8
.8
3981
100. 0
881 100.50!1
8641 100.5601
100. 0
0
100. 0
0
2. 5
11. 4
79. 5
4.5
82
100.0
75. 7
2.0
1.0
2. 3
2. 3
12. 2
11. I
82.0
4.6
7.5
85.4
6.3
9.3
83.2
8.6
5.G
7.3
1.G
l.G
I. 8
1. g
1.2
.6
14
8.3
80. 3
.2
~
~
;;:
0
:::s
-::0
~
c;·
Q
:::s
R.
::0
~
::,.
Q
---........
§.
0"
Q
214
100. 0
,----1---1---1---1---1---1--6. 5
88.0
"?j
u
CROPPE RS
N um ber __-· · •.. • •. . . • .• - · - -· · · - - · ·. - - .. • . • • . . . .. •
I
Percent ...•. .... . . . .. ..... ... •. ••••• -•• . . .... •. . .
2, 214
100. 0
H usband- wile _..• • . . • • _. . _.... . . .. . .. . . . .. •. __. -· • . ..
Il usbanrl- wire-cbil<lren . . -· ..•• _. • .•• .. . . _. . .. . . .. . . .
11. 2
82. 4
3. 7
9. 6
83. 9
3. 9
1. 6
I. 6
1.0
Nonfam il)• m an .· -· ······ · · -· · · · · · · ·---- - -··
N onfamil y wom an. •·· · · · · · - ·- · · · ··· ··· ··· ··
}'atber--cbildren .. .. . .. .
M otber--cbildren . . . . . . . . -· . ... _. _. _. __.. . . .. .•.•.. . .. -
I. I
I 170
100. 0
Il ui;band- wire . . . . . . . . . ... . • .. · ·· · · · - . . . . .
Husb:1nrl - wife- d 1ild rcn . . .. . .. . ______ . .
Nonfam ily m an . ... - ··_ . . .. • • . •. . • . .•• . •.. . . . . . . .. •. . . .
N ontamily woman _________ · · · · · ·· · -- ·
F ather -ch1 klren . •••• ... .. • . . ..... _. .. . . • . . .• • • . . . ... ..
M ot her-ch ildren •.. . . •.•. ... . • . . .• • _• . .• . . .. ·· - · . . - • . .
14 9
72. 1
6. R
.2
2. 1
3. 0
I
1, 656 ·1 1.006
100. 0
100. 0
6221
100. 0
15. I
70. ·l
I
6. 0
I
15.
76. I
4. 9
89. 0
3. 2
5-iS
100. 0
1. 8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1. 4
448 1
174 1
330
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
5
4. 2
.3 - - -- -- - -
li . 3
61 . 0
tu. 9
84. 3
3 t
3. 0
.5
I
w;
100. 0
24 1
67.
1. 7
l~ 1: : : : : ::: . :1 .: : : : : :: 1: :::: : :: 1: : : :: : :: 1: ::::: : :1 : :: : : : : :1 :: ::: :: ·
42
(>)
10. 1 I
8!:; ...~•)...
(' I
I. 4
1. 8
~. 6
1··-·-···1········1···-···········1........
·····-··1·······31-·····--·
.······ ....... ········1 ........
--·---··· · ·· -· ·.I- -. -·-· · -·-- .... ··· ·· ·······---- ··-· ----· ······ ·
13. 6
1.1
1. 8
!i. 3
442 1
11 01 · ··· · -···· 1- · · · ··· ·1 · · -- -· -· 1- -··-·· ·1··· · · · -·1 - --- ·- - -1- -··· · · ·
JOO. O
100.0 · ·-- --··-- · · · -·· ·· ··· - · ··· . .... . •• . . .. .. .• · · · ·-· ·· ·· ·-· - · ·
80. 5
3. 6
.4
I I. 3
74. 1
I
15. 8
77. 8
3. 2
I. 4
.j_
2.6
7. 4
650
100. 0
JS
10
40
I
,8
100. 0
(')
(' )
( 11
(1)
(')
(1)
(')
(')
( 1)
23. J
61. 5
(1)
(I)
12. 8
(')
2. 6
12. 6
38
(')
22
0
(' )
(' )
Cl'J
i::
"'C:!
"'C:!
(')
( I)
(')
(1)
(l)
(')
(1)
1- - - -- - - - 1- - -- - - - -• - ---- - - -
Percent . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .... .. . . ••. .•• . . . _.. ... . .
H usband - wi fe ... ... ..... . . • ... • .. .. . . • •. . . • . . • ... . . ..
Ilu.1bnnd- wife--childreo .. . . . . . . . •.. . . . . . . . -... -· .. - ..
Nonfaruil r mnn . . . . . • . ..
:-lonfamil y w oman . . . . ....... .. • .
Fat her-chi ldren . .. . . . . . .. . . ... • . ·M other -children . •.. . . . . . . . - . .. .. --- - - · - . • · - · •·· · - · ···
(1l
:3
(1l
NON AO R!Cl' LTO RAL W ORKERS
Nuru bt> r . .. .... .... . .. .. _. .. .. . .. . . . . - · -· .. . . .. _..
-.,
I. 206
100. O
12. 3
78. 3
5. 0
.2
3. I
I. I
I 100.482O I
12. 0
380
100. o
10. 5
I
102
100. 0
77. 3
83 •
17. 6
M. O
5. 8
2. I
19. 6
I
181
100. 0
10. 9
78. 3
4. 3
--. -4: 1· 1· - . -.;: 2· 1· - . . :i." 9-1 · - - - 4_. j.
• 8 . . • . ... .
3. 0
2. ·i
I
168
100. 0
10
(' )
11. 9
8. 9
'U I...~'!...
a: 5.
-. . .
f . . . . .. . .
158 1
104 1
114 1
106
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
1· . . (,-) · ..
( ' )
8 1. 0
5. 0
1. 3
24
(1)
24
10
(1)
(1)
·-··-···1 (') (')
5. 8
3. 5
-·-··-·· ·-······ ........ ····•-··1••-•···· ········
15. 4
mo
8.8
mo
I . 9 .• . • . . . .
I. 3
2. 5 -- -- · · . .
I. 7
20.
~ 84
I. 9
~
~
~
(1)
• . .. _.. .
( I)
I. 9
(')
-- - -·· · ·
(')
1··.......... -• .......... ······•·
:::i
Q
q::
"'-3
Q
Q"
-
(1l
c.i
Exclui;i,·e or croppers in the 2 Cott.on Areas.
• Percent c ot compu ted on a base of less than 50 cases.
1
!;?
'<
0
0
ar.,
~
~
~
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
114
TABLE 9.-NmmER oF GAINFUL WoRKERs IN RURAL Rm..mF HouSERoLDB,
UsuAL 0ccuPATION OF THE HEAD AND BY SIZE OF HouSEBoLD, JUNB 1935
BT
(138 counties representing 9 agrlrultural areas]
Number of persorui per boosebold
Number of RRinfUI
workers
Total
1
2
3
5
G
7
' -- - - - -
9
8
10
11
12or
mon
OWNERS
Number ______ 6,418
862
616
614
210
MO
904
980
890
368
106
228
Percent. •• ___ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100
100.0
- - - - - - ---1---1---1--- - - - - - - - - - - - -
ol____________________
------ -----· ------ ----------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -----·
__________________ 51.4 100.0 84.1
61.6 53.7 47.4 45.0 42.2 38.1 28.8 23.8 17.0
12.0
2 ___________________ 2.~.4 ····-- 15.9 32.5 29.0 28.1
3 ___________________ 13.4 -···-- ------ 6.0 13.4 15.0
4 ___________________ 6.4 --···- ------ ------ 3.9
8.8
6ormore ___________ 3.4 __________________ ·-····
.7
27.6
17.4
7.2
2.8
27.9
16.9
6.8
6.2
24.5
19.5
13.2
4.7
26.1
20.6
15.8
8.7
21.0
29.5
8.6
17.1
11.3
20.8
24.5
26.4
l{.0
26.0
20.0
2&0
Numher ______ 9. f>l!4
114
812 1,532 1, 774 I, 524 1,240
9118
700
li06
246
164
Percent. _____ 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 JOO. 0 JOO. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 JOO. 0 100. 0 100. 0 JOO. 0
104
100. 0
TKN.&.NTS I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---1---1---f---l--
o1____________________
------ -· -··- ----------- ·- ·--- ------ ------ ------ ------ -- ---- ------ ------ -----__________________ 64.9 100.0
89.4 80.7 70.9 65.6 61.5 56.6 43.7 39.1 35.0 22.0
11.5
2 ___________________ 20.7
3 ___________________ 8.7
4 ___________________ 4.0
6ormore ___________ 1.7
--------·-·
______
______
10.6 17.5 21.1 23,5
-··--- 1.8
7.4
6.8
______ ______
.6
3.8
______ ______ ______
.3
21.1
10.5
6.8
1.1
21.1
13.2
5.6
3.5
28.3
16,6
6.8
4.6
26.9
li.4
11.9
4.7
21.1
22.0
13.8
8.1
31.7
17.0
18.3
11.0
24
274
398
!WI
290
236
178
110
78
(') 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
36
(')
22
(')
9.6
32.7
23.l
23.1
CKOPPKR8
Numher ______ 2,024
Percent._ ____ 100.0
o___________________ ·---·- ------ ---··· ·····- ----·· ---·-'-----------·-·----- 68.9
(')
85.4 81.9 73.3 63.4
2. __________________ 10.6 ------ 14.6 15,6 lfJ.9 26,0
3___________________ 7, 3 ·----- ·----- 2. 5
8. 2
6. 0
4--------·-···------ 3. I ______ ·----· --·--- I. 6
2. I
6 or more___________ 1.1 ______ ··---- ______ ·---·.7
r ARll
----- ------ -----60.5 58. 6 51.0
10. 5 20. 2 23.6
7. 6 13. 5 14. 5
5.6
7. 3
3.4
3.6
2. 2
-----2.~. 6
3-~- 9
23. 1
12. 8
2. 6
12
(')
-------<•>"- -----(')
(')
(')
(')
(1)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
LA.BORKR8
Numher ______ 6,R50
302 1,076 1,392 1,214
9/i6
714
516
324
180
98
Percent. _____ 100. O 100. O 100. O JOO. O 100. 0 100. O 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. O
«
(')
34
(')
o1____________________
··---- -----· ----------- ------ ----·- ·----- -----· --·--- ------ ·-·--- ---··-----__________________ 74.2 100.0
85.3 8.1.8 76.2 70.5 63.9 62.0 52.6 52.2 28.6
(')
(')
2------------------- 17.1 ·--·-- 14.7 14.1 17.3 18.4 20.7 24.4 21.0 22.2 30.6 (•)
(')
3___________________
4--•-----------··-··
5 or more___________
6. 5 -··--- ·----- 2.1
5. 3
J.7 ··--·· ·----- -----· J.2
. 5 __________________ -----·
9, 2
J.7
.2
13.1
2.0
.3
8. 5
4.3
.8
20. 4
3.7
2. 4
!fl. 7
7.8
1.1
24. 5
12.2
4.1
(')
(')
(')
(')
(I)
(')
NONAGRICULTURAL
WORKli:118
Numher _____ 23,136 1, 712 3. 428 4,236 4, 146 3,246 2. 406 I, 606 I. 004
634
400
106
Percent ______ 100. O 100. O 100. o 100. O 100. O JOO. O JOO. O 100. 0 100. 0 100. O 100. O JOO. O
o___________________ --·-·-
.2
1. __________________ 74. 7
99. 8
2 ___________________ 17. 4, -----3___________________ 5. 6
··---•---·--------------- 1.8 -----5 or more___________
.5
-----.1 ---··· --·--- ····-- -···-87.4 81.6 76.0 70,8 65.6 60.4
12.6 16.7 18.5 20.8 21.9 21.4
9.0 12. 8
6.3
------ 1.6
4. 9
2. 0
2.6
4. 7
------ -----•6
.1
.9
.7
-·. ·-57. 0
22.1
13. 7
5.8
1.4
-·· ·-50.5
26, 2
14,2
6.9
2.2
-- _--37.0
28. 5
23.5
8. 0
3.0
-· --·- ----·28,6
27.9
27, 5
14. i
20. 4
18. 0
27_g
10, 2
13. 3
11.5
Exdusfve of croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
• Percent not computed on a base of less than 50 cases.
t
Dig ii Zed by
122
100. O
Goog [e
Supplementary Tables
115
TABLE 10.-NmmER
OF GAINFUL WoRKERS IN RURAL REHABILITATION HoUSBeoLDB, BY USUAL 0cCUPATION OF THE HEAD AND BY SIZE OF HoUSEHOLI>, JUNB
1935
(138 counties representing 9 agricultural
area.•)
Number or persons per howehold
Number or ((sinful 1----,-----,---,-----,-----,-------,,----,---,---.--.------.----,-workers
_______
_ _ _2_ _3_ _'_ _5_ _6_ _'_ _s__9 _ ~ _ 1 _ 1 _ :
~
I
OWN&RS
Number ______ 3,472
102
354
488
,574
554
360
370
272
168
122
Percent ______ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
44
(1)
M
100.0
o-··········-·-·---· ...... ------ -·-··- ------ -····- ··-·-· --···- --···· ···--- ------ ··---- ------ ------
1-••• ·-··--·-·-----· 58.1 100.0 88.7 74.2 58.2 56.0
2------------------- 23.2 ----·- 11.3 23.4 26.8 28.5
3---··-·------··--·- 12.2 -·-··· -·---- 2.4 13.6 11.2
'·-----·-··----··--- 3.5 -·-··· ·····- -····- 1.4
3.2
5ormore.-•.••••••. 3.0 --···· ···--· -····- ··-··- 1.1
52.2
25.6
12.2
6.7
3.3
50.3
22.1
18.4
6.5
2.7
43.4
2.5.0
20.6
5.1
5.9
31.0
29.8
25.0
7.1
7.1
24.6
27.9
24.6
6.5
16.4
l
(1)
(1)
(1
(1
12.6
6.3
37.6
15.6
28.1
('
T&NANTS I
Number ____ ._ 5,880
82
498
908
994
972
738
586
448
292
182
90
Percent_ ••••• 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
90
100.0
0.-·-···-···---·-·-· -----· ------ ------ -----· -----· -----· ----·· ---·-- -····· ·-·--- ------ -----· ·-·-··
L-·------·-····-·-- 64.4 100.0 88.4 78.9 73.3 68.3 61.0 52.3 46.9 39.0 33.0 8.9
6.7
2--·--·-····---·-·-- 20.5 ------ 11.6 18.9 20.3 20.2 21.1
3------·-·----·----· 9.8 ------ ------ 2.2
6.6
9.2 11.7
4-------·-··--······ 3.1 --·--- ------ ·-··-.8
2.3
4.9
5or more ••·-·-····- 2.2 --··-- -·-·-- ----·- ------ ----·· 1.3
25.6
14.0
6.1
2.0
24.6
17.4
5.8
5.3
24.7
23.3
8. 2
4.8
24.2
20.9
6.6
15.3
31.1
37.8
6. 7
15.5
Number ______ 2,214
204
340
356
366
296
244
164
116
64
Percent. _____ 100.0 -----· 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
40
(')
17.8
24.4
16.6
35.6
CROPP&RS
24
(1)
o
•••• ·-·-·--------------- -----1-._.
_______________ -----62.4 -----77.5 ----··
79.4 ----·66.3 -----63.9 ---··64.9 ---·-59.1 -----45.1 -----36.3 ----·43.8 -----(1) -----(')
2•••• ·--·-·-·------- 22.5 -----· 22.5 20.0 24.7 22.4
3-·-···------------- 9.4 ---·-· -----.6
8.4
9.3
4 ___________________
3.8 ------ -----· -----.6
3.3
5ormore-----·-·--- 1.9 ____________ ------ -·---- 1.1
18.2
10.1
6.4
1.4
17.2
16.4
6.7
1.6
31.7
14.6
3.7
4.9
31.0
17.2
8.6
6.9
21.9
21.9
6.2
6.2
(1)
(1)
(')
(')
(1)
(')
(')
(2)
JABIi U.BORJ:RS
Number_. ___ 1,170
8
158
272
228
190
144
80
38
24
18
8
Percent. •• ___ 100. 0
(1)
JOO. O JOO. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. o
(')
(')
(')
(')
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --·1---+---
2
(1)
o----····---------------- ---------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ·--------··
-·---- ------ ----··
!__ _________________ 73.2
(1)
73.4 87.5 73.7 73.7 69.5 iO.O
(1)
(1) ··---- (') --·-••
2---·----·---------· 18.8 -----3 ___________________ 5.5 -----4 __________ • ________
2.2 -----5 or more•••••• _____
. 3 -·-··-
26.6
9.6 21.9 20.0 19.4 17.5
(1)
(')
------ 2.9
3.5
5.3
6.9
6.0
(1)
(')
------ -----.9
1.0
2.8
7.5
(')
(1)
--··-- --··-- ------ ----·- 1. 4 ------ ------ --·---
(1)
(1)
(')
(')
(')
(')
------ ------
( 2)
------ ----··
132
196
226
212
160
120
74
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
(1)
NONAGmCULTUBAL
WOU.R8
Number__. __ I, 206
Percent------ 100.0
6
(I)
42
(1)
24
8
6
(')
(1)
o___________________ ------ -----· ------ ·----- ------ -----· ------ ------ ------ ----·- ------ ------ -----·
L-·------------·--- 72. 0
(1)
93. 9 76. 6 76. I 70. 8 70. 0
6.1 21. 4 14. 2 19. 8 17. 5
6.5 ------ ------ 2.0
8.0
7.5
7.5
2.3 ------ ------ ------ 1. 7
1.9
3.8
. 8 ··---- ______ ______ ______ ______ 1. 2
2___________________ 18. 4
3.-------·---------·
4-·------------···-·
6 or more--·--······
58. 4
33. 3
3.3
1. 7
3. 3
64. 9
16. 2
13.5
5.4
(1)
(1)
(1)
(•)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(')
(1)
(1)
(I)
(')
(1)
(1)
------ -----·
--·-·- ______
(1)
1 Exclusive or croppers In the 2 Cotton AreM.
• Percent not computed on a base or less than 50 cases.
01g1• zed by
Goog Ie
Farm ers on R elief and Rehabilitation
116
TAB LE 11.-
CUR.R ENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF HEADS I OFF ARM FAMILIES R ECEIVll\' G
RELI E F , BY RF.sJOENCE AND BY AREA , J UNE 1935
[ 138 counties representing 9 agricnltun1J areas)
Peroont or open country
Percent or village residents
resioents
Per-
PerCur rently emresidoont
ployoll atIng in
Cur- resldopen
rently Ing In
coon- Total Usual Other unem- village Total
try
ployed
occupaoccupation
t.lon
oent
Area
Cu rTently employed at-
Currentl y
Usual Other uaemoccupa- occupa- ployed
tion
Lion
- -- - - - - -- - - - --- - - - - - - - -- - - -
FAR)( OP EBA TORS
All areas_- ··· · · · 88.8
--Eastern Cotton __ ____ _ 80. 4
Western Cotton __ _. __. 87. 3
Appalachian-Otark _. _ 93. I
Lnke States Cut-O,·er. 95. 5
Dairy __ _____ 89. 6
Hay and
n ett ___ __ ____ ____ 73. 9
Corn
93. 9
85. 1
06. 4
~~i·~t--_-::::::
~n~r
Ranching ____ ____ ---- -
100. 0
00. l
1. 3
8. 6
11. 2
100. 0
40. 4
7.3
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
82. 4
98. 1
97. 3
.0
88.1
98. 0
93. 9
9o. 6
3. 3
.1
.5
1.5
2. 4
.2
.9
14 . 3
1.8
2. 2
9. 9
9. 5
1.8
5. 2
4.4
12. 7
6. 9
4. 5
10. 4
26. 1
6. I
I◄ . 9
33. 6
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
25. 3
85.8
52. 7
33. 8
16. 2
20. 6
10.
62. 4
13. 3
100. 0
95.1
1. 7
3.2
9. 7
100. 0
64. 9
4. 8
30.3
3. 5
7. 3
27. 2
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
51.
i3. 7
89. 0
76. 9
42. I
30. 8
40. 0
50. 0
82. 5
3. 4
15. 6
1.0
7. 7
2. 6
11.5
6. 7
2-5. 0
H.8
10. 5
10. 0
15. 4
65. 3
57. 7
53.3
25. 0
17. 5
- --- --- - - - - - - - - - - --100.--0 - 34. 2
4. l
61. 7
4. 1
100. 0
26. 4
13. 6
52. 3
---
.4
10. 5
2. 6
13. 7
g_ 5
18. 9
I. 3
69. 5
61.4
13.
36. 8
6.1. 6
70. l
69. 9
70. 3
36.3
OW NERS
All areas ___ __ ___
Eastern Cotton ___ ____
Wes tern Cotton __ _•·- _
Appalachian-Or.ark __.
Lnke States Cut-Over.
Hay and Dairy _____ ___
Corn llelt ____ __ ___ ____
00. 3
- -
87. 3
87. 3
92. 3
96. 1
89. 5
73. 6
96. 5
92. 7
72. 8
\Vhei::.\-_·::: :: ::
~r~~r
Ranching ___ _____ ___ __
- - - --- - - - - -----11. 5
80. 5
2. 0
100. 0
100. 0
12. 7
- -- --- ---
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
93. 9
98. 8
97. 2
84. 0
87. 6
98. 6
90. 2
94. 4
1.6
.6
1.9
3. 7
8.3
.2
3. 9
2. 8
4. 6
.6
.9
11. 7
4. 1
I. 2
6. 9
2. 8
88. 7
100.0
84. 0
3. 3
12. l
11.3
100.0
25. 2
9. 7
1
9. 2
93. 6
93. 5
89. 7
74 . 0
92. I
82. 0
56. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
84. 5
97. 0
84 . 9
89. 5
85. 2
90. 6
9-1. 4
00. 2
4. 3
.4
8. l
2. 3
3. 6
I. I
.6
2. 0
11.2
2. 6
i.0
8. 2
11.3
2.3
5.0
7. 8
10. 8
6. 5
6. 5
10. 3
26. 0
7. 9
17. I
44 . 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
17. 9
83. 3
14. 9
67. 2
16. 7
25. 6
10. 5
14. 6
6. 1
42. 5
16. 7
2. 6
15. I
10. {
I .2
2. 5
i4.'
75. 0
i5. 7
65. 0
84 . 6
100. 0
54. 6
8. 3
37. I
15. 5
100. 0
II. 5
8. 9
79. 6
12. 7
7. 7
3. 9
10. 5
26. 4
TBNANTS t
All areas ______ __
Eastern Cotton _ ______
Western Cotton __ _. __ _
Appalacbian-Otark ____
Lake States Cut-O\"~r.
Hay and Dairy _____ ___
Corn llelt. ______ __ __ __
~ ring W heat. ____ ___
in ter W heat_ __ ___ ___
Ranching _____ ___ _. ___
65.
- -- --- - - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --6. 2
23. 5
70. 3
10. 5
100. 0
89.5 100. 0
5. 9
50. 0
H. I
.3
71.
CROPPERS
All aro!lS ____ ____
- -- - -- - - - - - - - - - -
-
- - - - - - - - - ---
Eastern Cotton. ____ __ _ 84. I 100. 0
51. I
39. 5
9. 4
100. 0
7. 0
15. 9
4. 7
3
Western Cotton ____ ___ 85. 0 100.0
7. I
21.6
ii. 3
100. 0
16. 7
15. 0
13. 9
61U
Appalachlan-Otark . ·- _______ ------- -------- ---- -- -- -------- ------ - ·----- -- ---- --- - ---- --- - --- -- -- Lake States Cut-Over_ . . ____.
-- -------- -------- -------- --- ---- -------- -- --- -- - ---- -- -- ---- ---Hay and Dai ry ______ __ ----- -- ----------- ----- --- ------ -- -- ------ ---- --- ----- --- --- ----- --- ----- --- ----Corn llelt. _________ __ _
-- ------- - -------- --- ---- - ----- -- ---- ---- -------- -------- ------- --------Spring Wheat. ___ ____ _ --- --- - ------------ - ----- -- --- ----- -- ----- ----- ----- --- ------- - -------W inter Wheat __. ___ __ -- ---- ------- ---- -- -- -------- --- -- -- ------- --------- - -- -- -- -- -- ------ ------ -Ranching _____ _______ _
---- --- --- ---- ----- --- -------- ------ -- --- -- -- -- ---- -- ---- ---- ------ -- -- ---- --
l' ARY LABORERS
All areas __ ___ ___
64. 1
100.0
Ii. 0
7. 5
75. 5
79. 5
60. 8
75. 6
i7. 8
70. 9
42. 8
68. 2
58.8
20. 3
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
14. 9
ll. 7
25. 6
30. 4
15. 4
21. 9
33. 8
15. 0
6. 8
3. 0
2. 0
16.4
8. 9
12. 4
9. 6
14. I
8. 3
22. 7
82. I
86. 3
58. 0
60. 7
72. 2
68. 5
52. l
76. 7
iO. 5
-- - - - - - -- - - - - --
Eastern Cotton.. . . __ __
Western Cotton ___ __ __
Appalachian-Ozark. ___
Lake States C ut-Over_
Hay and Dairy ____ ___
Corn Belt,_____ ____ ____
it:\-.~::::::
~Q[~~!r
Ranching __ ____ __ __ ___
' Who were gainful workers.
35. 9
100. 0
7. 4
4.. 6
88. 0
30. 2
24. 4
22. 2
29. 1
57. 2
4 1.8
41. 2
73. 7
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
5. 9
I I. I
6. 3
2. I
.7
11.8
4. 8
1.6
5. 0
7. 9
89. l
81.0
93. 7
96. 5
84. 8
--- ------ ----100. 0
13. 6
20. 5
5. 2
81. 2
1. 4.
6. 6
2. 0
7. 1
• Exclusi ve of croppers in the 2 Cotton Areas.
Digitized by
Google
86. 2
I
98. 4
117
Supplementary Tables
TABLE 12.-PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FARM OPERATORS IN THE UNITED STATES IN
1935 AND OF FARM OPERATORS 1 RECEIVING RELIEF GRANTS OR REHABILITATION
ADVANCES IN JUNE 1935, BY TENURE AND BY AREA
[138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas]
Area and tenure
United
Reller
States
and reCensus General habilita•
relief.
tion comor Airri•
culture, Junelll35 bined,
1935
June 1935
Area and tenure
---
All areas:
Farm
operators
•..
Owners
_________
Tenar.. ts t ______ •
Croppers •••••••
Eastern Cotton:
Farm operators •••
Owners ...••.•••
Tenants ..••••••
Croppers ..••••.
Western Cotton:
Farm operators ...
Owners ..•.••••.
Tenants .•••..•.
Croppers .•..•••
Appalach1an-Ozark:
Farm operators .••
Owners ______ --Tenants ..•..•..
Lake States Cut-Over:
Farm operators •..
Owners _________
Tenants .•.•.••.
100.0
M.4
34.5
11.1
100.0
35.-i
53. 4
11. 2
--- - - 100.0
33. 3
52. 4
14.3
100.0
33.8
35. 4
30.8
100.0
21.1
29.8
49. 1
100.0
22.3
40.1
37.6
100.0
38.1
43. 0
18.9
100.0
12.0
49.6
38.4
100.0
12.8
51.1
36. l
100.0
31.8
100.0
40.1
69.,9
JOO. 0
40. 5
69.5
100.0
84.9
15.1
100.0
78. 3
21. 7
JOO. 0
81.3
18. 7
68. 2
United
Reller
Stales
and reCensus General
habilita•
relief,
dAJ(ri•
tioncomculture, Junel935 blned,
lll35
Junelll35
Hay and Dairy:
Farm operators ••.
Owners ..•••.••.
Tenants •••••••.
Corn Belt:
Farm operators •••
Owners ..••.••••
Tenants .•••.•••
Spring Wheat:
Farm operators ..•
Owner,> .........
Tenants ........
Winter Wheat:
Farm operators •..
Owners ..•••••••
Tenants ••••..•.
Ranching:
Farm operators ••.
Owners ..•••.•.•
Tenants .•••••.•
100.0
20.0
100.0
48.8
51.2
100.0
51.3
-i8. 7
100.0
54.1
45.9
100.0
25.2
74.8
100.0
22. 7
77.3
100.0
62. 4
37.b
100.0
41. 6
58.4
100.0
39.ft
100.0
52. 2
47.8
100.0
2'1. 2
77.8
100.0
100.0
76. 4
23.6
100.0
61.8
38.2
100.0
80.0
60.-i
23. l
76.11
58.2
41.8
t By usual occupation.
• Exclusive of croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
Dig,
zedbyGoogle
........
00
i
TABLE 13.-UsuAL 0cCUPATION oF HEADs OF RURAL REHABILITATION HouSEHoLDs, 1 BY RESIDENCE, BY CoLOR, AND BY A.REA, JUNE 1935
(138 counties representing 9 agricultural ueas]
~
W estem Cotton
Ea.stem C'otton
All ueas
Usual occupation
I
I
I
Total
I White I Negro
I
I
T otal
I White I Negro
AppR•
lachian•
Ozark
Lnko
States
C'ut•
o.-er
Hay
nnrl
Dairy
Corn
Dell
I
Spring Winter! Ranch•
lng
Wheat Wheat
----------------------1----1---1---1 ---1---1---1---1----1---1---1---1---1---1--RUBAL
Number •••••.••••••••••••• • •• •• •• ••• • • •• • . .•.. •. • ,
Peroent.. ••••••• ••• . ••••.•• •• • • •• • •••• ••• . •• ••• ..
........................................... .
Agriculture
Farm operators ..•.••.•.. . ................. . ... . ...
0
N
i
~
C')
0
a(i.)
I
6, 170
100. o
Tenants'··· ············· ···· ··············· ···
91. 4
83. 0
24. 0
42. 2
15. 9
8. 4
8. 6
Skilled and semiskilled ........ ..... ... . . ...... .. . .
Unskilled ••••••••••• •• •• ••• ••• ••••••••••••••••• ... •
3. 2
4, 5
92. 2
82. 1
18. 7
36. 6
26. 8
10. 1
7. H
.6
2. 6
4. 7
13, 330
100. 0
5,864
100. 0
8-1. 8
2.~. ~
42. 4
16. 0
8. 2
8. 0
82. 8
19. 0
36. 7
27. 1
Owners . •••.••• •••••• ••• ••••••••• ••• •• . •.•.• ...
cg
13,950
100. o
F~~~~~~s: :: :::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::
....................................... .
Nonagriculture
Wh ite collar• •. .. . .• •••••• • •••.•••••••••.• . .. ..• . •.
.0
I
2041
I 100.9181
0
~
3, 0061
100. o
2.
100. o
2, 2181
100. o
1, 7981
100. O
420
100. O
8881
100. 0
7221
100. 0
1, ~21
100. 0
I, 250
100. 0
00.4
70.1
19. 0
3-1. 7
25. 4
II. 3
9.6
.9
3. 6
6.1
95. 4
87. 5
18.1
00. 7
74. 7
8. 3
41. R
24. 6
16. 0
9. 3
I. 3
3. 6
4. 4
96. 2
86. 2
21.4
37. 2
27. 6
10. 0
3. 8
82. 2
80. 2
35. 4
44. 8
85.6
84. 2
91.6
85. 3
16. 2
69. 1
9i. 4
93. 2
32. 2
61.0
96. 7
9-1. 7
23. 3
71.4
88.1
72. 0
12. 2
91.1
87. 6
47. 9
39. 6
29. 5
7. 9
4. 6
.I
'5
4.0
91. i
76. 8
10. 7
40. 9
25. 2
14. 9
8. 3
I. 3
2. 9
4.1
2. 9
9. 9
8.3
2. 0
3. 0
.6
1. 3
9. 11
3,780
100. 0
2. 084
100.0
2,150
100. 0
1, 742
100. 0
408
100.0
854
100. 0
600
100. 0
1, 246
100. 0
1, 192
100. 0
876
100. 0
296
100. 0
162
100. 0
91.0
79. 7
19.1
34 . 8
25. 8
11.3
00.0
88.3
18. 7
30. 9
29. 7
91. 7
76. 6
IO. 8
40. 9
24. 0
15. I
8. 3
I. 3
2. 9
◄. I
90. 7
74. 4
8. 3
42. 0
24. 1
16. 3
96.1
86. 3
21.6
36. 3
28. 4
9. 8
83. 6
SJ. 7
36. 8
45, 9
87. 2
!lll. 4
74. 2
12. 2
88. 0
48. 3
39. 7
87.2
16. 8
70. 4
95. 4
33. 3
62. 1
95. 3
23. 0
72. 3
77. 8
38. 3
39.5
16. 4
12. 8
I. 5
4. i
7. 2
2. 7
.7
.7
-------1. 2
39. 9
300
100. 0
100. 0
77. 2
36. 6
40. 6
Agriculture ........... .. . .. . . ...... . .. ... .. . . ..... .... .
Farm operators .. . . •. •.. •. . . ... •.••. .......... .....
Owners •• . •••.••.••.•.•.. ••.•.. •• •• .........•.•
Tenants'·· ······· ·· ········ · ····· ·· ··· · ·······
Croppers ........ .
Farm laborers • ••.
,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
No~f.lt~~:~fi:j-·
Skilled snd semlskllled . •• .•••••• •• •••••..•.. , • ... •
Uoakilled ... ..... ... ...... ..... . . . ....•......... . ..
- 8- - 92.
- -02.0
.8
3. 0
4. 2
10. 0
7. 2
.5
2. 4
4. 3
--- - - - --- - - -
u.o
.7
3. 6
4. 8
7. 7
4.0
.I
'4
3. 6
u. 3
§
~
~
~......
Q
::,
Q.
~
---------------------------------------------···---10. 9
2. 0
I. 4
4. 2
6. 2
3. 6
2. 0
~
11 . 9
3. 3
17. 8
2. 6
8. 6
8. 9
14. 4
Q
c:,o
7
.
7
.
1.0
1.0
7
I.
3
2.
------. 9--------1. 3
2. 0
1. 3
4. 5
6. 9
4. 4
6. 6
OPJ:N COUNTBY
Number_ •••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••.....•••
Percent ••••• ••••••• •• • •• ••• ••••• • •••••• ••••..•• •.
;;:
3. g
I. 4
1. 0
3. 6 .. .. ....
4, 4
2. 9
------------87. 7
97. 3
99.1
112. 4
91.5
·· ·- a.----------·
----------- -- -·-··3.··7- ·-------------J.9
a ---- 6.2
.8
2. 0
II. II
2. I
4. 7
9. 6
8. 6
.8
5. 8
1.U
7. 6
.8
4- 4
2. 4
.u
... .... . .
.7
,2
I.3
12. 3
II. I
-...s=
-
o·
::,
VlJ.LAOll
Number.·-· · ·········· ·· ·· ··················· ··
Peroent ••••• •..••.•• •• .••••.. .• .. ••• . ••• • ••.• •••.
6200
100.
Agriculture .•.•••....••••...•••••• ••••• . •• •••••• ••.• ••.
Farm operators .•••••.•• .•..••••.• •••• . . •.••.••....
Owners .. ••••••••••..•• •• ••.•••....••••••••.•..
Tenants •••••..•• ••.•••••• .•••••• ••••.•••••••. .
Croppers ••••••• .••• . •••••.•••..• ••• .•••. •••••.
Farm laborers ••••••. . .. •••.•• . •.••. •.• •• ••. •. ••.. .
Nonagriculture •••••••••.•. .. ..••••••.•..••••••• •. . ••• .
White collar 1•••.•.•• ••• •• .•••••••• •••••••••••.... .
Skilled and semiskilled .... •....•..• •••••.• .... .....
Unskilled •••••••••••.•••••• •• ••••••••••.•.•.•.• ••..
76. 8
6-1. 5
15. I
35. 5
13. 0
12. 3
• Exclusive ol heads with no usual occupation.
• Exclusi\'e ol croppers in the 2 Cotton Arr~s.
• Proles.<ional, proprietary, and clerical workers .
• Peroent not computed on a base of less than 50 ca.cs.
23. 2
3. 5
8. I
11 . 6
I
306
0
100.
81. I
;o.o
13. I
36. 0
20. 9
11. I
18. D
2.6
5. 2
11.1
I
186
0
100.
i8. 5
67. 7
17. 2
33. 3
17. 2
10. 8
21. 5
•.3
6. 5
10, 7
I
120
0
100.
I
0
100.68
S.S. 0
91. 2
73. 3
6. i
40. 0
26. 6
II. 7
15. 0
82. 4
8. 8
41. 2
32. 4
8. 8
I
100.560
89. 3
82. 1
7.1
35. 7
39. 3
7. 2
10. 7
I
(•) 12
t
•)
i:i
-------(1)
8. 8
---------------------------------· - 3. 6 -------2. 9
3. 3
5. g
7. I -------II. 7
I
(') 34
(•)
(1)
I
(•)32
(1)
36
58
t2
4
100. 0
(•)
(1)
(•)
72. 4
(1)
44. 8
i:i
f' t
(')
(1)
40
(•)
1)
1)
i:i1) r>•)
f>•)
:i
-------- ----27.-- 6-- -------- -------- --------------·--------(•)
(•)
3. 4
41.4
(1)
(1)
(1)
(')
i:i
t:;
r
•)
')
1)
1)
27. 6
3. 5
6. g
17. 2
(1
(•)
1:i
1)
I)
(1)
···c1r··
(1)
... (1j"· · ···c1,···
(1)
--------
~
s::
:g
~
:3
(\
:::,
5
~
c::,,
~
f4
0
cl5"
;=,.
;;:;
2i.
cr-
'<
CJ
0
~
rv
....
1-4
~
TABLE 1 4. -
CuRR E N T E~t PLO Y MENT STA TU S I oF H E ADS AN ll
\\ I E M HERS
o F Ru RAL R E 1.rnF H o t1SEIH) Ln s
A l<l•:A, J U N E l 93j
w nu
A G R I CIJ LTUIIE AS T HE
Us u,1 L
O c cu PA-
~
TION , B l: CoLOR A N D B Y
[138 coun t ies representi n~ 9 n!?l'lcul tu ral areas]
~
Western Cutt ou
I
.
---,-------,--- - - 1 .\p p.d a ·
chunk
Tutu! \1"11 110 ~ egro
o wr
E astern Cotton
Current ernp!o,•ment sta tus
·
I
All
areas
1---------I
I
Tota l
Whit e
I
:--',•gru
I
I
1 - - -1- - - - - - - - -· - - - -- - , - - -
Lnko
,
:Stn tes
JIB}
, ; 11 ' 1
air y
Cut•
o ,·cr
- - - -1-- - -
I CBult
orn I .'4 pnnr.: I\\ 111h~r
\\"hea l II h,•al
- - ,-
-
H ittlf'h•
ing:
FAR M OP t RATOH ~
Numher . .. . . . . . . .. .. . ... . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . ... ... . . .
Percent .• . . .. . . ... . . .. ..... . . .• .. . . . . .. .. . . . .. ...
Em plo)'.erlntusualoccupnt !on . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . ... . . . ...
Empl0J e<l at other occupa t1on . . .. . . . . . ... . .. . . . . ... ..
AJaic11lture. ..... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nona<:ricul t ure . .. ...... . . . ...... _. ... .. . ..... .. ..
U nemployed . - . . .. ... .. .. .. . .. . . . ...... .. . . . . ... . . . . . .
Nu mher. .. _ .. ..OWSE
.... . RS
.. .... . . .. . . .... . . . . . ... ..
P ercent. ... . .... . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .... .. . . . .. ... . . . ..
Emp]oyed at a •ual occu pation . .. . . .. • . . •• . .. . . . ..... . .
Employed at other occupnlion.. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . .. . . .. . . . ... ... .. ... . . . . .... . .. .. . . ... .
Tena nts •.. .... . . . . .. . ... . . .... . .. . . . .. .... ....
0
;::;
NonErl1~~~~~·: :: : :: : :::: : : ::::::::: : :: : ::: : :::
U nemployed .- -··· ··· · ·· · · · · · ····· · ·· · · · · · · · · · · · •·• · · ·
l
TEN A NTR I
~
r::r
'<
C")
0
afv
Number .. . .. . .. . .. .
Percent. . . . .. ...... . • ... . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . .. . . . . .
E mployed at usual occupation _ . .. ... •.. ... . . .. .. .. . . ..
Employed at ot her occupation •.. . . . . . .•. . .. . . • • • . • . ...
Agriculture . •. •. . ••. .. ••. ••. •••.. .... . · - · · ·-· .•.• •.
Owners .. . .. ...... • . .. ...... . . . . ..
C roppers . . . ••• .. . . . .. . .. • ..• •. .. •
Fann laborers. ·- . . . . . .. . . . ... .. . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . .
Nonagrtculture •.. .. . . •• . ... •. ••• ..• . ... . ••••••. •. .
Unemployed . • _••• •• ••. •• • . • •.. . • •••••• • . ... . . . . .. ... . .
l
1R.17S
100. 0
84. 4
2. 1
l. 0
I. I
13. 5
I
2. 252
100.0
I
1. r.72
100. 0
5i.3
4. 2
,.s.o
5. 0
2. i
J. S
38 . .5
3. 5
1.5
40. 0
6. 502
476
100. 0
100. 0
402
I 100.0
...,u I
4. ,
2. 0
2. 6
20. 4
I. ,
.3
1. ,1
34. 5
I
74
u~. o
2. I
1. 4
1.0
~z. o
2. 0
1.2
.4
5. 9
16. 0
18. 9
9, 806
100. 0
674
100. 0
436
100. 0
238
100. 0
84. 9
2. g
1. 9
.8
.3
68. 3
61. 9
6. 4
79. 8
5. 9
4. 2
I. 7
2. 6
- --
I
t . Y72
!00. 0
I
:,m
100. 0
6 /i 7 4
100. 0
h,)'.2
100. o
I
1. fM I::?
100. o
1.
~
;,-..2 1 2, 114
100. 0
4!N
100. 0
1110. 0
4'!2
100. 0
63.~I i5~1 7~~1 ~2 111 97 21 9531 x:i.~I G~~ 1 V3~1 x13.61s1 1'1'-.~'
100.0
100. 0
- - - - -83. 6 ·
i3. 0
I. 0
8. 1
1. 0
2. 7
. . • • .• . •
2. 7
- -- -
2. 5z-2
100.0
302
-
o. 4
I. X
2. 0
I. ~
~- 4 . .. .. • • .
21 8
15.3
220
82
.I
.9
(' )
.•. . . .
.1
.9
2. 7
3 8
2. 61 2
f,I\S
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
I 1110. 0
~--
100. ll
- --
91.4
3. 3
2. 0
1. 3
89. 1
3. 6
1. 8
.9
V7. 6
V7. ~
2. 4
2. 4
2. 4
.7
.5
.5
--
I ,
.7
.9
15. J
7:ts
I
. .
2. i
2. 8
25. 1
3!16
100. 0
100. 0
- --- --t>n. 4
xo. 5
72. 7
2. I
3. 5
Y. I
1. 5
2. 2
i. 1
1. 5
1. 4
4. 6
- - - - -- -
.
.4
.4
6. 0
872
100. 0
- -
96. 6
.4
.2
.2
"'?j
.,
s
.,
:::i
•· - - - • - --
-
I. 6
2. 0
14. Y
I. 3
.4
14. V
110
298
100. 0
100. 0
--89. 9
5. 4
3. 4
1.8
3. 4
1.8
2.
~7.3
"'
§
::::,
-~·
-s.
~
...
:::i
::::,
~
:::r-
:! ····•::• ::::15.4
~:~:::::i:i:····;:r ····;1 ::::::::!::::::::;:::::::~: ····;} ····~} :::::i ::::i:~::::::!:~:::.:~·
--- --- --- ---
.8
1. 0
12. 2
6. 2
6. 0
l. 8
I. 4
1.8
1.2
25. 5
6. 5
1. 8
.9
2. 8
.9
3L. 7
-------), 7
H. 3
5. 3
I, 252
100. 0
--77. I
5. 6
3, 5
1. 0
I. 4
L I
2. 1
17. 3
7.3 • • . • ... •
1. 4
1. 5
16, 0
18. 2
3. 0
7. 3
6. 7
764
I. 186
100. 0
I, 242
100. 0
388
100. 0
184
100. 0
65. 9
6. 6
00. 2
l. 7
1. 2
.6
70. 4
3. 6
2. I
68. 5
I, 038
JOO. 0
214
100. 0
3,932
100. 0
184
100. 0
100. 0
75. 9
6. 0
3, 5
8
83. 1
3. 8
3. 8
1. 9
00. 1
79. 3
8. 7
6. 5
6. 5
&1. 0
2. 3
1.8
I 3
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
1. 7
1. 0
2. 5
18. 1
.4
.4
.3
a. o
.8
---- -··
·----·· · -------·····--I g ------··.I - ---2. 7
.6
•n
........... -· 2-3. 1
-·--12.0
3 5
13. l
u. 7 27. 5
~
3. 3
2. 2
I. I
-·
. . . . - --------~----.. .·-. ····
.6
.6
8. 1
2. I
I 6
17. 0
1, I
I. I
28. 2
:::i
<::l"
--c·
:::i
;:J
CROPPERS
Number __ ___ ___ ______
__ __ ____ __ _____ ____ _______ __
Percent _____ ____ _____ ____ ____________ __ ____ _____ _
2,
070o
100.
Employed nt usual occupation __ ___ ___ ______ ___ ___ ____ .
Employed at other occupation ___ ___ __________ __. _____ _
Agriculture _____ ___ __ __ _______ _________ ______ __ __ __
Owners ___ ______ _________ ___ _____ ____ __ ______ __
Tenants •---- -- --- ------- ____ ________________ __
Farm laborers
__ _--- -------------------------__ _____ ---- __. ________ -_
Nonagriculture
_____________
Unemployed ____ ___ __ __ ____ ___ __ ___ ______ __ ____ _______ _
48. 0
8. 4
5. 6
.4
I. 3
3. 0
2. 8
43. 6
35. 0
8. 7
6. 7
.5
1.8
4. 4
2. 0
56.3
18, 6521
100. 0
3, 736
100. 0
53. 0
2. 7
I. 5
.3
1.0
.2
I. 2
43. 7
6, 850
100. 0
I 100.
I, 1021
0
8341
100.
0
2681
100.
0
33. 8
JO. I
38. 8
4. 5
4. 5
.7
3. 1
.7
7. 4
.5
1. 4
5. 5
2. 7
50. 1
----- -- 50. 7
1------ ----1--------1--------1- -- -----1--------1--------1--------
oos 1 100.7141
100.0
0
2540 _____________________ _____ _________ ____ _____ __ _________ __ _
100.
o.'U
9.8
4. 8
02. 8
8. I
4. 3
.2
.6
74 8
3: I
3. I --- -- ----- - ------- -- -- ---- -------- ---- -- -- --- - - - ·· ----- -- . 8 ---------- -------- --- - ---- -- -- ---- - - -- - - - - -------- --- - ----
--------1---------------i-------I _:_: __ ::1-:::::-:1::::::::I::::::::1---------------
.8
4. 0
3. 5
3.8
29.1
2~3 1----------1- - ·----- 1--. - ---- 1--- -- --- 1- --- - - --1-- -- ---- 1- - - - - - -22~i 1-- --------1- ----- - -1- - - - - - --1-- - -----1--- - - -- - 1- - ------1---- - ---
5. 0
31. 7
F ARJ.f LABORERS
Number _______ ____ _________ ____________________ _
Percent __ _______ _______ ____________ ___ ___ ___ ___ __
Employed at usual occupation ___ __ ______ ______ ______ __
Employed at other occupation _____________ _______ ___ __
Agriculture ____________ __ _____ ____________________ _
Owners _______ _______ _--- --- ---· - -- -- ----- --- -Tenants •-- - ----- -- ____________ -------- ___ ___ __
Croppers ____ __ ___ ___ _______ _______ -------- __ __
Nonagrlculture __
Unemployed __ ____ ____ ___ ___ ____ __ _____ _______ ________ _
I 2, I I, I
I
118
100. 0
618
100. 0
3, 224
100. 0
35. 7
1.8
.7
(')
.3
.4
I.I
02. 5
32. 9
2. 0
.9
39. 3
1.5
.4
.I
a.•. 7
.4
.5
I.I
65. 1
.I
I.I
59. 2
37. 6
I. 7
.7
(1)
.I
.6
1. 0
60. 7
I, /i02
100. 0
810
100. 0
692
100.0
I, 448
100. 0
I , 130
100. 0
.2
2,356
100. 0
I
2. I
1.0
.I
.2
.7
I.I
02. 2
868
100. 0
4. 792
100. 0
42. 6
.9
.2
88. 9
1. 5
1. 3
.2
1.1
-- -- ----
---- --.2
.7
50.5
I
500
100. 0
I
75. 3
2. 0
2. 0
.6
I. 4
1. 872
100. 0
I
39. 4
5. 7
3. 8
I. 7
2. 1
2. 214
100. 0
I uos I
30. 6
5.0
1. 5
.2
1.3
100. 0
81. 9
1.8
I. 5
.I
I. 4
-----4.--1- ----------- ---- ----------------.3
.2
1.9
9. 0
322
100. 0
494
100. 0
27. 3
5. 0
2. 5
18. 2
4. 5
4. 0
1.6
2.4
------2.5
-----2.---------5
.6
----22.---7
5-1. 9
63.8
10.3
67. 7
77. a
144
100.0
1.004
100. 0
1,454
100. 0
244
100. 0
20t
100. 0
334
F ARJ.f LABORERS (llEADS ONLY)
Number __ _____ ____ __ __ _____ _________ __ ___ _______ _
Percent _____ ___ ____ ______________________ _______ _
Employed at usual occupation ____ ______ ______ __ ______ _
Employed at other occupation __ ____ __ ________ _______ __
Agrlculmre ___ ____ ______ ___ _______ ____ _________ ___ .
N onagriculture _. _. ____ ____ __ ___ ______ __ ___ _______ _
Unemployed ___ _____ ___ ________ ____ __ __ _____ _______ ___ _
0
co·
;c;.·
i-i
~
en
;::
:g
~
:3
;;3
~
:::i
.,i::i
c.c::
13.
6. 61
4
4. 0
2. 4
80.0
3. 61
5
14.
1.9
1.6
81.9
3. 4
9.91
2. 4
1.0
. 86. 7
3. 621
W.
I. 2
2. 3
76. 3
2. 91
9
9.
1.4
I. 5
87. 2
10.
3. a0
1.6
I. 4
86, 7
318
100. 0
I
2. 81
5
8.
.6
1.9
88. 7
616
100. 0
14. 31 12501
6. 9
22.
J~:g ----~:~
63. 6
68. 1
2
119.. 51
7. 2
2.0
79. 3
7. 831
14.
2. 3
5. 5
77.0
~9.- 0
8. 2
.8
60. 4
I
JO.
7. 81
8
100. 0
O"
3.
6. 00
::g -----~:~
81. 4
~
,:,,
91. 0
1 Current employment. rerers to the F ebruary employment or the June cases already on relier In February, or to t ho employment at date or application or cases that came on relleC
Crom Morch through June.
• Less than 0.05 percent.
• Exclusi ve o( croppers in !.lie 2 Coll.on Areas.
~
()
0
~,..._
f'v
....l;:o
TABLE 15.-RESIDENCE oF HEADS OF RUl\AL RELIEF HouSEBoLDs WITH AoRICULTU1'E AS TBE UsuAL 0cCUPATION, BY
BY AREA, JUNE 1995
Cow11.
~
AND
to
(138 counties representing 9 agrlculturnl aree.a)
Wes tern Cotton
Eastern Cotton
l:sual occupation
All areas
J---- - - - - 1 - - - ----,---J
Total
I White I Negro
Total
I White I Negro
Lske
States
Cut•
Apfll\•
laehinn•
Oz.ark
Over
Bay
and
Dairy
Corn
Belt
I
I
Sprlo~ Winter Ranch,
lnl
Wheat Wheat
----------------------1----1---1---1-- -1---1---1---1----1---1---1---1---1--- 1--- ~
RURAL
1'umher•••••••• _•••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.• . .
Percent ••••••••••••••••••••••.••••• •••••• ••• ••• ..
Farm operators ••• •••••••••••• •.•.• •• •••• ••.• •• .•.• •• . .
Ow nors ••••••. ..•• •••••.•••.• .••.• ••• ••••••.• . . ... .
Tenants
CroJ)pers.
1 ••• ••• •• •• ••• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •
Farm laborers ••••• ••• •••••• •••••••.• .•••••••• . . ••. . •• .
I a, I
672
100. 0
2, 416
100. 0
72. 6
25. 7
38.8
8. 1
27. 4
59. 1
12. 5
17. 6
29. 0
40.9
66.5
16. 0
17.0
33.5
33. 6
20,400
100. 0
3,008
100. 0
61.1
13. 0
18. 9
29. 2
38. 9
604
100. 0
24, 976
100. 0
Farm operators •••••••••••.• •• ••••• •••• .•.••••.. •...• ••
Ow o•r$ .•••••.••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•••• •.• •..
T enants
Croppers .•••..•••. . ..••• . ..••.••.•.••............ .
Farm laborers .•...• ••••••••..• •• ••• ••• ••••••••••• • ... .
1......................................... .
VILLAO&
0
cc·
;a.
N.
~
~
C')
0
a(i.)
J\"umber ••••••• ••.•.. .. .•••.• ••••.• ••• •••.• •••• ..
Percent ••••.••• •• •••••• ••.•••.•.•••••••••••.•. .. .
Farm operators •.•••••• . .•• ••••••••••••••.•.••••• ..•...
Owners . ..•.• •.•••••.•••••• ••.•. •• ••••••• ••••••• •. .
Tennnts 1 • • • •• • • •••••••• •• •••••••••••••••••• • • • • • ••
Croppers • •••••••••• •• •••.••••••••••.••.•• •........
Farm laborers • ••••• . •• ••.•..•. •. . ..• •.•••..• . . ••.• .•..
• Exclusive of croppers lo the 2 Cotton .Areas.
1. 256
100. 0
I
3, 944
100. 0
I
3, 086
100. 0
18. 8
20.4
55. 1
83. 3
7. 6
31.4
24 . 3
36. 7
83. 4
7.1
33. 3
23. 0
2,108
100.0
960
100. 0
3,100
100. 0
2,506
66. 9
15. 8
33. 7
33.1
48.3
6. 9
22. 0
19, 4
61. 7
308
100.0
296
100. 0
44.9
6. 7
I
36. 6
868
100. 0
1. 030
62. 9
9. 5
24. 5
28. 9
37.1
92. 7
37. 1
11,5. 6
~o
3. 018 I 2. 320 I 100
990 I 2. .92
I ~o
~o 1 ~o ~o ~o
810
100. 0
70. 0
15. 7
55.2
68.8
36. 3
22. 5
......... .. . ..
7.3
SS. 5
66. 0
18. 6
69. 7
29. 1
30. 6
51 . 8
13. 0
38.8
89.5
37. 2
52. 3
----1- -·----------------10.----5 --- 29.
-------40.3 ----·-··
41. 2
14. 5
48. 2
3
~
§
::i:,
-
~
OPll:N COUNTRY
Number ••••••.••••••••• ••••.••••••.•••.• •. .••• •.
Percent. •••••••••••••. •. •.•• ••.. .•••••.•. .•. •. ...
I
iR.
3
28. 61
41. 9
8. 4
21.4
486 1
4,
100. 0
45.
13. 821
24. 4
7. 0
54.8
49.
9. 60 I
11.3
28. 1
51.0
17. 4
16. 961
63.
14. 3
32. 4
36.4
0
2. 81
33.
8.1
23. 7
66. 2
100. 0
684
100. 0
6,452
100. 0
68. 3
8. 2
34. 6
25. 5
31. 7
67. 8
7. 4
36. 5
23. 9
32. 2
70. 2
II.I
27. 5
31. 6
29.8
04. 0
37. 4
56.6
754
100.0
680
100. 0
174
100. 0
5.0
4UI
17. 8
19. 1
58. l
6.51 I
44.
19. 3
19. 3
55.9
920
100. 0
87. 8
69. 1
18. 7 .
2,044
100. 0
1,778
100. 0
2,002
100. 0
542
100. 0
404
100. 0
65. 2
31.8
33. 4
65. 0
16.3
48. 7
93. 2
39. 9
53. 3
77.0
18.8
59.1
78.2
53.0
25. 2
448
1,240
100. 0
228
100. 0
158
100. 0
406
100. 0
... -------- -------- --- ----- -- -- ------------· -·· .. ...
····12.2
22.1
34.8
21.8
6.0
6.8
35. 0
578
100. 0
70
100. 0
100. 0
~-61
78. 21
54.3 I
34.8 I
3U I
&5
n8
K7
a2
~1
55. 31
46.81
39.4
....~!:~....?~
1H .....;.;....!!:.~...?~....~~;....~~.!
~e
u1
a2
;;;·
Q
:::
R.
::i:,
~
Q
--~·
c-·
2:
Q
:::
Supplementary Tables
123
1
TABLE 16.-CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF HEADS OF RURAL REUEF
HOUSEHOLDS USUALLY ENGAGED IN NONAGRICULTURAL OCCUPATIONS, BY
AREA, JUNE 1935
(138 counties represer.ting II agricultural areas]
Current employment
status
All
East-
West- AppaJach-
ern
ern
ianareas Cotton
Cotton Or.ark
NONAGRICULTVRAL
WORKERS
Number _____________ 23,132
Percent______________
100.0
Lake
States Hay
and
CutOver Dairy
- - - - --- --- - - - - - - - - --.
2,416
100.0
1,796
100.0
10.3
14. 7
18.6
6. 7
15. 7
13. 9
1.8
74.0
4. 7
2.8
1.9
80.6
7. 7
5.0
2. 7
73. 7
27.2
26.6
.6
66.1
Number _____________
2,022
Percent ______________ 100.0
320
100.0
214
100.0
350
100.0
108
100.0
100.0
Employed at usual occupatioo ___________________
Employed
at other occupatioo ___________________
Agriculture ____________
Nooagriculture________
Unemployed ______________
Corn Spring Winter RanchBelt Wheat Wheat
Ing
7,458
100.0
2,016
100.0
4,412
100.0
3,310
100.0
100.0
424
100.0
11M
100.0
6. 2
9.4
11.8
16.8
12.3
14-8
21.6
20.0
1.6
72.2
11.6
9.6
2.0
'/11.0
8.9
5.0
3.9
79.3
6.3
3. 7
1.6
77.11
4.2
2.3
1.11
83.5
8.6
7.0
1.6
78.11
366
438
100.0
118
100.0
64
100.0
(')
644
- - - - - - - --- --- - - - - - - - - ---
WlDTIC COLLAR I
Employed at usual occupation ___________________
Employed at other occupatioo ___________________
Agriculture ____________
Nooagrlculture ________
Unemployed ______________
44
-- - - - - - - --- - - - - -- - - --16.5
11.3
12.2
16.6
14.8
17. 5
17.4
22.0
31.3
(')
13. 7
8. 7
5.0
69.8
8.2
1.2
5.0
82.6
Q.3
5.6
3. 7
78.5
25.1
22.8
2.3
68.3
20.4
14.8
5.6
64.8
15. 8
8.2
7.6
66. 7
12. 3
5.5
6.8
70.3
6.8
5.1
1. 7
71. 2
12. 5
6.3
6.2
56.2
--------
Number. ____________
Percent ______________ 6,618
100.0
920
100.0
420
100.0
1,148
100.0
518
100.0
1,822
100.0
1,246
100.0
234
100.0
130
100.0
180
100.0
--------------(')
SKJLLICD AND SICllISKILLli:D
Employed at usual occupation ___________________
Employed
at other occupation ___________________
- -- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --7.6
11.1
9.6
6.1
5.4
7.5
6.3
13. 7
4-6
6. 7
16. 4
12. 9
3. 5
76.0
5.0
3. 5
1.5
83.9
16.2
6. 7
9. 5
74.3
32.6
31.0
1.6
61.3
24.3
20.5
3.8
70.3
14. 2
11. 6
2.6
78.3
13. 6
7.5
6. 1
80.1
6.0
3.4
2.6
80.3
8.2
4. 6
1.6
89.2
11.1
7.8
3.3
82.2
Number ____________
Percent. ____________ 14,492
100.0
1,176
100.0
1,162
100.0
5,960
100.0
1,300
100.0
2,224
100.0
1,626
100.0
292
100.0
230
100.0
432
100.0
10.6
18. 4
23.1
6.3
6.8
9.6
14.6
17.1
11.3
16. 7
15. 6
15.0
.6
73.8
4. 1
2. 7
1.4
77. 5
4. 3
4.3
26.3
26.0
.3
67.4
20. 7
20.3
.4
73.6
8.6
8.1
.5
81.8
4. 3
3.0
1.3
81.1
4. 1
3.4
.7
78.8
.9
8. 3
7.4
.9
75.0
Agriculture ____________
N ooagriculture ________
Unemployed ______________
VNSKILLBD
Employed
at usual occupatioo ___________________
Employed at other occupatioo ____ . ______________
Agriculture .. __________
N onagriculture _____ . __
Unemployed ______________
----
------72.6
- - - - - - --------.9
87.8
1 Current employment refers to the February employment orthe June cases already on relief lo February
or to the employment at date of applir.ation of cases that came on relief from March through June.
• Professional, proprietary, and clerical workers.
• Percent not computed on a base or less than 50 cases.
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
124
1 or RUI\AL
JUNE 1935
TABLE 17.-UsuAL OcCUPATION or EKPr..oYABLE HEADS
HOUSEHOLDS, BY COLOR AND BY
AREA,
RELmF
(138 counties representing 9 agricultural lll'llB!I)
Umal occupaUon
Total
A gr Iculture
N onagrlculture
Area
Farm operators
Number
Percent Total
Farm
]a.
Own- Ten- Crop- borers
Total ers ants
1 pers
Skflled
White and
UnTotal collar•
semi- skilled
skilled
-- -----------------All areas •.••... 48, 112
Eastern Cotton:
Total ••........•.
White .••••......
Ne~ro ............
Western Cotton:
Total. ....••••••.
White ...........
Ne~ro ............
Appalad1lan-Ozark ..
Lake States CutOver .........•.....
Hay and Dairy ......
Corn Belt. .....••....
61.9
37. 7
13.3
20. 2
4. 2
14. 2
48.1
4. 2
13. 8
30.1
6,088
4,162
1, U26
100.0
100. 0
100.0
60.3
58. 0
65. 2
35.6
38. 6
29.3
7. 5
10.6
9.8
12. 3
17. 5
19.5
13. 3
24. 7
9. 3
3. 7
19.4
35.9
39. 7
42. 0
34.8
5. 3
7.4
,7
15.1
20.0
4. 6
14. 6
29. 5
5,742
100.0
!(XI. 0
100. 0
100.0
68. 7
68. 5
21. 6
22.8
17.0
27.0
16. 7
15.8
20. 0
25. 2
25.1
31.3
25. 7
3.5
30. 7
61.6
8. 7
4. 4
1.8
2. 4
7. 4
8.9
1.6
7.9
20. 2
18. 2
48. 6
43. 5
43. 4
43. 6
45. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
32.9
36.1
47. 7
78. 3
62. 3
55.3
28.1
21.6
24. 7
70.1
44. I
32. 5
6.1
4.8
11. I
14. 5
18. 5
23.0
40.9 ------ 8. 2
34. 3 ------ 18. 2
12. 4 ------ 22.8
67. I
63.9
52. 3
21. 7
37. 7
44. 7
3.11
5. 3
6.11
4.0
6. 7
3.0
17. 2
26.4
19. 7
7.9
11.6
12. 3
411. 8
32. 2
25. 7
4, .504
1, Zl8
14, 4811
3,006
fi,1104
6,330
2, ~114
1. 124
Ranching ............ 1,466
~r!~r it...::.\·.~:::::
---
100.0
- -- - -- -- -- -- - - - -
6\l. 3
5. 2
4. 8
6.6
18. 0
22.0
10. 5
6. 2
29. 2
9.8
20.1
---·-----------------
31. 5
1 161-0 64 years of a~e and working or seeking work.
• Exclusive of croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
• Professional, proprietary, and clerical workers.
D1g1
zedbyGoogle
111.3
27.8
41. 2
9.8
20.4
211.4
Supplementary Tables
125
TABLE 18.-LENGTR oF TIME SINCE HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF HouSEHOLDs W1m
AGRICULTIIRI•;
AGRICULT U RE,
s
Till~ U:,;u L OccUPATIO N , BuT NoT CURRENTL Y ENGAGED 1:-;
THE f'ARll , BY AREA, Ju:--E 1935
LEFf
[ ! :l'"o r ou ntie'I: rc p r o~ent!ni:,!'. !J U)lr ir u ltu r nl nrcns]
Length ol time ~inee lelL the fnrm
Tula !
Ares
I- - , - ~ ~ um h~r J'crcen t 1 year 2 years ;~r! ~-~!~ ;gJ:~':r
I"
- - - -i - -- - - - F A P, )( OPERA TO lt :i
,\ llarcns .. ... . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. . .. .
2, 504 1
Ea, tern Cott on.. ..... .. .............. .
, ; 1;
!,i;.."
\\'"es t r r n ( "utt on ... .. .. .......... .... . •
App 1,Iaehian -Ozo rk .....• . ...... • ••. . . .
Lak :-iltllt•s L'u t•Owr ....... ... ... .....
Hay n<l Da ir y........ .. .. ... . .........
C orn 'Unll .. . .. . .. .. . ... . .... .... .... . .
S pr ing \ \ ' hcn t_ ______ _______ ___ ______ ___
Wi nte r \\' hen t. ..... .. . . .. .......... ..
Ra nchin ~... .... . .. ... .... .. ..... .... ..
Jf i-.,
I
I
3,
23 1
4:12
J'.,.,
a '>
74
100. 0
al.7 ,
21.0
1~. 3
1()0. 0
4K ll
I
30. I
HI.
WO. tl
100. 0
( 1/
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
IOtl. O
100. 0
l11i. 2
19.0
S. 9 _
41
JO.fl
t17.2
• . fl
10.7
( ')
( 1)
t 1)
-I~. 7
40.8
:J9. 3
:l\. O
73. 0
18. S
20. 8
22. 0
10. 8
23. 1
20.8
11. &
7.3
10.8
at 4
0. 1
r. ..~
. .. . . .. . .
S, 3
1. 2
◄. 2
· · ·· ·· ··-
..... . . . . . .... .. .
9. 4
17. ti
14. 8
31. 7
5, 4
( lW!-:Ett.S
A ll nre0.1 .. . ..... . .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . .
390
100. 0
41. 0
19. U
20. 0
Ea, tcrn ro1ton . .. . .. ........ . . . ... .. . .
Wlis .ern ( ' otton ... . ..... .. . . .. • . . . .. .. .
Ap pali1ch inu -01ark . _____ . .... .... _. . __
100, 0
3il. 4
IK. 4
( ')
11)
(1 )
(')
21.1
(')
(')
Lake ~ t at l'5 <· u1 -0 vp r . .... _. ... . . . ..... _.
(')
(')
(I)
Ha y and Dair i•.. . .. ...... . . . .. . .. . .. .
Corn Helt .. .. .. . .. .. ..... ..... . . .... .
Spri n \\' h~st .... .. ..... .. . ... .. . . . . . .
Wi nt,•r W hea L. .. .. .
100. 0
llltl. 0
37. 4
( ')
27. 1
18. 6
---- --- ------( I)--- - ---- (----1)
- -· ·· · - ----- ---lfi . u
17. IJ
:i:u
t ')
1')
1')
(' )
(I )
I' )
(' )
2S, 2
1' 1
,1 1
(I )
,, 1
Ran c hin~ . .... .. ........ ..... .... .. .. .
(' )
19. 0
21 . 1
:w. 8
( ')
1.. .. .
.....
------- - ---- --- ---
T EN ANTS :I
Eastern Cot tnn ........ . . . . ... . . . .. ... .
Wes Lcrn ( ·ott on . . . .
.
..
. ... . .
Appal chinn•<Jrnrk ....... . . . . .. ... .
Lake ..:"Lahl s c 'tJt -o n ~r . ... . . . ..... . ..
Ha y a o ,l D ti iry . .. .. .. ..
• ... . ..... .
Corn licit. . .... ... .. .. .
Sprin~ Whmt . .... .. .. . . . . . . .. .. ... .. .
22. 8
,:f:J
~~J ~]J
I IJO. 0
Wi nte r Wheat. . _ .. ... ... .. .. . . ...... .
Ran ching. . . . .. . .. ..........
i
CR OPPERS
I
All
!(Ml. 0
i2
100. 0
100. 0
100 0
100. 0
W.3
4:1. 5
19. 0
I~. fl
, ~. 8
70. 4
:18. 8
2,;. 0
H.8
:i~. X
l~. .iJk::~i!!!
J
9:11
100. 0
~ -9
27. 4
14.
ll2H
47. 7
6tl. 9
J I. fl
:w~
100. 0
JOO. O
1 16,9
JS. 8
10. 4
~. 4f,4
100. 0
71. .5
17. 0
8. 0
!~. 2
6. 6
•R
11. b
19. 1
FAR M LABOH EHS
All a reas ... ..... .. ..... .. .. .. .. ..
l
1- - JOO.
~0 - -,I. 2-IO
, 2. .!
1
I, 21 ~
3 12
9·1
~in6I~~!u.~.~i~:>:~::::::~:::::::::::::::l 1.i~~
Sprin!( , heat... _ . .. ... . ... . ... ... .. ..
Winter\ heaL .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. .
Ranch ing .. ...... . ....... .. . ...... .. ...
:w. (i
7. 4
3. g .. .. .... ..
3. 8 - - ------ - 3. 9 . .. .. . . .. .
I
Eas tern C otton .. . . . ... .. ......... .. . .. 1
Western C ot,ton .. .. ..... .. .. .. .... .. .. I
Ap palac h inn•01.ar k . ... .. . . . ... .. ....
Lake <it a te s ( ' ut•O ve r .. .. ... .... . .. .. . .
I. 7
tr.. 4
12. 2
19. 0
21. ,;
10. 2
~. 6
7. 4
East \,.ITil Cott on _______ ___ ___ ___ ______ __j
Wes tern Cotton .... .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . ,
llf(''1.S . . . ... .. .... . . . . . .. . . . . ..
9. 0 ..... . . . ..
14. 3
I
1
1,\0
170
272 1
100. 0
Wl. O
100. o
VI. 8
li0. 3
r.:1. 3
, -
6. 0
Zl. 7
17. O
!~:2
~i: :7\ ~:g
100. O
25, 3
@ ,
100. 0
JOO. O
82.3
7t;.(i
7.1
15. 4
-
3. 4
.I
2. ,
.3
4..;
JO. ti
.2
_- .2
1~: ~
~'. ~
8. O .. .. .. ..
,>. 9
4. 7
5. J
2, g
::::: : ::: :
.. . . .. ... .
.. .. .. . .. .
.. .... . . . .
P ercent not computed on a base of loss Lilan 1iO cases.
• Exclusive of cToppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
1
137296°-37--10
Dig t1zed oy
Google
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
126
TABLE 19.-UeuAL OccUPATION OF HEADs
OF
RURAL llEHABILITATION HoUSEBoUl8,
BY COLOR AND BY AREA, JUNE
1935
(138 count!~ representing 9 agricultural areas)
Usual occupation
Total
N onagrfcultuni
Agriculture
""
Farm operators
...!;
...8
ii
~
Ala
.
~
!a
'ii
6,286
4, 026
2,260
100.0
100.0
100.0
2,332
I, 872
460
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
e
=
G
-!l
G
35.9
34 . 2
38.9
28.8
~
i
.
-=.s
""
C
8
.!l
'i
::,
3 3
= =
.•= 0"'e"' § iE-< ;a1'I~ 'i~ :;.::,a
0
z::: ""~ 1
E-<
E-<
~
E-<
"'
'
-- -- - - - - -- - - - - -'"All areas ......... 14,39-1 100.0 3. l 88.5 80. 4 24. 2 40.8 15. 4
8.1 8. 4 0. 9
3. 2 4. 3
- - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - -- -- -- -Eastern Cotton:
Total. .• •.•••••••..
White . •.. ••• •••••..
Negro ..•..•••••••..
Western Cotton:
Total. .. •••.•••••..
White .• ••.•••••••..
Negro .......•...•..
Appnlacblan-Ozark .• ..
Lake States Cut-O\'er ..
Bay and Dairy ....•• ..
Corn Belt . . •••••.••..•.
Spring Wheat ....••.•..
Winter Wheat •••• •.••.
Ranching .••..•••••••..
904
768
], 362
I, 284
942
310
206
!l
0
0
~
1.8
1.6
2. 5
90. 6
89.1
93.0
80. 6
78. 0
85. 3
18. 3
18. 8
17. 6
4. 9
4. 0
8. 7
1.8
6. 0
5. 9
2. 6
2. 6
3. 2
1.9
87. 2
87. 0
87. 8
80. 7
80. 5
85. 7
89. l
94. 9
03. 6
86. 4
73.0
71. 7
78. 7
78. 7
10. 2
7. 9
19. 6
34. 7
67. 7
45. l
16. 7
31. 4
22. 6
35.9
79. 2
82. 4
83.0
90. 9
91. 7
75. 7
38. 9
40. 2
33. 9
44. 0
11 . 5
37. 3
67. 3
59. 5
69. 1
39. 8
26. 4
25. 0
23. 9
23. 6
25.2
--------------------------
-----------
7. 7
9. 4
4. 5
.6
.8
.l
2. 5
3.6
.6
._II
14. 2 7. 9
15. 3 9. 0
9. I 3. 5
2.0 17. 5
1. 3 13. 5
3. 3 8. 4
6.1 8. 3
4.0 2. 5
I. 9 3. 2
10. 7 11. 7
I. 2
1.2
.9
2. 2
1. 6
-----6. 5
2. 8
3.4
3. 9
4. t
2.11
9. 8
7. 8
1.9
3. 0
9. 9
II.I
7. 7
.9
.9
.6
.6
-----
Exclusive or croppers ln the 2 Cotton Areas.
• Proressional, proprietary, and clerical workers.
1
Digitized by
Google
4. I
5.6
4. 4
1. 3
I. 2
2. 0
6. 0
3. 8
.II
1.4
9. 7
Supplementary Tables
127
TABLE 20.-PERCENT oF RURAL RELIEF AND NoNRELIEF FARM OPERATORS, OTHER
THAN CROPPERS, WHo OwNED No WoRK STOCK AND THE AvERAGE NmmER
OWNED ON JANUARY 1, 1934, BY AREA
Percent or rarm owners
and tenants without
work stock
Area
Nonrelier
Relier
All areas combined...............................
A vera~e number or
work stock owned 1
Relier
Nonrelief
18
3. 6
21
14
59
18
13
JO
19
1.8
87
56
57
56
24
19
7
17
4
H
38
27
10
i4
86
12
47
61
34
4.2
1-----1-----·1-----1--
0ld South Cotton......................................
Southwest Cotton......................................
Tobacco................................................
Dairy..................................................
59
Massachusetts.........................................
Cut•Over...............................................
Corn•and•Hog.... .. .. .. .. .......•...••..... .. . ... .... ..
Ca.sh Grain............................................
Wheat.................................................
Mountain ............................................. .
New Mexico ...•.......................................
Oregon .............•............•.•••..................
California .•.....•....•.••••...•........................
2. 7
4. 4
3.6
2. 7
2.6
1.6
1. 8
(•)
(')
1. 7
2. 3
4.9
6.2
2.1
4.0
6.1
8.3
3.3
2. 1
.7
l. 9
4.4
2. 7
2. 6
3.2
Averages besed on those who owned some work stock.
• Less than 10 cases. Average not computed.
Source: McCormick, T. C., Comparati11t Studv of Rural Rtliefand Non•R•li,f Ilouuhold•, Research Monograph II, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1935, table 42.
1
TABLE 21.-PERCENT OF RURAL RELIEF AND NoNRELIEF HousEHOLDS THAT OWNED
No LIVESTOCK, JANUARY 1, 1934, BY AREA
Percent of households
Area
Relief
All areas combined...........
Without hogs
Without cows
N onrelief
Relief
Without poultry
Nonrelief
Relief
N onrelief
68
47
72
61
32
21
48
49
46
49
28
50
19
25
11
18
63
113
47
78
28
64
19
33
97
86
84
59
97
76
73
80
53
58
59
U
71
41
61
48
47
22
24
72
91
87
68
35
26
71
78
80
50
45
43
42
75
96
94
47
34
75
86
Massacbusetts...... •• .. . • •• .•. • . . • •
Cut•Over............................
Corn•and•Hog._....................
Cash Grain.........................
Wheat..............................
95
58
88
52
38
66
1iO
31
Mountain .......•..•......•...•....
New Mexico .•......•...............
Oregon .........•.••.•.........•....
Cahfornia.......•..•.•..............
58
38
94
64
84
40
65
45
34
f-----·1-----1-----
1----·1---
0ld South Cotton...................
Southwest Cotton ....•.. _..........
Tobacco............................
Dairy...............................
89
30
69
40
Source: McCormick, T. C .. Comparative &udu of Rural Rtlitf and Non•Relitf Houaehold.8, Research Mono•
graph II, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1935, table 43.
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
128
TABLE 22.-AVERAGE NUMBERS oF LIVESTOCK OWNED BY RURAL RELIEl" AND NoNRELIEF HOUSEHOLDS REPORTING Sucu LIVESTOCK, JANUARY 1, 1934, BY A.REA
Average number of
Average number of
bogs
COWS
Average number of
poultry
Area
Relief
N onrel!ef
Relief
N onrellef
Relief
K onrelief
All areas combined __________ _
3.0
5. 7
3. 7
11. 1
37
61
Old South Cotton _________________ _
Southwest Cotton _________________ _
Tobacco _______________________ -- - - _
Dairy ________ --·- __________________ _
I. 5
2. 5
1.3
I. 4
2. 7
6. 7
Q.O
15
34
2Q
5. -~
2. 6
7. 5
3. 6
Jg
100
33
7. 6
2. 5
3. 7
3. 4
2. 6
35
87
M a.ssachusetts •••••••• _____________ _
Cut-Over._. -- -- •••• -- -- . -- --- - . -- -.
2. 5
6. 2
3.0
4g
2.6
6. 2
5. 0
7. 0
2. 7
M
43
78
125
7. 2
4.8
4. 4
1.4
4. 0
2.3
7. 8
1.6
8:~•tn~~=: :::::::::: ::: :::::::
Wheat _____________ .----·-···- - _- _- _
Mountain _________________________ _
New Mexico_______________________ _
Oregon ____________________________ _
California _____ .• ___________________ .
I. 6
4. 8
5. 3
2.8
I. 3
2.0
1. 2
2. 7
2.6
26. 0
21.6
11. 0
61
94
4.8
1.6
i. 3
4.5
H
16
30
39
82
I
1.Q
5. g
I. 6
1.9
31
23
66
IQ
52
198
nontyplcal cases which raised the average unduly were excluded.
Source: McCormick, T. C., Comparatir, .<ltudv of Rural Rdi,f and Non-Rrllt/ llouuhotd,, Research Monograph II, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1935, table H.
1 Several
TABLE 23.-GRADE ATI'AINMENT OF HEADS OF OPEN COUNTRY HOUSEHOLDS ON
RELIEF BY AGE GROUPS, OCTOBER 1935
[138 oountie, r8'J)resentlng 9 agricultural areas]
Age in years
Last grade or year oompleted
Total
---------------11--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Numher ___________________________ _
23. fil4
6. f>40
6.132
11. 076
2. 188
3. 478
Percent. ___________________________ _
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Grade school:
No grade completed _________________ _
1 to 3 grades _________________________ _
4 grades
to 5 grades_.-----------------------6
______________________________ _
7 grades ________ •. -• __ . _. ___ - --- --- --- 8 grades ______________________________ _
HighI year
school:
________________________________ _
2 years _______ . _______________________ _
3 years _______________________________ .
4 years ___________________ ------------College:
l year or more ________________________ _
--------10. 7
15. I
23. 2
5.1
10. 0
22.0
9. 7
21.9
11. 1
10. 2
26. 2
2.8
2.0
1.0
I. 5
.6
11.l
5.3
12.3
21. 2
10. 8
10. 1
14. 6
23.0
13. I
14. 0
19.3
26.6
10. 4
7. 2
17.6
20.5
18.6
22.9
9. l
7. 2
16. 2
1. 2
1.8
12. 6
10.8
27. 5
21.6
5. 5
3.8
2. 7
3. l
4.0
2. 7
I. 2
).Q
2. 6
1.6
.8
.9
1.6
1.2
.6
.7
1. 7
.7
.5
.9
.8
.4
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
.4
Supplementary Tables
129
TABLE 24.-AvERAGE GRADE ATTAINMENT oP HEADS OP OPEN COUNTRY HousEeoLDs oN fuuEP, BY AoE GROUPS AND BY AREA, OCTOBER 1935
(138 countle.s representing 9 agricultural areas)
Median grade completed
Ace
Eastern Cotton Western Cotton
I
:::I
-<
30
E-<
3
0
~
z
:a
~
30
E-<
3
0
g,o
~
~
z -<C.
-- -- -:a
-- - - -- -Total .•.•.•.••••••••. 6.1 5.1 5.6 2. 8 6.4 6. 7 5.4
-- -- - - - - -- -- -Under 21 years ............ 7.0 6. 2 6.6 5.5 8.4 8.5 8.0
21 to 24 years •..•.•.•....•. 7. 3
26 to 34 years ••....•••..... 7.0
M to 44 years .•.....••..... 6. 2
46 to 64 years •••..••••..... 5. 1
5. 6
5. 7
5. 1
4.4
6.0
6. 3
5. 8
4. 8
4.4
2. 4
3. 1
2. 0
c
! .. ;,,
""~ _,.
"'"' ~t
.9 ~ 009
:C.!l:l
8.1
7.0
6. 3
5.6
8. 2
7. 1
0.5
5.9
6.3
6. 5
5. 5
4.4
.
>, ..
~
.,A
_.,::,
..
i
ff:
.c
E
0
C
"C
C.
.s
.
s
i
tQ
ff:
--
8.1
8.1
----
8.2
7.3
8.1
8.3
7.8
8.0
=
-- -- -- -"''-'
0
~
i
.c
~
.;
8. 0
5.1
7.2
7.8
6.1
6. 1
5.8
5. 2
4. 2
8.4
8.4
8. 2
7.4
5. 3
8.5 10.0
8.4 8.5
8.2 8. 5
8.0 7. 7
6.8 5.9
~
- - -8.9 ----8.1 8.6
~
Ill
8.0
5.0
8.3
8. 3
7.2
1.a
TABLE 25.-RURAL RELIEF TURN-OVER, MARCH THROUGH JUNE 1935, PER 100
CASES R.EcEIVING RELIEF IN FEBllUARY,1 BY USUAL OCCUPATION OP THE
AND BY AREA
(138 counties representing II agricultural areas]
Accession rates: .All cases
Separation rates
Agricultural heads
Area
.,
IIEAJ>
1
"B~ .
1
Agricultural heads
fl
'3 ..
al
f ·;::"""'
i 3 ;
s
~f~
..c
i
~.c
.c
.c
3 ~ .~ e
.
u :3 z
0
E-<
< E-< 0~ E-<I 0e
z
< -E-<- -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- ---
"'al
!l
C
fl
!l.
C.
0
fl
f0
.c
;:g!
!I
I.J
C
0
0
~
All areas ............. 50.1 57. 7 57. 3 57. 9 72.8 411.9 37. 5 17. 6 13.6 15.6 13.5
Eutern Cotton:
Total .•......••........
White ....•.•..........
N~ro ......•••.•••.•..
Western Cotton:
Total ..........••.•....
White .......•....••...
Nel!fo .............•...
Appalachlan•Ozark ......•.
Lake States Cut-Over ..•..
Hay and Dairy •••••......
Corn Belt...•.•.•..••••....
Spring Wheat·-·•·-····•··
Winter Wheat •••. ·--·····
Ranching ••••••••.••••.....
9. 7 13. 7 24.2
-- -- -- -- - - -- - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -59.3 64. 5 64. 6 67. 8 72.0 56. I 45. 4 20.6 15. 4 19.4 16.4 16.4 12. 7 34. 7
61. 4 67. 4 62. 3 70. 9 72. 3 61. 5 45.8 22. 3 16. 4 21.9 14.8 16.6 H.7 37.9
54. 7 58. 3 72.2 60.3 70.9 49.0 '4. 5 16.8 13. 2 10. 7 20.4 15.8 11.8 27.1
67. 4 71.9 86.2 74. 9
64.3 68.6 84.5 72.0
75.0 79.5 89.3 83. 4
28. 9 31.5 29.3 31.0
43.1 57.1 60.4 61.7
49. 8 56. 7 63. 4 60.9
51. 7 60. 4 68. I 70. 9
45. 4 48. 3 46. ,5 49. 8
52. 9 60.2 74. 0 58.9
51.4 52.3 53. 7 50.9
73. 5 56. 5 46. 2
70. 9 50. 7 45. 8
78. 7 08.8 47. 3
2 21i.3
----- 45.
10. 3 29.9
----- 45.
0
44. 4
----- 41. 4 39.
4
----4!i.
8
31.8
----- 44. 9
7
----- 51.9 33.
49. 9
-----
Accession rates: New cases
All areas •.••.••......
0
8. 7
10. 2
5. 3
30.0
21.1
13. 4
13. 7
12. 4
14. 7
24.0
11.2
7. 2
3.9
30. 4
9.8
9.0
10. 8
12.0
13. 2
18.0
3. 5 6. 2
4.0 6.9
2. 6 4. I
32. 3 28.2
9. 7 8.0
8.3 7.2
12. 4 9.4
15.9 9. 7
6.5 11. 4
19.2 13.8
4. 5 9. 7
6. 1 11. 9
3.4 !i.0
·---- 38. 2
----- 16.2
11. 7
----- 12.
----- 11.93
----- 27.5
--------- 19. 4
:11.1
23.1
14. 5
29.6
31.9
16. 9
17. 7
14. 4
18.9
33.3
Accession rates: Reopened cases
10.1
8.5
3 8. 7 6.0 7.4 12. 7
7. 5 5. 1 5. 3 4. 8 3. 7 6. 3 II. 5
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Eastern Cotton:
Total.. •••••••.•....... 9. 5 6. 3 5. 5
White .•••••••••. ·-···· 10. 9 6.9 6. 5
Negro ..••.••••••••.... 6. 5 4.9 2.1
Western Cotton:
Total .•.•••••••••.• -· .. 3.6 1.9 I. 3
White .••••••••••••••• _ 4. 4 2. 6 2.0
Negro ..•..•.•.•••..... 1. 5
. 5 ·-·-Appalachian-Ozark ... __ .. _ 11. 8 10. 4 10. 7
Lake States Cut•Over_ .•.. 8. 6 3.6 3. 6
Hay and Dairy ••••••••••. _ 6. 9 4. 7 3. 6
Corn Belt ....•.•••••..•... 7. I 5.8 5. 4
~ring Wheat ••••••.. _•... 3. 5 3. 4 4. 3
Inter Wheat ••••••.•.••. 4.0 3. 2 I. 2
Ranch1ng •.••••••••••.•••.. 9. 8 6. 5 6. 2
5. 7
5. 8
5.6
6. 7
6.4
7. 4
6. 5 18.0 11. 1
8. 4 21.1 11. 4
3.9 10.9 10. 3
1. 4 1. 4 3. 7 11. 4
1. 7 1.9 5.0 12. 4
.4
.4
.9 8.1
9. 7 ----- 13. 7 13. 3
2. 5 ----- 7. 4 13. 4
4. 1 ----- 6. 4 8. 7
.5. 0
7. 3 9. 0
2. 6 ----- 4. 3 4.1
2. 7 ----- 7. 3 6.0
6. 2 ----- 6.9 15.0
-----
10.
II.I 13.9 10. 7 9. 7
9. 5 15.4 9.0 10. 2
8.3 8.6 14. 8 8.4
5.1 4.3 2. 2 4.8
5. 8 4. 6 2.0 5. 2
3. 8 3. 4 2. 6 3. 7
18. 2 20.0 21. 6 18.5
12. 5 6. 2 6.1 5. 5
6. 5 4. 3 4. 7 3.1
6. 6 5.0 7.0 4. 4
8.9 8. 6 11.6 7.1
10. 7 10.0 5.3 8. 7
14. 2 11. 5 13. 0 7.6
3. 1
3. 2
3. 0
-----------------------------
6. 2 16. 7
6. 3 16.8
5.9 16.2
6.0
6.9
4.1
24. ,5
8.8
5.3
5. 0
7. 6
20.2
12. 5
9. 7
10. 7
6.4
16.3
18.5
8.3
8. 7
10.3
12.9
18. 3
• Separations Include only cases on relief in February but not on relief in 1une. Accessions Include only
cues on relief In June which were not on relier in February.
• Exclusive of croppers In the 2 Cotton Areas.
D1gt1zc-dbyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
130
TABLE 26.-NEW CASES AMoNG AccESSIONS TO RURAL RELIEF RoLLS, BY UsuAL
OccUPATION OF THE HEAD AND BY REGION, JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
[300 counties and 83 New England townships)
11
Usual occupation
13
northern southern
State• 1 States•
32
States
6 western
States 1
2New
England
States•
- - - - - - - - ---- ---ALL ACCESSIO~S
39,152
14,472
Total __________ ------. --- --- --- --- --- ------------- ---Agricultural heads __________________________________ _ 21, JOO
7, 51!8
Farm operators _________________________________ _
5,176
13,384
Owners ________________________ . ____________ _
4, 2'J4
2,188
Tenants•---- _______________________________ _
6, ·IHS
2,988
Croppers ___________________________________ _
2,602
Farm laborers __________________________________ _
7,806
2,412
Nonagricultural heads ______________ . _______________ _
17,962
6,884
20,042
3,746
892
7,370
1,610
3,158
2,602
4,300
8,282
750
416
334
88
2,092
i04
I, 224
---59
---------11, 760
1, 65-4
188
80
8
------------------904
100
NEW CASES
Total ______________________________ . __________ _
9,923
2,836
5,528
-- ---- ---- ---Agricultural heads __________________________________ _ - -4,499
1,018
3,014
408
Farm operutors ..•. ________________________ . ____ _
2,751
5:JO
2, O.'iO
142
Owners _______________ . __ . __ .. ______ .. ______ _
6.'..S
216
334
90
Tenants•--------- _____________ ---- _____ --- - 1,005
320
628
52
Croppers ___________________________ ----- __ - 1,088
1,088 ------- - -Farm laborers __________________________________ _
2(',6
1,748
482
964
Nonagricultural heads______________________________ _
1,818
5,424
2,514
816
335
23
18
5
----------36
276
NEW CASES PER 100 ACCESSIONS
TotaL ________ ------- ----- ---- ---- - .______ ---Agriculturnl heads __________________________________ _
Farm operators ____________________ . ____________ _
Owners._. _______ • _____ ••••. _... _.......... - Tennnts '----. ______ . _______________________ _
Croppers ___________________________________ _
Fnrm laborers __________________________________ _
Nonagricultural bends ______________________________ _
25.3
19.6
27.6
32. 7
21. 2
20.6
15. 3
15. 5
41. 8
22.4
30. 2
13. 4
IO. 4
9.9
JO. 7
25. 6
27.8
20. 7
19.9
41. 8
22.0
30.4
24. i
20.0
26.4
18. 9
21. 6
15. 6
37. 6
31.-4
(')
(')
(')
------ 36.0
------------29. 4
39. 2
39.0
t Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Dakoln, and Wisconsin.
• Alahamn, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina Tennessee Texas, Vir~iniil, and \Vest Virginia.
• California, Colorado, 1\1 ontana, Oregon, t:tah, and Washington.
• Connecticut and Massachusetts.
• Exclusive or croppers in the southern States.
• Percent not computed on a base or less than 100 cases.
27.-FARM OPERATOR AccEsSIONS TO, AND SEPARATIONS FROM, THE GENERAL
RELIEF ROLLS OF AGENCIES EXPENDING F. E. R. A. FUNDS, AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FARM OPERATORS AT THE FIRST OF EACH MONTH, JULY 1935 TO JANU.~RY
TABLE
1936
[300 counties and 8.1 New F.nglan,I townships)
Sample counties
Total case
load nt
first or
month
Month
All months ________________________ _
Estimate for t:nited Rtntes
1
Change during month
Total
l'!lse
Change during month
}oad at
first or
Accessions Separations
19,970
55,890
4,319
2,813
8,667
6,692
5,401
5,283
9,978
19,779
month
------------
Accessions Separations
215.000
551,000
48,000
32,(J(JO
32,000
39,000
38,000
26,000
83. 000
1-----1------1-----1-----1------1----1935
July _________________________
_
40, i25
Au~ust ___ -------. ___________ _
September _____ . _________ •. __ _
October ____________________ . __
November ___________________ _
December ____ ---------- __ ----
32, 49~
29, 7;7
27,972
21,948
1936
January _____________________ _
4,805
36, :l77
2, 770
3,478
3,054
2,636
390. 000
3:,.,, 000
323,000
301,000
290,000
226,000
64,000
M.000
50. 000
102,000
198,000
M,000
1 The counties and townships contained 8.8 peroont or all rural families In 1U30 and about 10 percent o/ 11II
farm operators In 1935.
Dig t1zed by
Google
Supplementary Tables
131
TABLE 28.-AccESSIONS TO RURAL RELIEF RoLLS, BY UsuAL OCCUPATION OF THE
HEAD OF THE CASE AND BY REASON FOR OPENING AND REOPENING, JUI..Y THROUGH
OCTOBER
1935
(300 counties and 83 New England townships]
Reason for accession
Total
UIIUal occupation
Number
Percent
Crop
Defailure creased
or loss earnof live•
ings
stock
Loss of employment
Prl•
vate
employment
Administrative
Works ruling
Pro·
gram
Loss or
IndepleAll
tion of creased
others
needs
assets
- - - --- - - - --- --- - - - --- - - - --.A.LL ACCESSIONS
Total .•.•.... 44,524
100. 0
10. 9
12.4
36.8
0.8
6. 5
13. 3
9.9
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
36. 9
34. 4
19.1
1.8
I.I
3.2
17. 7
17. 2
12. 3
12. 5
11.9
4.3
9.9
10. 8
14.8
63. 3
50.4
II. 6
.9
.7
.I
.7
1.0
.7
6. 6
12. 4
6.6
5.0
4. 4
8. 5
13. 0
8. 7
9.8
6. 3
13. 7
29. 7
10. 3
9.9
8.8
8.0
6. 7
23. I
9.4
- - --- - - - --- - - - - - - --- - - - - - --- -100.0
16.4
32. 3
11. 3
.6
9. 4
10.3
9. 8
9.9
Farm operators .... 13,384
Owners......... 4,294
Tenants I ...... 6,488
Croppers ....... 2,602
Farm laborers ...... 7,806
Nonal(riculture ..... 17,962
All others'········· 5,372
4. 7
5.9
28.5
2.4
10.8
18.9
NEW CASES
Total ••••.... 11, 722
100.0
7. 7
9.3
36. 7
.9
1.5
18.9
8. 2
16.8
2,751
658
1,005
1,088
1, 748
5,424
1,799
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
27. 5
36. 7
34. 8
15. 3
2. 3
I. 2
2. 3
11.8
16. 4
15. 4
5. 7
8. 6
10. 2
3. 3
9.2
10.6
9.0
8. 5
62. 6
49. 8
8. 4
.7
.6
1.4
.5
1.5
.4
.9
.8
I. 7
2.3
12. 4
18. 7
13. 6
7. 4
11. 4
17. 5
40.5
6. 7
7. 6
9.1
3. g
9.0
5. 4
17.9
31. 2
7.9
16. 3
59. 2
2.9
13. 3
24.5
Farm operators ....
Owners ........
Tenants 1 ••••••
Croppers._._ .. _
FArm laborers .. __ ..
N ona,a:riculture .... _
All others'-·······-
- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------I. 7
I. 5
BICOPENJ:D CASES
Total ••...... 32,802
100.0
12. 0
13.6
36.9
.7
8.3
11.3
10.5
6. 7
Farm operators._. _ JO, 633
Owners ........ 3,636
Tenants'···-·· 5,483
Croppers ....... I, 514
Farm laborers ...... 6,058
N onagriculture.•... 12, S38
All others• .....••.. 3,573
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
33. -~
36. 9
34. 6
21.8
1.6
I.I
3. 7
17.6
18. 0
17. 5
17. 0
13.6
12.6
11.8
9. 7
II.I
19. 3
63. 6
50.8
13. 2
.6
I. 0
.5
.I
.5
1.0
.6
II. 7
7. 5
14. 6
11. 4
6.0
5. 5
11. 6
9. 8
12. 0
i. 8
11.5
4. 8
12. 0
24. 2
10.6
10. 8
10. 0
12. 3
7. 7
7. 3
25. 7
4.4
4. I
3.11
6.6
2.2
9. 7
16. 1
- - - - - - - - - --- - - - --- - - - - - - --- ---
4. 9
1 Exclusive of croppers in the southern States.
• Includes "Head not a worker" and beads with "No usueJ occupation."
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
132
TABLE 29.-AccESSIONS ro RURAL RELIEF RoLLS IN NORTHERN STATES, 1 BY UsuAL
OccUPATION OF THE HEAD OF THE CASE AND BY REASON FOR OPENING AND
REOPENING, JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
[100 counties]
Reason for e.ccesslon
Total
Usual occupation
Number
Per•
cent
Crop
De•
failure creased
or loss earnof live· logs
stock
Loss of employ•
ment
Pr!vate
em•
ployment
Admin•
lstra•
tive
Works ruling
Pro-
Loss or
In•
depleAll
tion of cres.sed
othml
lll!SetS needs
gram
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - --.t.LL ACCESSIONS
Total ••••.... 16. ll68
Farm operaton ....
Owners ....••..
Tenants ........
Farm laborers ......
~~~~r~isul~~~~:::::
100.0
15. 6
12. 6
36. 5
1.3
2. 7
17. 2
g_ 2
4.11
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
46. 2
12.2
12. 2
12. 3
17. 7
13. 9
.. 6
10. 6
10. 4
10. 7
60.0
55. 6
II. I
I.I
!. 4
.9
1.4
1. 6
.7
2.9
5.0
I. 3
1.3
2. 0
5.4
12. 8
14. 0
11. 9
7.6
15. 5
39.9
10. 4
9.6
11.0
7. 4
5.8
17. 5
3. 8
3. 4
4. I
2. 4
4. 4
IS. 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --5.176
2.188
2,988
2. 412
6,SS-4
2,496
44.0
47.8
2. 2
I. 2
5.0
NEW CASES
Total.. ••••..
3. 772
100.0
7.9
9.8
38.0
1.9
1. 4
25. 7
8.8
&. 5
536
216
320
482
1,818
936
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
42.6
47. I
39.3
2. 5
1.5
a. 2
13.8
9.3
16.9
9.5
12. 2
2. 8
IO. 4
12.9
8.8
53. 2
55.6
7. 7
2. 2
1.9
2. 5
4.6
l. 7
.6
I. 1
1.9
.6
1. 2
1. 2
1.9
18.3
16. 7
19.4
13.3
18.0
51.3
9.0
7.4
10.0
12. 4
5. 2
13.9
2. 6
2. 8
2. 5
3.3
.. 6
18.G
Total ••••••.• 13.196
100.0
17.8
13. 4
36.3
1. 1
3.0
14. 7
9.3
4.4
lfJ0.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
46. 6
43. 8
48.8
2. I
I.I
6.0
12. I
12. 5
11.8
19. 7
14. 5
5. 6
10. 6
10. I
10. 9
61. 8
55. 6
13. I
1.0
1.3
.7
.6
1.5
.8
3.1
5.4
I. 4
I. 3
2. 3
7.4
12. I
13. 7
10. 9
6. 2
14. 7
33.3
10.6
9.8
II. 2
6.1
6.0
19. 7
3.11
3.4
.. 3
2. 2
.. 3
14.1
Farm operaton ....
Ownen ........
Tenant.s ........
Farm laborers ....•.
Nona~riculture ...••
All others• .•.••••••
- - - - - - - - - --- - - - --- --- --- - - - ---
REOPENED CASES
Farm operators .•..
Owners ........
Tenants ________
Fnrm laborers ......
N ona~rirulture .•...
All others'···•·····
- - - - - - --- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --4. 640
1.972
2. 6fi8
I. 930
5. 006
I. 560
1 Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Dakota. anrl Wist"Onsin.
• Includes "Head not a worker" and heads with "No usual occupation."
oig1 -z-d by
Google
Supplementary Tables
133
TABLE 30.-AcCESSIONS TO RURAL RELIEF RoLLS IN SOUTHERN STATES, 1 BY UsuAL
0ccUPATION OP THE HEAD OF THE CASE AND BY REASON FOR OPENING AND REOPENING, JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
[145 counties]
Res.son ror accession
Total
Usual occupation
Num•
ber
Per•
cent
Crop
De•
lailure creased
or loss earnolllve• lngs
stock
Loss of employ•
ment
Prl•
vate
employ•
ment
Admln•
istrat!ve
Works ruling
Pro·
gram
Loss or
In•
depleAll
tion ol creased
others
needs
assets
--- - - - - - - - - - --- --- --- --- --.t.LL AOCJ:8SION8
Total •••••••• 22,298
100.0
8.2
13.6
33. 5
0.3
9.8
9.3
11.6
7,370
1,610
3,158
2,602
4,390
8.282
2,256
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
22. 4
29.0
21. 7
111. l
1.8
.9
l. 4
19. 5
25.6
22.3
12. 3
II. 4
12. 0
4.3
10. 5
5.8
9.4
14.8
62. 6
43. 7
11.1
.4
.6
.5
.l
.4
.3
.4
14. 5
9. 2
23.9
6.6
7. 5
6.3
11.8
7.8
II. 7
Ii.I
11.8
4.6
10. Ii
18. 8
10.0
13.8
82.1
6,118
100.0
8.5
9. 7
33.6
.3
.9
12.8
s. 8
215.11
2,050
334
628
1,088
964
2,514
22.8
30.4
31. 9
11.0
20. 4
15. 3
6. 7
II. 5
10.0
4. 1
8.8
9.0
9.2
8.5
65. 8
46.5
8.8
.3
11.3
15. 6
6.8
11.6
8.11
3.9
8. 7
6.6
:.JIU
41.2
13.8
611()
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
Total ••••.•.. 16. 180
100.0
8.2
15. 0
33. 4
.4
13. 2
7. 9
100.0
JOO. 0
JOO. 0
JOO. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
22. 2
28. 4
19. 2
21.8
1.5
1.0
1. 7
22. 7
27.0
24. 0
17.0
IJ. 9
12.9
4.4
11. 2
5.0
9. 5
19. 3
61. 7
42. 7
IJ.9
.4
.8
.4
.1
•4
.3
.1
20.0
11.3
29.6
JI, 4
9. 2
8. 6
15. I
7.2
8. 2
4.1
11.5
3. 4
9. I
15. 6
Fann operators .•••
Owners .•.••...
Tensnts .•......
Croppers ....••.
Fann laborers ......
N Oll8l(l'iculture ..•..
All others• •..•..•..
- - - - - - --- - - --- --- --- --- --11.4
8.8
11.4
8.3
13.8
--14.11
6.1
7. 7
28.1
2. I
18.0
llO. l
NJ:W CASJ:S
Total •.••....
Farm operators ....
Ownera ....•.•.
Tenants ......•.
Croppers .......
Fann laborera ..••..
N onagrlculture.....
All others• •..••••..
- - - - - - - - - --- --- --- --- --- --- --15. 3
2.9
•7
.7
.3
1.2
1.0 __ ., _____
.3
-------····-~2·
.2
1.0
1.5
.II
2.4
II. 2
7.4
11.1
13. 5
27.8
24.,
511. 2
2. 8
22. 7
28.1
BJ:OPJ:NED CASJ:8
Farm operators__ ••
Owners ________
Tenants ........
Croppers ...••..
Fann laborers ...••.
Nonl\gficulture .....
All othera '······•··
- - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- --- --6,320
l, 2i6
2,530
I, 514
3,426
6. 7fi8
1,666
12. 7
II.I
----4.8
11. 5
14. 3
9.6
12.3
9.6
9. 5
34.3
6.0
3.6
6.6
2. 3
15. 9
16.11
1 Alabama, Arkansss, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South CaroUns, Tennes.see, Texa.s, Virginia, and West Virginia.
• Includes "Head not a worker" and heads with "No usual occupation."
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
134
TABLE 31.-AccESSJONB ro RURAL REuEF RoLLS IN WEBTERN STATEB,1 BY UsuAL
OccUPAnON OF THE HEAD OF THE CABE .AND BY llEAsoN FOR OPENING .AND REOPENING, JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
(46 counties]
Reason for e.ccession
Loss of employ•
Total
Usual occupation
Num•
ber
Per•
cent
Crop
De•
failure crel\sed
or loss earnof live• ings
stock
ment
Prl•
vate
em•
ploy•
ment
Works
Pro-
Admln•
istra•
tive
ruling
Lossor
Indeple·
All
tion of creased
others
needs
assets
gram
--- --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - --ALL ACCl<SSIONS
Total. •••••..
Farm operators .••.
Owners ________
Tennnts ________
Farm lahorers ......
N onagriculture•....
All others'········-
4,234
100. 0
8.0
6.0
52. 5
4. 7
l~. 2
5. 2
1.8
2. 0
5. 3
3.6
3.1
4.5
9.0
22. 6
13. 2
10. 0
15.8
25. 9
3.8
3.6
2. 2
5.0
13. 9
31.8
1.3
6.1
- - - --- - - - --- --- ----------37. 4
750
100.0
11. 5
20. 5
4.5
18.4
3. 7
---------------------.9
'- 0
488
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
35. 6
39. 4
.7
1.7
3. 7
10. 6
12. 6
4. 2
5. 6
2. 0
18. 3
23. 4
76. 0
61.0
11. 9
1,430
100.0
6. 2
6. 3
44.8
1.3
.. 3
21.5
6.4
II. 2
266
100.0
100. 0
100.0
-------2. 5
206
3.9
3.8
7. 4
1.9
118. 3
50.9
4.9
2.3
I. 2
1. 0
2.3
5. 4
4. 9
15. 8
20.6
25. 2
3. 0
5. 9
15. 5
4. 5
6. 1
il. 7
2,804
100.0
0.0
5.8
56.4
I. 4
4.9
13. 4
4.6
4.5
1, 2iR
100. 0
100. 0
I. 3
3. 5
4. 5
2. 1
67. 4
17.0
2. 2
2.8
3.9
12. 1
12. 7
26.3
4. 4
12. 8
3.6
23.4
416
334
904
2, ()<J2
3.11
4. 2
2.11
'- 6
NEW CASJ<S
Total ••.•.•..
Farm operators ...•.
Owners ..•.....
Tenants ........
Farm laborers ______
Nonagrimlture _____
All others•-·-·····-
- - - --- --- --- --- - - --- ------142
100.0
42. 3
11.3
7.0 -------I. 4
32. 4
2.8
2. 8
(1)
(1)
(I)
(')
90
(')
(')
-------\'')>
···c•i·-(1)
(1)
(')
52
(')
(')
-------- -------818
Rl<OPIINIID CASES
Total.. •..•..
Farm operators..•..
Owners. _______
Tenants ........
Farm laborers ...•..
N onngriculture...•.
All others 1••••••••.
- - - - - - --- - - - - - - --- --- - - - --- --36. 2
608
100.0
II. 5
23. 7 -------5. 3
15. 1
3. 9
4. 3
326
34. 4
9.8
21. 5 -------100.0
6.1
19. 0
4. 3
4.9
13. 5
2!12
100. 0
38. 4
26. 2 -------4. 3
10. 6
3. 5
3. 5
100.0
&18
.9
4. 4
79. 4
.3
3. 4
7. 5
l. 9
2. 2
282
I California, Colorado, Mont.ans, Oregon, Utah, an,I Washington.
• Includes "Head not a worker" and heads with No usual occupation."
• Percent not computed on II base or less than 100 cases.
11
D1gt1zedoyGoogle
Supplementary Tables
135
TABLE 32.-AccESSJONS TO RURAL l\ELmF RoLLS IN CONNECTICUT AND MASSACHUBETl'S, BY USUAL OccUPATION OF THE HEAD OF THE CASE AND BY REASON FOR
OPENING AND REOPENING, JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
(83 town.ships]
Reason for accession
Total
Usu.al occupation
Number
Percent
Crop
Derailuro
or loss creased
earnor live- lugs
stoci<
Los.s or employment
Prlvate
employment
Admlnistrsth·e
Works
ruling
Program
- - - --- --- - - - - - - ---
Loss or
IndepleAIJ
tion or creased
others
needs
asset.s
--- --- ---
.lLL .lCCJ:SSIONS
Total ...•....
I, 024
100.0
0. 4
13. 2
48.0
0.4
6.2
25. 3
4. 7
2.8
402
100.0
.2
9. 5
39.5
.5
I. 5
39.1
6. 7
3. 0
- - - --- --- - - - - - - --- --- --- ----(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
88
(1!
(1!
--------··c1>" -(1)
(I)
(1
(1)
(1)
(I
(I)
Owners ..•.••..
80
- ----- -(1)
(I)
(1)
(I)
(1)
(I)
(1)
(1)
Tenants . .....•.
8
-------Farm laborers .. _.••
59. 0 -------100.0 -------12.0
14. 0
10. 0
100
4.0
1.0
Nonagriculture.•.•.
47. 1
100.0 -----·-·
10. 2
27. 4
3. 3
704
.6
4. 7
6. 7
.All others
8. 3
29. 5 -------100.0 -------132
9. 1
34. 1
7.6
11.4
Farm operators. ___
1•••••••••
NEW CASES
Total •.•.••••
Farm operators._ ..
Owners .••..•.•
Tenants ________
Farm lahorers ...•••
N ona~rlculture .•..•
All others'·········
- - - --- --- - - - - - - --- --- - - - ----(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(ll
(ll
(')
23
18
5
36
(1)
(I)
(I)
2i6
67
100.0
622
100.0
(ll
(ll
(ll
(ll
···c1j"""
(I)
(I)
(1)
7.6
(ll
fl1)
(1)
36. 2
(1)
(ll
(1!
(1
(I)
(ll
(1)
(1)
(')
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(ll
.7
--------
2. 2
--------
41. 4
(ll
(I)
(ll
(ll
6.6
5.4
(1)
(1)
REOPl!NED CASES
Total ........
Farm operators•• __ •
Owners._ ••....
Tenants .....•.•
Farm laborers ..••. _
Nonao:riculture •.•..
All others•-·····--·
.5
15. 6
53. 5
(1)
(1)
(1)
(I)
(ll
.3
7. 6
- - - --- --- - - - - - - - - - --65
62
3
fl4
428
65
fl
1)
(1)
(1)
(I)
fl
1)
(1)
100.0 · ··c1i ...
(1)
16.4
3. 4
7
--- - --(ll
2.
(')
(ll
fl1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(I)
(1)
(ll
(1)
11.9
54.1
(1)
(1)
(1)
.5
--------
fl1)
(ll
6.3
(1)
18.5
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
flI)
(I)
(1)
1.9
(1)
6.8
(1)
I Percent not compute<! on a base of less thsn 100 cases.
I Includes "Head not a worker" and beads with "No usual occupation."
0,91,rn
byGoogle
136
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
T ABLE 33.-SEPARATION S FROM R U RA L R ELIEF R oLLS, DY Usu AL O ccUPATio
OF
THE HEAD OF THE C A E A D DY REA.so
FOR CLOSIN G, J ULY THRO UGH O CTOBER
1935
[300 counties an d 83 New England townships}
Usual occupatio n or head
Farm operators
Reason for closing
Farm
Non•
All
labor•
agri•
ers
culLure ot hers •
Total
en•
Owners aTnts
1
Total
Crop•
pcrs
- -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - -26. 091
100. 0
9,293
100. 0
43. 9
33. 3
IO. 6
21. 1
6. 4
41. 9
12. 1
29.
21.8
8. 6
4 .3
42. 0
12. 8
35. 5
20. 1
9. 5
7
13. 2
2. 6
6. 1
5. 9
8. 8
7. 2
8. 3
Number .......... ...... .. ..... 80. 63
P ercent . ... . . ..• . .......•.••.• • 100. 0
Su fficien t m eans for self-support . . ...
P rivate employment 1 ••••• •• •• • .
C rops m ar keted ... . .. . ..........
, v or ks P rogram employment . . ... • . .
Civilian Conser vation Corps . . . •
W orks Progre.."5 Admin istration
and other. .. .. .. . .... .. . . . . .. •.
Transferred to ReseLtlemen t Admin·
lstra llon ............ . ......•• • . •. ..
Ot her Income • .. ........ . .. ... .... . .
Ad mi n ist rative policy ...............
M oved or failed t-0 report ... ..... . .. .
A ll others . ...•........... .... . .. . . .. .
13. 032
100. 0
3. 766
100. 0
13. 694
100. 0
31. 667
100. 0
10.9
31. 1
17. 2
7. 3
25. 5
14. 6
10. 9
42. 0
10. 9
48.
47. 5
1. 3
21.5
5. 6
52. 5
51. 4
I. I
23.0
5. 0
10. 6
9. 9
31. 1
15. 9
18. 0
6. 0
6. 5
6. 6
8. 0
5. R
7.4
6. 1
9. 4
7.8
10. 1
.9
6. 1
.5
9. 0
.0
.9
3. ~
6. 5
.5
5. 2
.6
39. 8
10. 4
10. 3
13. 1
- - - - -- - -- -
I(.
8. 5
.o
.3
7. 7
5. 9
- - - - - - - --
,
3. 5
.3
.5
8. 7
9. 411
100. 0
- -13. 6
10. 5
3. 1
12. 2
6. 2
1 Exclusive of croppers in t he sou thern Stet .
• Includes " Head not a worker" and heads with" o usual occupation ."
• Including regular go vernmen t employment.
• Assistance from local relief agencies, relatives and frien ds, and from misoellaneous sources.
T ABLE 34.-SEPARATIONS FROM RURAL RELIEF Rou.s IN NORTHERN STATES. 1 BY
UsuAL OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD OF THE CAsE AND BY llEAsoN FOR CLOSING ,
JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
I109 counties)
Usual occu patio n of hood
R eason for closing
Farm opera tors
T otal
-
-
- , - - - ~- --I
T otal Owners T enants
Far m
laborers
N0
~·
A ll
a11:r1· others •
cul ture
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - Number .......•. .. . .. . . . . ...•.•. •• . ... . 31, 522
Poroont . . ... . . .... ••• ••• ••• ••.• ••••..•• 100. 0
Sufficient means for sel l-suppor t .•. . ..... .....
Private employment • ... . .. . . ..•••••... .
C rops marketed .............•......•.. .. .
Works P rogram employment ....••.. . . . ..... .
C ivilia n Conservation C-0rps . . ....... ... .
Works P rogress Administration and other.
T ransferred to Resettlement Adm inistration .
Ot her Income •. ... . ... . ......••••.... .. ... ...
Administrative policy . . . .. . .•• •• •.. ... . . ... ..
Moved or failed to report .. . • • .••.. . . . .. .. . ..
All others ... . .. ... .. .. . . ..... . . ..••.•.•.... ..
JI , 440
100. 0
4, 838
100. 0
- -- - -- - -- li5. 5
36. 6
18. 0
13. 3
4. 0
9. 3
4.. 4
6. 9
10. 0
7. 2
2. 7
5i . 5
JO. 2
47. 3
9. 0
4. 1
4. 9
10. 9
3. 0
11. 0
6. 1
2. 5
59. 5
9. 9
49. 6
11. 8
5. 1
6. 7
8.
3. 6
7. 0
5. 3
3. 4
6. 602
100. 0
4, 274
100. 0
12. 396
100. 0
3. 412
100.0
JO. 5
45. 5
7. 0
3. 3
3. 7
12. 5
2. 5
13. 5
6. 7
1. 8
60. 0
57. 3
2. 7
15. 1
4. 1
10. 9
1.1
2. 7
12. 0
6. 7
2. 4
61.9
60. 2
I. 7
17. 4
3. 5
13. 9
.5
3.0
.3
19. S
13. 5
6. 3
JO. 1
5. 3
4.
I. 3
39. 4
10. 4
13. 1
5. 9
-60.0- -
- - - - - ---
6.
2. 1
1 Iowa, K ansas, Michigan, Minnesota , Missouri, Nebraska, New York , North Dakota, Ohio, Sout h Da.
kota, and W isconsin .
• Includes " D ood n ot a worker" and beads w ith "No usual occupation."
• Includi ng r611:ular governmen t employment.
• Assistance Crom local relief agencies, relatives and friends, and from ntisoellaneous sources.
Digitized by
Google
Supplementary Tables
137
TABLE 35.-SEPARATIONS FROM RURAL REJ..IEF Rot.LS IN 8oUTHERN 8TATES, 1 BY
U S UAL Occup .TIO N OF THE H E AD OF THE CAS E AND BY REASON FOR CLOSIN G,
JUL Y 'fHROUG H O CTOBER 1935
[1 45 c,o u m iesl
l ' iw al orr u pat ion of head
f "nrm opn alors
R eason fo r l'losing
T otul
T ota l
!
I
T e n-
Ow uc · 1 an t s
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- 1- - -
I C ro pJwr s
. [- - - - - - _ __ I___
I
5. f,, 2 1
3100,,f,61,,fiO
fl
0
100 0
38, 43~
100 0
12, n,;4
100. 0
30. ~
25..~
.~. 3
:10. i
9.9
2j, ll
11.2
H.4
:J,I. 0
13.8
2'. ~ I
10. 4
lis. l
:J,1. 0
l ~.O
Xl
9. 3
I J. 6
30, I
12. 7
2.-,. :,
:IO • •5
21.1
16.0
17. 4
istration . . _. .. .. ... . .. . _... ·- .... __
1. :1
9. 4
Otber lnr ome• . .. . . .... .. ..... -- -·
I}, ~
Ad m ln i~lm 1i,·epo!i ,·y ... ........ . . . !
M o,·ed or la ile•I o re pon.- ....... ,--1 ~- I
Allot lier rP aso n•. _... _____ . _. .. . _. . .
13. 2
2. 1
4, ,I
~. I
~ un1h<·r . . •
. . ....• • .• . .• .
T'erce.D t · · · · ·· · - · --·· · ····· · · - - ·Suffic ient m ea ns for sclf·s up port . . , .
Pr 110Rtt! 1< m plo y m e 1H 1 _____ _____
C rops mn r ketPd _. _... _ . . _.•..
Work s Pro,!' rn t11 P1 11 plo yn uii t_ _____ _ _
C ivilia n t 'un~ r n 1t ion ( 'or ps
\ \"ar ks f'n11.rrl'~ Ad m i ri i~trn l ion
a ad o Lht' L . .. __ . _. _. . .. _. _ ____
Transferred to Hc.•wttl Pment .'\ d m iu-
3. 2~r,
IOO O
~. ,I
7. J
i. 1
I
14. 11
F arm
N ou la horagriA 11
ers
cu lture 0t h ers•
~. u
4. I
IQ, ;
13, 470
100. 0
4, 698
100. 0
38. ,
:!ii.O
.7
3.1, 1
8. 3
8. 3
JO, g
39, 4
3ll. 9
.5
27. 4
7. 5
7.0
1. 3
15. 3
8.2
31. 2
rn. 9
24. 8
7. I
1. 6
.9
10. 2
5. i
7. 7
20. 8
6. I
•5
◄. 0
6. 5
3. 7
I
.3
:J7. 2
~- 6
KSI
RO
~o. o
11)(). 0
J
14. 6
10. 9
42. I
b. ,
•.9
8. 0
13. 6
1. 4
,\. 3
i
10, ,5
7. 8
t Alahama . :\r k:rn ~a!i, Fl ori d 11, r Pr iJT~in , K r n tn r·k y , Lou r~i11na, :,..; nr t h Ca ro li na , O klahoma, 8 out h Ca rolina. T en ne,,;;;St_1 , T p1as . \'i r~iula . :rn d \ \" " !'.- t V 1rl,!' in 1a
1 In r lu de.c; " J1 1iad n nt a wor k1"'r arid h t•ad s witt1 .. N' o u:icua l occu1mt ion ."
I ]n{'\11d lng n•~u lnr i[{ 1V('rr1 m c• nt Pm ploy rn un t.
, A ssis tn n('e (ru m l0t·u.l relld a ~cueic~ . n•la.ti vc,s a nd fr iend ~, nn<l fro m m iscella neous ~oun :es ,
0
S EPARATION S FnoM H u 11A1. B E LIE F Hou.s IN W E T E RN S T ATES, 1 nY
l h<l lAL O c cU P AT I O
OF Till•: HEAD O F T HE C .~ S E A N D BY Jl E SO N FOIi CLOS ING ,
J1 11.y T,m oUGII ( lt:TOII E II 19 :15
TABI.E :16 .-
[ I(]
countioo]
I
r·.:-ual occupa t ion of h end
I
Henson for d osing
I T ota l
I
__________________ I___
N u 111 he r . _..... . . ... . .... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . I 9, 1311
P e Tl 't'll l • .• . . . . .. . . . • ......• . •...• . .• •
F arm opera tors
I
Farm
latwr-
I
N onO!(r l-
-~ II
others•
T ota l Owners Tenan t.• ~ culture _ __
I, X-14
I, IOtl
738
I, 664
4, .540
1. OS8
I~~ ~ ~~ ~~~
Sufficient menns for Sf' lf•sup por t .. .. . •. • . .. . .
Prhmte t> rnpl oym e u t. J • • __ - - · _ • • •• • • • _ ••••
C' ro p9 11rnr ke te1I . .. .
. ..... . . .. ..
\\"orks P ro~ram emp lo ym en t . ... . •... .. .. ..
l' ivili(l n C onsen ·ut ion ( ' nrJ)-8 . . .... .. . . . . .
.'i-1. 3
~• . 2
.'\:I. 6
Zi. :,
fi. I
26, 1
12. 0
\V or k.~ l'TOflressA dm in i:Hrot ion and ot her.
IO. 7
Transferre d to He:-e t tlem ea t Adm ln hitrnti on.
Other inco me' ·- - ·· · · - - · ··-- --·--·· - - - · ··· -·
Adm in isLra t ive poliey .... .. . . . .. •. . .. . .... ..
Moved or fa iled to repor t. .. _... . . .. ... . .. ... .
All other reasons_ ._ . .. .. .. . .. .. .... _. .. ..
I. 2
11. 0
5. 3
13, 5
2. 7
12. i
2, 1
10. 6
4, ti
7. 6
4. 4
14 . 9
2. 2
1. :J
f,2 6
2,. 4
24. 2
15. 4
2. 4
13. 0
3. 3
8, 0
6. 1
12, 1
2. 5
55. 3
26 3
29, 0
8. 7
1. 6
7, I
6. 5
7. 0
I. 9
19.0
I. 6
61. 3
60. 0
I. 3
12. 0
I. I
10. 9
.5
3. 7
6, 5
12, 6
3. 4
61. 8
01. I
.,
12. 9
1.0
II. 9
.5
4. 1
5. 0
13, 7
2. 0
13. 2
11. 4
I. 8
7.2
1. 8
5. 4
56. 6
.) . 9
11. S
5, 3
I Ca li forn ia, Colorado. M on ta na , Oregon, U!Bh, a nd Was hin gton .
1 Includes "H a d not a worker '' a nd heads ~tit h " !o us ual occupation ,' '
• lnclu Ing re gu lar gove rn ment employmen t.
• Assis t.ance !rom local relief agen cies, relat ives an cl fr ien ds, a ncl fro m m iscellaneous sourcei.
DigtizedoyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
138
TABLE 37.-SEPARATIONS FROM RURAL RELIEF RoLLB IN CoNNECTICUT AND MAsSACHUSETI"S, BY USUAL OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD OF THE CASE AND BY REASON
FOR CLOSING, JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
(83 townships]
Usual occupation of head
Farm opemtors
Reason for closing
Total
Total Owners Tenants
Fann
No'?•
All
laborers ae.,- others!
culture
----------------- - - - --- - - - --- --- - - - --Nnmher________________________________
Percent __________ .--·-·-··············--
I, 767
JOO. 0
143
JOO. 0
123
20
(1)
100. 0
150
100. 0
I, 261
100. 0
213
100. 0
31. 3
30.8
.5
4. 2
Inclucies "Head not a worker" and heads with "No usual occupation.'•
• Percent not computed on a hase or less than 100 cases.
1
1
ln<"lnding- re~mlar 1?overnment employment.
• A~slstance from local relier agencies, relstirns and friends, and from miscellaneous sources.
TABLE 38.-CHANGES IN ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FARM OPERATORS RECEIVING GENERAL RELIEF, 1 MARCH THROUGH JUNE 1935 AND JULY THROUGH OCTOBER 1935
[Estimated from 138 counties]
Changes during period
Total ca.se
load at beginni!lg of
period
Period
Accessions
Total
March-June _____ --·-·········
July-October __ ·- __ -·····-····
508,000
390,000
152,000
93,000
Reopened
Sepe.rs•
tions
New
08,000
78,000
I
M,000
15,000
Carried
through
period
360,000
193,000
238,000
197,000
From agencies expending Fe<leml Emergency Relief Adminlstmtion funds.
• Exclusive of cases that were opened or reopened and also closed during the (4 months) period.
1
TABLE 39.-CnANGES DURING MoNTH IN ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FARM OPERATORSRECEIVING GENERAL RELIEF, 1 JULY THROUGH DECEMBER 1935
[Estimated from 300 counties and R3 New England townshlp.s]
Changes during month
Month
Totnl ra.se
load at
first of
month
Accessions
Total
July-December ••. - ---- ----- - July ••• _•••••... _••• __
390,000
Angust. _____ --·--- ·-35S, 000
3:1:l, 000
Beptember-•.. -- •. -- ••
:IOl.000
October_.------···-··
:l'J0.000
:Novemher __ ····---··2'16, 000
December--···-··-···
Reopened
Separations
New
Total
W.P.A.
Other
Carried
tbrou1?h
month
- - - - ---- --- ---- ---- ---- - - 216,000
174,000 41,000
551,000
186,000
365,000 --------·
---- --- ---48,000
83, '.JOO
83,000 ---------31. 000 17,000
307,000
32,000
27. 000
5,000
64,000
4,000
60,000
291,000
32.000
39,000
38,000
26,000
28,000
34. 000
33,000
21,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
5,000
fi.l, 000
50,000
102,000
l\IB, 000
10,000
20,000
fi.1,000
98,000
44,000
30,000
48,0CO
100,000
• From agencle.s expending Federal Emergency Relief Administration funds.
D1gt1zc-dbyGoogle
269,000
621.000
188,000
28,000·
APPENDIX
B
METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE
STUDIES
139
o,,
I
zed by
Google
D
I
zedbyGoogle
CONTENTS
Pace
Introduction______________________________________________________
The units of study_________________________________________________
Sampling method__________________________________________________
The areas sampled_________________________________________________
Selection of sample counties to represent areas________________________
Selection of sample counties to represent States_______________________
Field studies conducted in sample counties____________________________
Survey of the niral relief situation, October 1934__ ____ __ ________ __
Survey of current changes in the rural relief population_____________
Reporting of public and private assistance in rural and town areas____
Selection of sample cases within counties_____________________________
Collection of data_________________________________________________
Field staff____________________________________________________
Sources of data________________________________________________
Editing schedules and tabulating results__________________________
Representativenese of sample_______________________________________
List A.-Counties in nine agricultural areas___________________________
List B.-Sample counties representing nine agricultural areas____________
List C.-Sample counties and townships representing 34 States__________
List D.-States sampled, by regions__________________________________
Schedules_________________________________________________________
State supervisors of rural research____________________________________
143
144
145
146
149
153
156
156
156
159
159
161
161
161
162
162
174
184
185
188
189
202
TABLES
TABLE A. Scheme for selecting controlled sample of 27 out of 363 Corn
Belt counties ___________________________ ·------- Facing
B. Proportion of all counties included in each area sample, and
proportion of all rural families 1930, of all rural relief cases
October 1933, and of all farms January 1935, found in sample
counties in nine areas__________________________________
C. Scheme for selecting controlled sample of 10 out of 86 Ohio
counties______________________________________________
D. Proportion of all counties included in each State sample, and
proportion of all rural families 1930, of all rural relief cases
October 1933, and of all farms January 1935, found in sample
counties in 31 States _________________ ·----------------E. Proportion of all farm operators who worked 150 days or more
off their farms during 1934, for State as a whole and for
sample counties in 31 States____________________________
F. Proportion of the total farm population January 1935 that reported a nonfarm residence 5 years earlier, for State as a
whole and for sample counties in 31 States________________
137296°-37--11
150
153
155
158
166
167
141
Digitzed by
Google
Contents
142
Paa-e
TABLE
G. Relationship between background factors and the percent of the
rural relief population located in open country in 27 sample
Corn Belt counties, June 1935___________________________
H. Comparison of larger and smaller sample with respect to size
and with respect to specified relief items, June 1935________
170
173
FIGURES
F10URll
A. Areas represented and counties sampled____________________
B. States represented and counties sampled___________________
C. Relationship between background factors and the percent of
the rural relief population located in open country in 27
sample Corn Belt counties, June 1935___________________
Dnr zed by
Google
150
157
169
APPENDIX
B
METHODOLOGY OF RURAL CURRENT CHANGE
STUDIES
INTRODUCTION
HE BESULTS of 11.n investigation can be better understood when
there is an adequate understanding of the methods by which the
results were obtained. During its period of activity the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration carried through a series of surveys
dealing with the characteristics of the rural relief population. These
studies reached their greatest adequacy and reliability during the
year 1935. Many of the results of these studies have been published
in mimeographed bulletins. Other results are being published in
the form of monographic reports. It is proPosed here to indicate the
kinds of broad studies that were made and to describe in detail the
methods by which results were obtained.
The administration early recognized that the relief problem in
rural areas differed in important respects from that in urban communities. It was further recognized that such rural-urban differences called for differentiation of programs and policies designed for
application to the relief situation in country and in city. In order
to formulate and operate a rural program, it was imperative that
considerable information concerning the rural relief population be
made available. The Rural Unit of the Research Section of the
Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance was charged with
responsibility for collecting that information.
From its beginning, the F. E. R. A. required the emergency relief
administration in each State to submit detailed monthly reports
showing the number of families and the number of persons receiving
unemployment relief and the amounts of obligations incurred for the
various types of assistance. These reports did not classify relief
cases by rural and urban residence, but tabulations by counties gave
clear evidence that the relief problem was by no means limited to
urban or to industrial centers. On the contrary, they revealed that
many counties, predominantly rural in character, had one-fifth or
more of their families on relief.
Only one complete enumeration of the unemployment relief
population by rural and urban residence has eyer been made. This
T
143
Digitized by
Google
144
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
enumeration was made as a part of the Unemployment Relief Census
of October 1933. More than 5,000,000 persons, or 40 percent of all
persons receiving relief at that time, resided in the open country and
in villages of less than 2,500 population, the rural relief population
being equal to about 9.5 percent of the total rural population in 1930.1
Following the Relief Census of October 1933, several special investigations of the numbers and characteristics of rural relief families
were undertaken at various times by the Rural Unit of the Research
Section. These studies led up to and paved the way for the initiation of a more adequate study known as the Survey of Current
Changes in the Rural Relief Population. This survey was launched
in February 1935 for the purpose of providing current information
concerning the characteristics of, and the changes taking place in,
the rural relief population.
The great bulk of material concerning the phases of rural relief to
be studied, together with limitations on time and funds available
for collecting data, made full investigation prohibitive, and made
sampling necessary. Highly accurate generalizations about a whole
may be made from a small part of that whole, if the part constitutes
a properly selected sample. One of the first problems to which attention was given in the development of the Survey of Current Changes
in the Rural Relief Population was that of sampling. The techniques and procedures used in selecting samples, the type of information collected, and the reliability of the data are discussed in the
following pages.
THE UNITS OF STUDY
For purposes of the survey, the relief case or household was
taken as the unit of study. Interest centered primarily in the
composition and characteristics of these units. If lists of all rural
cases had been available, it would have been statistically possible
to select random samples from such lists. If pertinent information
had been available for these cases, it would have been statistically
possible to classify them and to select stratified samples on the basis
of such information. However, no such lists of rural relief cases
were available. Moreover, if they had been available, it would have
been administratively impossible to study a sample selected from
them due to the prohibitive amount of time and expense that would
have been involved in visiting widely scattered units.
It was necessary for practical purposes, then, that the units to be
studied be concentrated in a relatively small number of geographical
localities. There was no serious theoretical objection to such limitation since the rural relief cases residing in one small geographical
1
Unemployment Relief Census, October 1933, Report Number Two, Federal Emergency
Relief Administration, 1934, table A.
Dly1
zedbyGoogle
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
145
division might have many of the characteristics of cases residing
in the entire area to be covered by the study and might have them in
much the same proportions. A careful selection of a number of such
divisions would then provide a representative sample of the entire
universe of study. Since the country has been divided into numerous
political divisions and subdivisions, as counties, townships, etc., it
was possible to use one type of political unit as the unit of sampling.
As the county was the unit for administering relief throughout most
of the country and because much a priori information concerning
the population and factors vitally affecting the population of the
county was available from the United States Census Bureau publications, this unit was chosen for sampling.
SAMPLING METHOD
For practical purposes, then, the universe to be directly sampled
was a number of counties covering as large a proportion of the
United States as possible under the limitations imposed by administrative considerations. The aim was to select the counties in such a
manner as to insure so far as possible the inclusion of a representative sample of rural relief cases. In selecting the sample counties
two methods were available. A strictly random sample might have
been drawn from among all counties to be included in the study, the
selection being made according to one of the accepted procedures.
The random method was not workable, since the counties differed
widely with respect to their availability for survey purposes, due to
their location or to the accessibility of sources of information concerning aspects of rural relief within their borders. Since pertinent
information was available for counties, however, it was possible on
the basis of factors related to rural relief to classify them into rela,tively homogeneous groups and to select usable counties from each
group. This involved classification and subclassification of all counties on the basis of factors thought to be relevant to the purposes of
the studies to be made and the selection of similar proportions of
units from each subgroup. A sample selected in this manner may be
called a controlled sample, the classificatory factors constituting the
controls.
The procedure adopted for selecting representative counties was
based primarily on three generally accepted propositions:
1. When, by classification of units, the variability within
classes has been reduced to such an extent that each class may
be considered sufficiently homogeneous for the purpose in view,
any one unit may be studied as representative of the other units
in the same class.
2. If one or more variables are related to or dependent upon
a given variable, classification of units into groups homogeneous
o,,
I
zed by
Google
146
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
with respect to the given variable will tend at the same time to
give groups which are relatively homogeneous with respect to
the dependent variables. Hence, if farm tenancy in the relief
population is closely correlated with farm tenancy in the general
population, then counties which are alike with respect to the
proportion of tenants in the general population will tend to be
alike with respect to the proportion of tenants in the relief
population.
3. The units constituting a limited universe to be sampled may
be broken down into a number of relatively homogeneous subgroups and each subgroup may be sampled separately. If equal
proportions of units are selected from each subgroup, the selected units may be combined to form a properly weighted
sample of the entire universe of units.
The attempt to sample the rural relief population was in effect an
attempt to sample an unknown population. Little recent or usable
information regarding the relief population was available. There
was, therefore, no direct approach to the problem of selecting a series
of counties containing a representative sample of rural relief cases.
An indirect approach was made by selecting counties on the basis
of certain background factors assumed to be correlated with various
aspects of rural relief. The selection of these background factors
was based upon a priori reasoning, ordinary logic and common sense,
and upon the considered judgment and knowledge of research scholars familiar with the sociology and economics of rural life.
THE AREAS SAMPLED
In classifying counties for the selection of a controlled sample,
the major control was introduced by grouping the units according to
the dominant type of farming engaged in by the farm population,
on the assumption that type of farming was a factor relevant to the
rural relief situation in many of its aspects. It was possible by the
use of Census data to define a number of large aggregations of counties which possessed a high degree of homogeneity with respect to
the major agricultural source of income, and which in general were
geographically contiguous areas.
Nine major type of farming areas were delimited for study. The
areas and the bases of their delineation were as follows:
Eastern Cotton Area.
This area consisted of 424 counties of the Old South scattered
among the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia.,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and
southeastern Missouri. These were counties in which two-fifths
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
147
or more of the total value of products sold, traded, or used on
the farm in 1929 was produced on cotton farms as defined by the
United States Census of Agriculture. 2
Western Cotton Area.
This area consisted of 151 counties in Texas and Oklahoma
distinguished by the same basic criterion as the Eastern Cotton
Area but separated from the latter on the basis of other factors,
such as a smaller proportion of sharecroppers and greater frequency of drought.
Appalachian-Ozark Area.
This area consisted of 265 counties in the self-sufficing farming regions of West Virgina, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee,
North Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and
southern Illinois. These were counties in which 20 percent or
more of all farms in 1929 were classified as self-sufficing.•
Lake States Cut-Over Area.
This area consisted of 76 counties in Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin, in which less than 50 percent of the approximate
land area was in farms in 1930.
Hay and Dairy Area.
This area consisted of 187 counties in Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont. These
were counties in which 25 percent or more of all farms were
classified as dairy farms in the 1930 Census of Agriculture.4
Corn Belt.
This area consisted of 363 counties in the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota., Missouri, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. These were counties in which 29 percent or
more of the cropland and plowable pasture was planted to corn
in 1929.
Spring Wheat Area.
This area consisted of 64 counties in North and South Dakota,
and Montana, in which 30 percent or more of all cropland and
plowable pasture was land from which wheat was harvested in
1929.
• Cotton farm: A farm from which 40 percent or more of the value of Its products wa11
derived from cotton (!Int) or cottonseed.
• 8elf-8utrlcinq farm: The value of farm productA UAed by the farm family was 50 percent
or more of the total valu<> of all products of the farm.
•Dai,.., farm: A farm from which 40 percent or more of the value of lte products was
derived from milk, cream, butterfat, butter, and dairy cows and calves.
Cig1 . zed by
Google
148
Farmers orz Relief and Rehabilitation
Winter Wheat Area.
This area. consisted of 79 counties in Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska, a.nd Texas, in which 30 percent or more of all cropland and plowable pasture was land from which wheat was
harvested in 1929.
Ranching Area.
This area consisted of 64 counties in Colorado, Montana,
Utah, and Oregon/ in which 40 percent or more of a.ll farm
acreage was in farms classified by the United States Census of
Agriculture as stock ranches 6 in 1929. Only a. small part of the
total ranching area was sampled due to lack of adequate field
staff for carrying on studies in the ranching States.
The delineation of areas of homogeneity with respect to type of
agriculture constituted the first major step toward the selection of
a controlled sample. Homogeneous farming areas are not necessarily homogeneous in many other respects. It was assumed, however, that type of agriculture and agricultural resources have a.
multiplicity of correlates, many of which are directly or indirectly
associated with the rural relief situation.
The 9 areas delineated for sampling included 1,673 counties, somewhat more than half ( 54 percent) of all such political units in the
country (see list A and figure A). While these areas do not cover
the entire rural United States, they do comprise the largest number
of aggregations of counties that are characterized simultaneously
by a. high degree of agricultural homogeneity ~nd geographical
contiguity.
The maximum sample was limited to about 140 counties, due to
administrative limitations upon the amount of time allowed for
getting the initial study under way and upon the amount of funds
available for collecting data. It was not thought advisable to
attempt to represent all rural areas of the country with so small a.
number of counties. Consequently, the counties lying outside the
nine areas described above were not included. Moreover, in the
States not touched by the nine areas there was no research organization or personnel for carrying on field work at the time.
The areas not sampled consisted of general and mixed farming
.areas which are often found between areas of dominant types of
agriculture; that part of the Western Ranching Area. lying in States
with no administrative machinery for carrying on rural research;
various localized farming regions, such as fruit and truck areas; and
• That part of th«' Ranching Area extending Into other States was not included.
• Stock ranch: A farm where chief emphasis ls on grazing rather than on production
of crops and feeding of livestock, and on which 40 percent or more of the value of all
farm products 18 derived from meat anlmnls.
DigtizedbyGoogle
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
149
areas devoted to special crops, such as tobacco, beans, potatoes, rice,
sugar beets, etc. Finally, certain very thinly populated nonagricultural regions, such as the Cascade Mountains in the far West, the
Colorado-Mohave Desert, the Adirondacks and northern Maine, and
the Florida Flatwoods and Everglades (see figure A), were also
omitted.
SELECTION OF SAMPLE COUNTIES TO REPRESENT AREAS
The first major step toward the selection of a controlled sample of
counties to represent the rural relief situation was a classification of
the units into agricultural areas as described above. The second
major step consisted of subgrouping the counties within each area on
the basis of certain relevant factors.
It was contemplated that the items of information to be collected
in the sample counties would be many and varied. Proposed field
studies would be designed to provide information regarding nearly
all aspects of the rural relief situation and would cover a considerable
period of time. Hence, in stratifying the counties for the selection
of the sample, indexes of fundamental and fairly permanent socioeconomic conditions underlying the rural relief situation were used.
They included the following: 7
Percent of all families In the county that were rurnl families.
Percent of all rural families that were farm families.
Percent of all farm operators that were tenants.
Percent of all rural families whose heads were foreign born.
Percent of all gainful workers In agriculture that were wage laborers.
Land value per capita of the roral-farm population.
Each of these factors is, undoubtedly, correlated with other background variables which in turn are correlated with phases of rural
relief. For example, a fairly close relationship was found in southern counties between the percent of Negroes in the rural population
and the percent of farm tenancy. A fair degree of correlation between the proportion of Negroes in the general and in the relief
population may be assumed. Hence, by controlling farm tenancy in
selecting sample counties, it is probable that some control is exercised
over both color and tenancy in the relief population. These intercorrelations among background factors underlying the rural relief
situation eliminated the necessity of attempting to control any considerable number of variables in selecting the sample, for in selecting
a county in which certain conditions are present, closely related
conditions are ipso facto present.
The method of selecting counties from those grouped by agricultural areas may be shown by describing its application to the Corn
7
The Indexes were based on 1930 Census data.
Digtized:iyGoogle
.....
g
FIG. A-AREAS REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES SAMPLED
SITUAT ION
.,~
:3
~
~
C
;:,
::ti
-
~
ri:"
Q
;:,
Ro
::ti
~
:::i-
0
Q
co·
;c;.
-~.........
O"
;;;-
2;_
CT
'<
5·
;:,
()
0
~,..._
rv
AF·ZIM, WP.A.
TAB LE A,-
27 OUT OF 363 COR N BEL T COU NTIES
CON TROLLED S AMP LE OF
S CHE ME FOR SELE CTIN G
[C oun t'1es sel ected In italic ,)
L
x,
x,
I
India na:
Carroll.
Delaw are.
Gran t.
Hend ricks.
Miam i.
z,
India na:
Park e.
Ka11S8S:
Ohio:
Minn esota :
Le Sueur.
Loga n.
Miam i.
Piuna m.
Osage.
Nebraska:
Dixon .
Frank lin.
Furn as.
Harla n .
Thay er.
Nebraska:
Valley.
Webs ter.
Illinois:
Carroll.
Ilancock.
M cDon ough.
Ogle.
Rock Island .
Iowa:
Misso uri:
Gent ry.
Iowa:
Butle r.
Guthr i,.
Keok uk.
x,
I owa:
T aylor .
Kansas:
Nema ha.
P ottaw atom ie.
Illinois:
B ureau .
Dout as.
Ken all.
Mars hall.
Mena rd.
Dlln ols:
Piatt .
Putn am.
Sanga mon.
.Taze well.
Iowa:
Adair.
Calhoun.
Dallas.
Iowa :
Sioux .
Illinois:
Stark .
Illino is:
Ford.
Gru ndy.
Kank akee.
K ansas:
I ndian a :
Ben ton.
Newt on.
Nebr aska:
Sarpy ,
W oodfor d.
Illino is:
Maco upin .
:
India na:
Founta in .
ITenry.
Madison.
Mont gome ry.
Pike.
z,
-YI
Ohio:
Cham paign.
Clark.
Clinton .
Greene.
z,
Madi~on.
I
s:
I Kan~a
Coffey.
Linn.
Phillips.
Smith.
Washi ngton .
z,
India na:
Union .
Wa yn e.
Whit e .
Ohio:
Bu tler .
P a uld ing.
Ohio:
\V arreo.
W ood.
K a nsas:
Shaw nee.
Oh io:
M arion .
Mont gome ry.
Illinois:
M cBen n·.
Illinois:
Alexa nde r.
Galla tin.
Greene.
India na :
Johnson.
Vermillion.
Iowa :
Kebras ka:
Boon e.
Chick asaw.
F ayet te.
Ringgold .
India na :
Rand olph.
\ Vinneb 8go.
Ill inois:
Cass.
Chris tian .
De Kal b.
F ultou.
Kane .
Clint on.
Iowa.
Jone$.
Louisa.
Missouri :
B olt.
K ansas:
Johnson.
Misso uri:
Clin ton.
Nebr aska:
H itchcock.
lllino is:
M ason.
Mercer.
Moul trie.
Illinois:
Peoria.
Scott.
Verm ilion .
Will.
Iowa :
Musc atine.
Nebr as ka:
Antel ope.
Boyd.
Greeley.
H oward.
Knox.
Nebraska:
Pawn ee.
Ka nsns:
Waba unsu.
::\Jinnesotn:
Cotto nwood .
Iowa:
Adam s.
Buch anan .
Des Moin es.
Bear y.
Liun.
I owa:
Kansas:
Oeary .
M innes ota:
Renv ille.
Illinois:
Coles.
Edga r.
Mor~an.
Whiteside.
Iown:
D nrr ison.
J as per.
Scott .
Kebr aska:
Daws on .
Iowa:
Floyd .
Sou th Dako ta:
Gregory.
Chas e.
Nebraska:
Clay.
Maco n.
I ll inois:
Iowa:
Iowa :
Neb ras ka:
Butle r.
Fillmore.
Merri ck.
Iowa :
Carroll.
Frem ont.
Grun dy.
Sac
Story.
Nebraska:
Cass.
Johns on .
M ad ison .
Saline.
Illinois:
Logan.
Nebr aska:
C hase.
Dodge.
Kearn ey.
Nanc e.
W ay ne.
Iowa :
H ancoc k.
Bard in .
O~ceo la.
Pocah ont2s.
lllino is:
Hend erson .
Iroquois.
La Salle.
Lee.
Livin gston .
l\"e brasko:
Burt.
K ansas:
Cloud
Deca tur.
Mars hall.
Re publi c.
Ohio :
Dark e.
Dicki nson .
Hum boldt .
South D akota :
Brule .
T ama.
McLea n.
Ceda r.
Ida .
Lyon .
O'B rien.
Sou th D akota:
Boo Homme.
Kingsb ury.
Tl li nois:
Knox.
MiS$0 Uri:
Henr y.
Y,
India na:
Cass.
Ham ilton.
1/ancock.
P ulask i.
z,
Ohio:
Augla ize.
Indiana:
Clint on.
Decat ur.
Gi bson.
Ti oward
Knox.
z,
Ohio:
H enry.
Prebl e
Illinois:
Brow·n.
Shelb y.
z,
Y,
z,
z,
Kansas:
Allen.
Jackson.
Lyon .
M iami.
India na :
Boone.
K ansas:
Jeffer son.
Nebraska:
Ceda r.
l\1arion
Wo shi11 qton.
Xebraska.
Buffalo.
:
Minn esota
ta.
Lac Qui Parle. South Dako
Yellow Medi cine. Sanborn.
W orth .
South Dako ta:
liocoln.
Turn er.
Illinois.
C ha mpaig n.
Sou th D akota:
l-Iutchi11son.
l\'fisso uri :
Atchi son.
Iowa:
Brem er.
I ndiana:
J,.forgan .
Putnam .
'"fippecanoe.
Illinois:
Schu yler.
Iowa :
_ \ Vinnebago.
Misso uri:
Dento n.
Ceda r.
De Kalb.
H ickorv.
St. Clair .
Iowa:
Wape llo.
K ansas :
Doni phan .
?viisso uri:
W orth.
K ansas :
Bour bon.
Frank li n
Grah am .
Jewel l.
I owa :
Monr oe.
Minn esota :
J ackson.
Pipes tone.
R edwood.
\ Vatonwan .
Oh io:
Faye tte.
Iowa:
B lack H awk.
I ndian a:
Fulto n .
W abash .
Mi ~souri :
Iowa:
Cerro Gordo.
Johnson.
Maha ska .
Unio n.
V{arre u.
Misao ur i:
Bates.
I ndian a:
'\Varren .
N ebraska.
Sa unders .
Iowa:
Iowa:
Webster.
Audu bon
Wood bury.
Buen a Vista.
Mills.
a:
Mont gome ry. Ne braskng
Potta wat tamie Cumi
Sour.h Da kota:
M cCoo k.
J\1in r.w haba.
Mood y.
Piercf'.
Po lk.
Mi=e sota :
Farib ault.
Ob io:
Ross.
K an~ns :
Iowa :
J efferson.
Lee.
Nebr aska:
Duud y.
Thurston.
oouth Dak ota:
Min er.
Union.
K orton.
Rav.
Color ado:
Yum a.
N ebras ka:
Sher man.
Iowa:
DPIBWflrC.
Mitcbell.
K ansas:
C heyenne.
Riley .
South D akota :
Douglas.
Misso uri :
Noda way.
Iowa:
Boone.
Cass.
Crawford .
JYTa rshall .
Mouona.
Nebr aska:
Front ier.
Nebraska:
Richa rdson.
Iowa:
Palo Alto.
Poweshiek.
Wrig ht.
Illino is:
Henr y.
\V arren.
Nebra ska:
Colfa x.
Nuckolls.
South D akota :
C harles Mix.
Min nesot a:
Blue E ar th.
Lyon .
Mart in.
Murray.
Nebraska.
Lincoln.
Redwillow.
Nebraska:
Dako ta.
South D akota :
Hans on.
M issouri :
Saline .
Iowa:
Benton.
Cherokee.
Emm et.
Greene.
Ham ilton.
Iowa:
Kossu th.
P age .
Nebrask a:
Gage .
H all.
Ham ilton.
Otoe.
Phelp s.
York .
Iowa:
Clay.
F ranklin.
Shelb y.
Nebras ka:
Sewa rd .
Minn esota:
Nobles.
Nebraska:
J efferson.
Lancas ter.
Nema ha.
N ebras ka:
Stant on .
Ohio:
Van Wert.
India na:
Faye tte.
Jaspe r.
R ush .
S helb1J .
T ipton .
Illinois:
J ersey .
Ohio :
Picka way.
Kansas :
Atch ison.
D ouglas.
Minn esota :
Chip pewa .
Illinois:
Boon e.
Mlsaouri :
Andr ew.
Petti s.
Nebr aska:
Adam s.
Custe r.
Gos per.
Haye s.
Platt e.
Kans as:
Clay.
Morr is.
K ansas:
B rown .
South Dako ta:
Brook ings.
D av ison .
Iowa:
Clark e.
M adison.
South Dako ta :
Yank ton.
Minn esota :
Brow n.
Illino is:
DeW itt.
Minn esota:
Rock
Sout h D akota :
Clay.
Lake.
Nebr aska:
Was hingt on.
Ohio:
H ancock.
-
rural farm popu la tion .
~ • land value per capit a or the
that are farm families. are wage workers.
•percent of rural families
3, t he highest third .
al work ers tha t
ultur
agric
ul
2, the midd le third ; subsc ript
Z•percent or all gainf
respect to a given factor ; subsc ript
with
ies
count
1372 96-3 7
363
the
of
third
t
Subscript 1 indlc ates the lowes
(Face p. 150)
Dig t1zed by
Google
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
151
Belt. The 140 counties to which the sample was limited constituted
about 8 percent of the 1,673 counties in all areas combined. There
were 363 counties in the entire Corn Belt and the sampling ratio (8
percent) allowed for a selection of 29 counties. In order to facilitate
the sampling technique this number was arbitrarily reduced to 27
counties.
Three background factors considered relevant by informed research
scholars were used as the bases for classifying the 363 Corn Belt
counties into 27 subgroups. These were (a) the percent of all rural
families that were farm families in 1930, (b) the percent of all
agricultural workers that were wage laborers in 1930, and ( c) land
value per capita of the rural farm population, 1930.
The 363 counties were first ranked from highest to lowest on the
basis of per capita land value and broken into 3 equal groups of
counties representing high, low, and intermediate values. Each of
these three groups was then ranked on the basis of the rural-farm
index, and was subdivided into equal groups of counties with high,
low, and intermediate percentages of rural-farm population. These
2 steps gave 9 subgroups of about 40 counties each. These nine
groups were in turn ranked on the basis of the farm labor index
and divided into three equal groups.
The final result was a classification of the 363 counties into 27
subgroups, each having from 12 to 14 counties and each representing
1 of 27 phases of joint variation of 3 background factors (see
table A).
The counties within each subgroup were considered homogeneous
for practical purposes with respect to the three classificatory factors.
In some other important respects, however, the counties in a particular subgroup differed widely among themselves. The subgroups
did not, for example, form geographically contiguous subregions of
the Corn Belt, but tended to scatter throughout a particular State or
among several States. In making the final selection of the sample,
one choice was made from each of the subgroups, the choice bein,;
governed by an endeavor to obtain a fairly even geographical distribution throughout the area and to select a county including approximately 8 percent of the total rural population of its subgroup.
At the same time a State could be apportioned no larger number
of counties than could be surveyed with the then existing research
personnel. It was considered highly important that the sample include counties from each State overlapped by the areas sampled sin~
many aspects of the relief problems to be investigated were related
to administrative practices which varied from State to State. If
upon initial contact by the field staff, the selected county was found
unsuitable for survey purposes because of the lack of reliable sources
of information or the lack of cooperation on the part of local relief
Dig t1zed oy
Google
152
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
officials, another county from the same subgroup was substituted
in its place, the process of substitution being continued until a usable
selection resulted.
In general, the sampling method applied to the Corn Belt countie.'3
was followed in the other eight areas. Some variation was nece.ssary, however, due to differences in the total number of counties in
the areas, and due to differences among areas with respect to the
control factors used.
Considering the advice and judgment of experts in the field oi
rural sociology and economics, the background factors used in forming subgroups of counties making up the other eight areas were as
follows:
Eastern Cotton Area :
1. Percent of all farm operators that were tenants.
2. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
3. Percent of all rural families that were farm famllles.
Western Cotton Area:
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural families that were farm famllles.
Appalachian-Ozark Area:
1. Percent of all farm operators that were tenants.
2. Percent of all rural families that were farm famllles.
Lake States Cut-Over Area:
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural famllles whose heads were foreign born.
Hay and Dairy Area :
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural families that were farm families.
Spring Wheat Area :
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural families that were farm families.
Winter Wheat Area :
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural famllles that were farm families.
Ranching Area :
1. Land value per capita of the rural-farm population.
2. Percent of all rural families that were farm families.
The final list of sample units, including 138 counties, represented
9 major type of farming areas overlapping 33 States (see list B and
figure A). These 138 counties, selected as representative of certain
background factors considered relevant to the rural relief situation,
were therefore assumed to be representative of the general aspects
of the rural relief situation. The size of the samples varied from
7.4 percent of all counties in the Corn Belt to 18.8 percent of
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
153
the counties in that part of the Ranching Area actually sampled
(table B).
TABLE B.-PRoPORTION or Au. COUNTIES INCLUDED IN EACH AREA SAMPLE, AND
PROPORTION OF Au. RURAL FAMILIES 1930, OF ALL RURAL RELIEF CASES OCTOBER
1933, AND OF ALL FARMS JANUARY 1935, FoUND IN SAMPLE COUNTIES IN NINE
AREAS
.
3
~
-
<
All areas ........ I1,673
3
.
8
:,
=
~
138
8.26,830,298\554,870
l
3
Eastern Cotton.......
Western Cotton .......
Corn Helt............
IlayandD<Li'J··-····
Appalachian- zark...
Winter Wheat........
Bprin~ Wheat.........
Lake States Cut-Over.
Ranching.............
Sample
counties
Sample
counties
Area
Reller cases,
October 1933 I
Families, 1930 1
Counties
3
~
a:,
z
=
~
!
...."
z ...."
<
- - --- - - -
424
1,51
31)3,
1s;1
2C5
79
32
12
'27
16
20
6
64 1 7
76j
6
64I 12 1
Farms, January
19351
Sample
counties
3
3
!
~
z
---- -
!
<
8.1 643, 103 49,989
1
=
Sample
counties
3
3
l
=
! -z~- -i
! --7. 8 4,208, 62-5 342,610
7. 51,985. 026(6, 610 6. 91216, 9"4 16,886 7. 8 1,396, Zl1
7.9 715,803 66,2,52 9.3 53,450 4,031 7. 5 482, 2'Jl
7. 4 1,385, I ;s 97, IO'l 7. 0 5;, 939 2, 707 4. 7 no,0;2
8.61,211,2!,!113,9!!.5 9.4 75,1.52 5,843 7. 8 500,600
7. 5 952, Y•.J 811, fl.54 9. 1 166, r,10 14,340 8.6 600,601
7. 6 l&'i, °"3 12,112 6. 5117. 8112 1,458 8.2 115, 754
10.9 132,140 14, 7/iS 11.2 12,053 1,450 11. 6
93,371
7. 9 179. Y•O 12, OH 6. 7 36,846 2,238 6. 1 118,514
18. 8
82, s;2 15, :H6 18. 5 5,867 1,036 17. 7
41,092
8.1
95,401 6.8
45,05.1 9.3
56.150 7.3
67,997 9.8
53,815 9.0
8.05ll 7.0
10,3W 11.1
7,912 6. 7
7,829 19.1
1
• Source: Fiftunlh Ctnsu• oftht lJnittd State,: 19.,o, Population.
1 Source: Cnt:mploumenl Relief Ctn~u-1, Ocwbtr 1933.
• Source: L'niltd Slate. Cen,ua of .·lgric:uUure: 1935.
SELECTION OF
SAMPLE
COUNTIES TO
REPRESENT STATES
Field stu<lies were conducted in the 138 counties representing 9
agricultural areas from October 1934 to October 1935. During the
spring of 1935 administrative need for information concerning the
rural relief situation in particular States as well as in agricultural
areas became pressing. In order to meet this need it was decided
to devise a State sampling procedure and to select a list of counties
for survey in each of a number of States. As an arbitrary standard,
sample counties were to contain not less than 10 percent of the rural
population of each State sampled.
The following procedure was used for selecting sample counties
to represent separate States with respect to factors pertaining to the
rural relief situation.
1. All counties within the State 8 were classified by principal
type of farming. All counties falling within a particular type
of farming area were indicated on a county outline map of the
State.
2. The percent of all gainful workers, 10 years of age and
over, engaged in nonagricultural enterprises was computed for
each county.
1
Counties largely urban In character, that ls, counties containing very Billall rural
populations In comparison with their urban populations, were excluded.
D1gt1zPdbyGoogle
154
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
3. Where rural nonagricultural enterprise was of much importance (including 25 percent or more of the gainful workers,
10 years of age and over), the principal type of industry was
determined and indicated along with the type of farming on
the county outline map of the State.
4. On the basis of two background factors judged relevant
to the purposes of the study, the counties of each State were
classified into subgroups, the number of which was fairly close
to 10 percent of all counties in the State concerned. Hence, for
a State having 90 counties, the counties were classified into 9
subgroups of 10 counties each. The two factors used in classifying the counties into subgroups were: {1) percent of the rural
population classified as rural-farm in 1930, and (2) percent of
farm tenancy ( or percent of farm labor in those States where
this factor was of more importance than tenancy). In arriving
at the subclasses the following steps were taken :
a. The counties of the State were ranked on the rural-farm
index and divided into two or more equal groupings, each group
having a different range of the index used for ranking the
counties. The number of subgroupings depended upon the total
number of counties in the array and therefore upon the total
number of subgroups needed in the final classification.
b. Each of the initial groups of counties was ranked on the
basis of the farm tenancy ( or farm labor) index. The groups
were then broken into equal numbers of secondary groups so
that the total number of subgroups approached 10 percent of
all counties being sampled.
(For illustration of procedure, see table C.)
-0. One or more counties were selected from each subgroup.
Selection was made of counties that contained approximately
10 percent of the total rural population 9 in the group of counties to which they belonged. These counties were selected from
the subgroups so that counties previously selected as part of an
area sample were included as part of the larger State sample
wherever possible. In making the selection the following factors
were included in their proper proportions as far as possible:
a. Type of farming as shown on county outline map.
b. Type of nonagricultural industry in counties where important, as shown on county outline maps.
c. Intensity of relief as shown on latest relief intensity maps.
• In actual practice It was not always possible to select counties to meet the requirement of a 10 percent sample. Hence, some disproportions eXist in the ftnal sample both
within and among States.
D1gt1zedbyGoogle
Methodology of Rural Current <;hange Studies
TABLE C,-SCHEME FOR SELECTING CoNTROLLED SAMPLE OF
OHIO CoUNTIES
10
155
OUT OF
86
[Counties selected In Ualica)
Peroent or all rural lamllles that were rural-lann ramllles In 1930
Pscent tenancy
Lowest third or counties
Middle third or counties Highest third of counties
Carroll__________________
Columbiana_____________
Ouern.sey _____________ __
Lowest third of Harrison ________________
counties_________ Lake____________________
Mahoning _______________
AshtabuJa ______________ _
Gtall,fla ____________ _____ _
Jackson ________________ _
Knox __________________ _
Medina ________________ _
Meigs __________________ _
Mu•kingum _____________ Portage ________________ _
, Perry___________________ Vinton _________________ _
I
~!a.s::::::::::::: -~-°:"-~~~~:::::::::::::
1
Erie ____________________ _
!t'fm~ni::::::::::::::::
Middle third of Hocking _______________ _
counties_________ Jefferson _______________ _
Lewrenoe ______________ _
Lorain ___ --------------Scioto __________________ _
Stark ___ -------- _______ _
I
Allen ___________________ _
Ashland ________________ _
Holmes ________________ _
Huron _________________ _
Licking ________________ _
Marion_---------------Putnam ________________ _
Richland _______________ _
Sandusky ______________ _
Wayne _________________ _
Coshocton.
Delaware.
Fairfield.
Gallia.
Mercer.
M011roe.
Morgan.
Morrow.
Noble.
Pike.
Auglaize.
Crawford.
Deflanoe.
Hardin.
Highland.
Ross.
L'nion.
WIiliams.
Wyandot.
----------------- - ----- -
I Brown __________________ Champaign ____________ _ Adams.
Highest third or
counties._.______
Butler__________________
Clermont_______________
Franklin ________________
Greene__________________
Lucas___________________
Montgomery ____________
Ottawa __________________
Summit_________________
Wood ___________________
Clark __________________ _
Clint011 __________ _______ _
Fulton _________________ _
Logan __________________ _
Madison _______________ _
MiamL ________________ _
Paulding _______________ _
Warren __ ----·-----------------------------------
Darke.
Fayette.
Hanooclc.
Henry.
Pickaway,
Preble.
Stntm.
t~~bw"en.
6. It was assumed that a sample drawn in the manner described would be properly weighted for all practical purposes
so that no weighting of final results would be called for in order
to correct for disproportions growing out of the selection of
the county units.
Following the general procedure outlined above, a total of 304
sample counties were selected to represent 31 States 10 for purpose.a
of the Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population.
These counties included 117 of the 138 counties previously selected
to represent 9 agricultural areas. In addition to the counties, 33
New Hampshire townships were selected,11 largely on the bases of
size of population and geographical distribution, to represent all
townships in the State with less than 5,000 population. Forty
Connecticut townships and forty-three Massachusetts townships
selected by competent research students in those States were accepted
10 Fonr
aample counties ln Arizona were Included only in the Current Change Survey
in October 1935.
:u Included only In survey of June 1935.
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
156
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
as satisfactory for the Current Change Study. As in the case
of New Hampshire, these sample townships were selected to represent all townships having less than 5,000 population 12 (see figure B
and lists C and D).
The States sampled contained considerably more than threefourths of the total rural population of the United States in 1930,
while the total number of sample counties and townships contained
about one-tenth of the total rural population of the United States.
The remaining States were not sampled due to lack of a cooperative
plan for rural research in those States and therefore to lack of a
research staff for conducting field studies.
The size of the State samples averaged 12.2 percent of all counties.
This ratio ranged from 9.0 percent in Alabama and Florida to
20.7 percent in Utah and 28.6 percent in Arizona. The relativ~
size of the sample was necessarily large in the latter States due
to the small number and heterogeneous character of the counties
from which the samples were drawn (table D).
FIELD STUDIES CONDUCTED IN SAMPLE COUNTIES
Survey of the Rural Relief Situation, October 1934.
The first field study, "Survey of the Rural Relief Situation, October 1934," was made as of October 1934. Household schedule
DRS-77A and county schedule DRS-77B were devised for this
study ( see schedules A and B). Approximately 29,800 household
schedules were taken in the 138 counties selected to represent the
9 areas, and an additional 2,500 were filled in 6 locally selected
Pacific Coast counties and in 40 Connecticut townships. 11
Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population.
In February 1935 the "Survey of Current Changes in the Rural
Relief Population" was inaugurated in the 138 sample counties.
This study was designed to provide periodic information concerning
the number and characteristics of rural relief and rehabilitation
cases and to provide current information regarding the number
and characteristics of opened, reopened, and closed cases.
12 In these New England States, the primary divisions of the counties are known as
towns or townships and include rural territory as well as compactly settled areas.
» 1''or results ot this study see Research Bulletins, Serles F, Numbers 1-10, Dh1slon ot
Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
FIG._ B- STATES REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES SAMPLED
,..
...
,:0
~
a::
"'
i
C'-
s:
f...
C
Q.
-
C
C
,..
Cl:)
~
~
~
s:::
-
~
C")
~<'-
-
::,
Q
§
CC)
~
t,)
s::
0
ci:i'
Q.
~·
c,,
;c.
N.
~
~
CONNECTICUT, MASSACHJSE:TTS, />NO NEW HMf'SH!RE
SAMPLED Bf TOWNSHIPS
C';
NEW HAMPSMIRE SAMPLED IN JUNE 1935 ONLY
0
ARIZONA SAMPLED FROM JULY 1935
a,.....
(i)
AF•2018. W.PA
~
~
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
158
TABLE
D.-PRoPORTION oF ALL CoUNTIEs INCLUDED IN EACH STATE SAMPLE, AND
PROPORTION OF ALL RURAL FAMILIES 1930, OF ALL RURAL RELIEF CASES OCTOBER
1933, AND OF Au. FARMS JANUARY 1935, FOUND IN SillPLE COUNTIES IN 31 STATES
Sample
counties
State
3
.s
s
"~
lll33 •
Sample coun•
ties
3
.s
s
I
.;
S&mple
counties
3
.s
.!El
.."
Sample
counties
]
.s
.!
....,
"
~
:s
:s
~ a,2i
E
;;;"
a,
z
z ~
z
z "'~
"'
--- - - --- -"'- - - - --- -"'- - - - - --
s
a,
All St&tes
sampled•.- 2,500
AlahamB--·-----·-Arizona
________ • ___
Arkansas __ -------·
California __________
Colorado ____ • ______
..,
.!El
Relief Cases, October Farms. January 19351
Families, 1930 1
Counties
~
3
304 12.2 9,559,074 1,00., 259 11. 4 896,3« 100,272 11. 2 5,527,073 667,003 12. l
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -67
H
75
58
63
7 9.0
4 28.6
10 13. 3
12 20. 7
8 12. 7
.08, 990
67,008
339,468
397,841
125,986
40,064
17,832
39,475
62,871
12,601
9.8
26.2
11.6
15.8
10.0
69,178
11,369
29,415
17,112
6,772
7,030 10. 2
3,298 29.0
2,843 9. 7
3,478 20.3
503 8. 7
273,455 28,6S3 10.5
18,824 4,397 23.4
2l3,013 29,777 11.8
150, 3f,O 28,306 18.8
63,644 6,341 10.0
6 9.0
17 10.6
10 10.1
13 12. 4
12 10. 0
174,2.'il
428,1\MII
373,3.50
288,485
401,11.%
19,961 11.5
40,641 9.5
37,671 10. l
31, 6117 11.0
35,199 8.8
4~. 958
35,400
10,683
19, 0,12
80,543
5,5.'!3
3,287
1,142
1,993
8,511
11. 7
Q.3
10. 7
10. 5
10. 6
72,857
250,544
221,986
174,589
278,298
9,728 13. 4
24,922 9.9
22, 123 10.0
19,719 11.3
24,543 8.8
FloridB __ • _________
Georgia ____________
Iowa _______________
Kansas ____________
Kentucky __________
120
Louisiana __________
Michigan __________
Minnesota _________
Missouri ___________
Montana ___________
64
83
87
114
56
10 15. 6
13.3
14. 9
10.5
14. 3
280, 92.i
380,31:l
298, 762
447,442
89,330
48,702
41,2.iS
50,804
47,f,87
11,412
17.3
10.8
17.0
10. 7
12.8
37,985
48,479
9,514
13,558
9,863
8,018 21. l
4,044 8.3
2,297 24. l
792 5.8
1,403 14. 2
170,216
196,517
203,302
278,454
50,564
31,388
2.5, 268
36,526
32,656
7,226
Nehra.ska __________
New York _________
North Carolina ____
North Dakota _____
Ohio ___ • ___________
Oklahoma _________
Oregon _____________
South Carolina ____
93
62
100
53
9 9. 7
5 8.1
12 12.0
8 15.1
217,196
529,357
463,580
110,076
22,196 10.2
41, 718 7. 9
46, 717 10. l
21,140 17. 8
4,412
34,498
34, 9r,o
8,351
619 14.0
1, ,529 4.4
2,17i 6. 2
2,159 25.9
133,616
177,025
300,967
84,606
12,886 9.6
16,084 9. l
30,290 10.1
15,500 18. 4
88
10 11. 4
77
36
46
ll 11. 7
6 16. 7
8 17.4
537, 4,55
3/il, !i39
126, 700
277,056
55,392
38. 312
13, 1R2
35,007
10.3
10.9
10. 4
12. 7
47,081 3, ,547 7. 5
74,803 8,434 II. 3
4,442
211 4. 8
63,631 10,700 17.0
2,55, 146 28,686 11. 2
213, 32.'i 24,291 11.4
64,826 7,150, 11.0
165,504 20,855 12. 6
South Dakota _____ .
Tennessee __________
Texas ______________
Utah ••••••• ________
69
Ofi
254
29
9 13. 0
9 9. 5
28 11.0
6 20. 7
128,261
37fi,:J91
778,601
61,951
19,087
38, 730
101,243
8,6311
14. 9
10. 3
13.0
16.6
18,238
23,218
31, 147
5, 6.53
1, 9.16 10. 6
2,044 8.8
4,177 13. 4
632 11. 2
83, 30.1 12,399 14. 9
273, 783 29,436 10.8
501,017 66,699 13.3
30,695 6,343 20. 7
Vil'!!'inia ____________
Washing-ton _______
West Virginia ______
Wisconsin _________
100
39
55
71
13 13.0
6 15. 4
4 7. 3
9 12. 7
341. 84R
178,8~
2,'i7, 165
321,211
40,577 11.9
19. 979 II. 2
18,647 7. 3
35, 749 11. l
5,356
11,910
65,287
18,416
778 14. 5
266 2.2
5, 0'2\l 7. 7
I, 772 9.6
197, f\.32 2,'i, 038 12. 7
84,381 9,9!<.'i 11.8
104, 747 i,830 7. 5
199,877 21,868 1-0.9
67
161
99
!OS
II
13
12
8
18.4
12.9
18.0
11. 7
14.3
1 Source: Fifteemh C,n•u• of the United State.,: /9.'IO. Population.
• Source: Unemplovment Relief Censu_., October 1/1.~8.
I Source: vn;t,d st.ate, cen,u• of Aqricufture: 1935.
• New England States excluded.
Schedule DRS-109 was devised as the main instrument for collecting data for the Current Change Study (see schedules C and D).
The schedule was used in its original form from February to June
and in a considerably revised form after June. Samples representative of cross sections of the rural and town 14 relief population
were taken in February, June, and October 1935. In addition to
these cross•section studies, samples were taken of cases closed during the interval March to June inclusive, of cases opened, reopened,
and closed each month July to October inclusive, and of cases
"Town: A wnter ba,·lng from :!,500 to 4,!l!l!l inhabitants in 1930.
D1gt1zedoyGoogle
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
159
opened and reopened during November and December. These samples were taken as representative of the nine agricultural areas
prior to June and as representative of both areas and States in
June and SUC{:eeding months.
At the close of the year 1935 schedule DRS-409A (see schedule E)
was devised for a study of rural families that had received relief
in June 1935 but had been closed later. This schedule was taken
in the sample counties of seven States only. 1~ The study aimed to
determine the sources of livelihood of the cases in December 1935
and the characteristics of families receiving their income from different sources, including special forms of public assistance.
Reporting of Public and Private Assistance in Rural and Town
Areas.
The Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population
was closed as of December 1935 when the F. E. R. A. ceased operation. At that time a new field study was inaugurated, namely, "Reporting of Public and Private Assistance in Rural and Town Sample
Areas" (see schedule F).
This project was designed to obtain on a sampling basis current
information concerning (a) the intensity, (b) the cost, (c) the
types, and ( d) the trend of public and private assistance in rural
areas including towns up to 25,000 population. 16 The Sta'.;e sample
was expanded for this survey to insure representation of towns up
to 25,000 population.
SELECTION OF SAMPLE CASES WITHIN COUNTIES
In filling DRS--77A schedules as of October 1934 in 142 counties, 11
samples were taken from local agency files of case records. In
order to keep the total number of cases within the limits of time
and expense allowed for field work and tabulation, not more than
300 to 400 cases were selected from any 1 county regardless of the
size of the case load in that county. The following sampling procedure was used in each county surveyed.
If there wereFewer than 300 rural cases, all were enumerated.
300--399 rural cases, 2 out of every 3 cases were selected.
400-599 rural cases, every second case was selected.
600-899 rural cases, every third case was selected.
Georgia, Jown, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
For the results and methodology of this study, see monthly reports on "CUrrent Statistics of Relief In Rural and Town Areas," Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration.
1
• Including 138 counties In the 9 agricultural areas and 4 localJy selected Pacific
Coast counties.
2•
JO
Digtized:iyGoogle
160
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
900-1,199 rural cases, every fourth case was selected.
1,200-1,499 rural cases, every fifth case was selected.
1,500-1,799 rural cases, every sixth case was selected.
1,800-2,099 rural cases, every seventh case was selected.
2,100-2,699 rural cases, every ninth case was selected.
2,700 or more rural cases, every tenth case was selected.
In combining the results of the survey by areas, it was possible to
apply proper county weights to correct for unequal sampling ratios.
In order to facilitate the selection of case samples, a complete
card file of all cases was set up in each county in February 1935
with the inauguration of the Survey of Current Changes in the
Rural Relief Population. For that file, control cards, form
DRS--109B and revised form DRS-109D,18 were used (see schedules
G and H). One of these cards was filled for every rural and town
relief or rehabilitation case in the county at the time that county
began participating in the survey. The card file was kept up-todate for each case. When a new case was extended assistance, a
new card was filled. When a case left the rolls the card for that
case was removed to a closed case file. If the case later returned
to the relief rolls, the card was replaced in the active case file.
Samples were selected from the files of control cards. In drawing the February sample the cards were arranged alphabetically in
three groups: (a) cases receiving unemployment relief only; (b)
cases receiving rehabilitation loans only; and ( c) cases receiving
both relief and rehabilitation loans. The number of cards selected
was determined according to the same procedure as that followed in
October 1934.
In order to assure an adequate sample from each county and in
order to avoid weighting results by counties, sampling from control
cards for the DRS-109 schedule was done on a uniform 50 percent
basis 19 after February 1935, selecting every second card from alphabetical groups. In October, certain exceptions were made, when
in the interest of speed a few counties with very large relief case
loads were sampled on a 25 percent basis, every fourth card being
selected. The resulting disproportion was adjusted by applying
proper weights to the final results of the survey.
In taking the DRS-409A schedules, the sampling ratio ranged
from 5 percent to 50 percent, depending on the size of the population sampled. In the interest of economy of time and expense,
no adjustments of these disproportions were made in the final
tabulation of results.
ia
ll1
Revised July 1935.
In Connecticut, schedules were filled for all cases In the sample townsblpe.
Dig t1zea by
Google
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
161
COLLECTION OF DATA
Field Staff.
Field studies were conducted in the sample counties under a joint
rural research plan by which the Division of Research, Statistics,
and Finance of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the
State Emergency Relief Administrations, and the State Colleges of
Agriculture, or other institutions engaged in rural research in the
States, agreed to cooperate in conducting investigations of rural
relief. The rural sociologist or economist at the State College of
Agriculture was appointed State Supervisor of Rural Research in
each State where mutually satisfactory cooperative arrangements
could be perfected among the agencies interested.
The State Supervisors of Rural Research were men exceptionally
' well qualified to supervise the field work necessary in connection
with the rural studies. 20 As they were full-time workers on the
staffs of their State colleges, they did not spend any considerable
amount of time in the field in detailed supervision of field work
but were responsible for its direction and for the prompt and
accurate return of schedules to the national office.
In addition to the State Supervisor of Rural Research, the field
personnel consisted of a full-time assistant supervisor and a survey
staff, including clerical workers. The Assistant Supervisors of
Rural Research were persons experienced in social and economic
research who had graduate training equivalent at least to a master's
degree. The clerical personnel was made up of local persons who
were qualified for work under the provisions of the professional and
technical works program carried on by the F. E. R. A. Most of
these workers conformed to the "needs test" as applied by the State
Emergency Relief Administration. However, no person was employed on the survey staff unless he was considered well qualified
to perform the work required. Carefully written instructions were
provided these workers by the 'Washington office and, in addition,
personal instruction and training was given them by the State
Supervisor or Assistant Supervisor of Rural Research.
Sources of Data.
In general, data entered on schedules taken in the sample counties
were transcribed from family case record cards on file in local relief
offices. Such records had previously been filled in connection with
the investigation and social service activities of the agencies concerned. In some instances, information for specific items on the
schedules was obtained by interviews with case workers and from
local relief or rehabilitation officials. Some of the information given
by the DRS-409 schedule was obtained through family interview.
•see attached 11st of State Supervisors.
Dig t1zea by
Google
162
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Editing Schedules and Tabulating Results.
More than 270,000 DRS--109 and DRS--109A schedules were filled
in the field during the months the survey was in progress. These
schedules were edited in the field and were carefully re-edited in the
Washington office. Each section on every schedule submitted was
carefully examined to detect, wherever possible, erroneous, inconsistent, incomplete, or missing entries. In order to insure the greatest possible accuracy of the data, each schedule which needed revisions that could not be made by the editor from other entries was
returned to the field for completion or revision. Coding, punching, and machine tabulation were done in Washington and New
York.
REPRESENTATIVENESS OF SAMPLE
An accurate or representative sample is a miniature picture of a
larger whole. The conclusions drawn from such a sample apply,
within reasonable limits, to the entire field from which the sample
was drawn. It is of greatest importance that a sample be selected
in such a manner that its statistical values measure what they are
supposed to measure; that is, so that they measure that larger whole
predefined as constituting the population 21 to be studied. It is
possible for a sample to be representative of a larger population of
units, but due to bias in selection that population may not coincide
with that which the sample was supposed to represent. Hence, the
measure may not actually apply to the field presumably under investigation. In order for a sample to measure the large whole it
is supposed to measure, it must include all the important phases of
the whole and must include them in their proper proportions. Such
a sample is said to be an unbiased or valid sample. If the sample,
is at the same time sufficiently large to reduce accidental errors and
to produce stable measures the sample is said to be reliable.
Two major questions arise concerning the accuracy of the relief
studies here described. The first question relates to the precision
of the data themselves and the second question concerns the representativeness of the sample. The final results of the studies would
be biased if there were constant errors in recording the original
data. The accuracy of the data depends upon the correctness of the
sources used. As has been pointed out, secondary sources were used
almost exclusively in filling household schedules. Specific entries
on agency case records as well as data supplied by such informants
as case workers, case aides, or relief officials may often have been in
error. Very few items were of such natcre, however, that one would
expect a constant error in reporting. Error in one direction would
111 Tbe term population Is used In Its tPchnkal sense to Indicate the entire number or
units represented by a sample.
Dig ii Zed by
Goog [e
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
163
probably be cancelled by errors in opposite directions. Hence, while
inaccuracies may have been present in individual case schedules,
averages were likely to be essentially correct. It may be pointed
out that information was collected from E. R. A. agencies only,
local poor relief being excluded. Relief standards maintained by
these E. R. A. agencies were generally high, including the standards of maintaining complete and accurate records. Records were
particularly good in the sample counties due to cooperation of local
case workers and relief officials in the research aim to report accurate
data.
One of the most pertinent questions that can be asked concerning
any sample is whether it is representative of the whole which final
generalizations are purported to encompass. In the discussion of
this question in connection with the rural relief samples reviewed,
it is necessary to exercise caution in the claims made for their
accuracy. Samples selected from a totality for which no complete
enumeration exists can never be directly tested statistically for their
representativeness. The search for a solution must be directed largely
to the application of logic and sound judgment rather than to the
application of mathematical computations.
In undertaking the development of a procedure for selecting
samples representative of the rural relief population, three major
difficulties had to be recognized.
The relief situation in a particular locality as of a particular month
may be largely a reftection of administrative policy.-Much of the
variation in phases of rural relief is not a result of natural socioeconomic conditions about which a priori knowledge is available but
is a result of unpredictable differences in programs and policies of
relief administration. Such differences arise among counties within
particular States as well as among the States themselves. Hence,
temporary shortage of funds may result in curtailment of relief or
in dropping certain classes of clients during a particular month.
Special classes of relief clients may be shifted from the general relief
rolls to special relief programs. Local relief administrators may
order all employable members of a particular occupational group
removed from relief because seasonal employment is considered available for them during a particular month. All cases may be closed
pending reinvestigation of the eligibility of each client for relief.
These and numerous other administrative differences and changes are
unpredictable and beyond the reckoning of the investigator.
The relief tdtuation in a locality as of a particular month niay be
largely a refiection of temporary factors that profoundly affect the
1·elief program.-Temporary pick-up or shut-down of industrial
plants may remove or add certain types of clients. Every year floods
D1g1
_e(j
by
Goos Ie
164
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
occur in some localities, producing the necessity for temporary aid
to its victims. Loss of crops and livestock due to drought, insect
infestations, or other reasons occur in some localities yearly. In
years of widespread drought the extent of its devastation differs
widely among the localities affected.
The major purpose of the relkf surveys cond'IUJtea made it necessary that they cover many aspects of rural, relief.-The relief studies
under discussion were not made for the purpose of providing scientific discoveries in the social field. Rather, these studies were made
for the purpose of providing information that would contribute to
the solution of pressing problems confronting the persons charged
with the task of administering relief. The questions which needed
answers were many, covering all phases of the rural relief situation.
Sampling for the answer to a single specific question would be relatively simple. It is known, however, that a sample representative
for one purpose will not necessarily be representative for other purposes. It was recognized from the beginning that the difficulties involved in the selection of a sample that would represent the ruralrelief population in its multitudinous aspects were enormous.
The natural reaction to the above discussion is that, due to lack
of statistical controls known to be relevant to the various aspects of
rural relief, a strictly random sample shoul~ have been taken. This
should have included a large number of counties, selected in such
manner as to allow each relevant factor an equal chance of inclusion.
On purely theoretical grounds this is probably true. Practical considerations, however, made the random sample impossible. The
optimum number of counties that the field staff of each State was
equipped to survey under existing limitations on time and expense
was known. In order to assure an approach to that optimum, it
was necessary to control the sample to the extent of predetermining
the number of counties in each State and in each area.
The question may still be raised, however, as to the advisability
of selecting counties at random within each State or area. Again,
practical considerations made the random sampling method impossible. In certain counties the relief case records were found to
be in such poor condition as to render the county useless as a sample.
In other counties local relief officials declined to cooperate with the
survey staff. Hence, in the final selection of the sample it wa~
necessary not only that the counties be as representative as possible
but that they be counties from which trustworthy information could
be had with as great ease as possible. This necessitated the selection
of a controlled sample.
In spite of the numerous pitfalls into which a sampling method
might lead when applied to the field of rural relief, it is believed
that the samples taken are accurate enough in their general aspects
Dig tized by
Google
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
165
for most practical purposes. This belief is based on the followir.g
considerations.
The way the sample was selected had an important bearing on its
validity.-The factors used as controls in selecting sample counties
for relief surveys -were chosen on the basis of logic, reasoning, judgment, and common sense considerations on the part of those investigators who aided or advised in the development of the sampling procedure. The controls used were those readily available from the 1930
Census and which were judged relevant to the purposes of the studies
contemplated.
The application of the sampling procedure resulted in the selection
c,f a series of counties that were truly representative with respect to
various background factors. They were representative not only of
the factors directly controlled in selecting them, such as type of
farming, farm tenancy, farm labor, farm and nonfarm distribution
of the population, and per capita land value, but they proved "to be
representative also of other background variables. For example,
data given by the 1935 Census of Agriculture were used for testing.
That the sample counties were highly representative of most of the
States with respect to part-time farming during 1934 and with respect to movement of population to farms during the depression is
shown in accompanying tables 22 (tables E and F).
The fact that the counties were representative of numerous background factors does not, however, assure their representativeness
with regard to the aspects of relief actually studied. Making a.
E:ample representative in some respects only increases the possibilities
that it will be representative in other aspects. Representativeness
with respect to other aspects is assured only to the extent that the
background factors are relevant to the purposes of the study; i. e.,
relevant to those aspects in which one is interested.
Tests indicate that the sampling procedure followed actually gave
a fair degree of control over aspects of the rural relief situation.
They indicate that the factors judged relevant on a priori reasoning
were actually pertinent to the purposes of the studies. In the tabulation of data, a few classifications of the relief population of each
. sample county were made. Hence, it was possible to determine the
variation among sample counties with regard to certain aspects of
rural relief, and to test this variation against the variation among
the counties with respect to the control factors used in selecting the
sample. The object of such tests was to determine whether the relationships among phases of relief and background factors expected on
logical grounds were actually found in the results of the study.
• With respect to part-time fanning and movement to farms, the results shown by
States In the 19311 Census of Agriculture could have been obtalnt>d within reasonable
limits of accuraa lf the study had been limited to the sample counties.
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
166
TABLE E.-PROPORTION OF ALL FARM OPERATORS WHO WORKED 150 DAYS OR
MORE OFF THEIR FARMS DURING 1934, FOR STATE AS A ,VHOLE AND FOR
SAMPLE CoUNTIES IN 31 STATES
Sta te tot al
Sa m ple cou n ties
P nrt -t ime rnr1ncrs
Sta to
Tot al
T ots!
far m c-r:,.
for me rs
!': umber
Percent
P art•time farmers
!\'umber
Percent
- - - - - - - -- - - - - -1- - - -,
All ii to lo.ssnmplt1<l
I
A lnh n m n . __ . ___. . • . . . •. .
•
8. I
('°'' ·4 ,'l~
52, 100
7. 8
I .\ !KJ I
:1, :11,
11, ~f7[l
26,1 21
5, 12,=j
5. 8
li .0
2-S, 6."a:3
1, 444
5, 0
17. 5
11, 42,l
I ii, n:JI
15. 7
013
!1_2''27, 073 1_ _1-18.
__
_,
••• • .
Ariwn a . . ... - . . . .. •. . . .... • .. ... •
Ar k11ns11s .. ...... . .. ....... .. ... ..
C'nlifornin .. .... . .. .. .. .. . .. ... .
C olorado . ..... . . .... ..... ... . . .... _
Zi3. t .55
l ~, 824
2.',l, 01 3
1,,0, :jl10
tta, lt-M
4. 5
17. 4
8. 1
;2, R.'li
2()( 1, .~\4
? 21,\JNI
174, .,..,,-,J
:.!78, Z.JS
20, '!:l"l
8, !'21)
18, !J:H
X, f,lO
I ll, 100
4, IU7
5. 2
0. 6
4. 2
~I on tu.rm .. ... .. . • .. . ........ _. .. ..
l i O, 2ltl
lHti, .~I i
2\tl, :m2
::!i~. 4!',4
r,o, ,M
~=~~~~~~\k
:: :: :~: -::~: ~~~ :~===::::I
N or t h (, nroli na .... . . _. . .• .•• . . __.
1:1:1. f, )6
177, 015
:IOO, gr,,
4. 4g7
2! . 3iilJ
2li, 077
3. 4
12 0
Lou i~ia na . _. . __ . •... _____ _....... .
l\lic h ira n . ... ... . . . . ....... . .... .
~f in no..'1 ot :l . _. • . • . .. • . _. . . .. . .. . . .. .
?\l is..~mtr i
. .. •• •. ... . . _. • .. . . • . •
6. 6
u, i42
4. 4
fi. 7
7. 3
11. i !i:?
fi . U
~- 3
4,397
768
21J, 779
I , 378
28, 30,,
6, 34 1
4.6
5, 690
438
20.1
9. i 2S
25,379
22, 12a
19, 7 19
1, 674
] , 464
17. 2
l, 2/iO
6. 3
24, 5-13
1, 638
6.;
3 1, 3'>~
1, 575
5. 0
2.\26!;
2,238
I, 8 11
2, 072
8. 9
501
6. 9
36, 520
32, ll,'iS
i, 2'2ti
1, 026
4811
3. 8
14. 3
8. 7
2. 8
28,6.."6
24. 2\11
8. 1
4, 8
15. l
8-1,000
2,637
2,, 5, H n
21 :1, :12.,
29, 3::,.1
11, 27 1
10, ()(]<J
14,947
15. 4
9. 0
7, ! SO
2, 336
I, 17.~
I, 082
20,SM
2, 038
South D akota .. .... . ... . .... .... ..
T ennessee . . _____ __...• __ ... .... ... .
~rexn.". _. ... ____ _... ___ .... _.. ___.
Utah . . ..... . .. ............ . ..... .
K.1, 30.1
273, ;~
W l, 017
3. 7
12,300
493
8. 2
29,436
611,699
2, 303
3,44 2
IM,50-I
30, fi9[)
197, H.12
~-1, :i, 1
104, 747
tr.t9, Si7
3, 0[>11
:.?'2, ·Hi2
:J-1, 209
4,280
r.. 8
20, S07
1:1, :1[19
1n. 00.1
II, 339 I
I
5. 0
6. 3
2, 299
2,642
432
Ohio ..... . . .. ....... ........ ... ..
Ok lah oma .. .... . . ....... ... . . ... ,
( )rr gon -- -- - --- - - - ----- - --···· ···
South Caroli na . __ . .. .... .... . ... .
,t :I
4. 6
12,!!M
K orth Dak ota . . .. . ... . .. . . ...... .
11. !,
5. 8
HI, OS4
30, 2\JO
15, 500
!1.0
3. I
li4 , K2fi
6. 9
14. 0
6, 343
777
rn. l
2S, 038
3, 517
JS. 0
15. 4
5. 7
7, K.J O
I, 5.1 7
I, 3 13
I , 2:1 1
9. os.:;
2 1, 8118
' Data not available (or townships In Connecticut and Massachwietta.
Bouroe: Uniud Statu Cemul of Ar,rirollure: 19$6,
D1g11zedbyGoogle
9. 8
4. 0
7. 8
-~- 2
12. 2
14. 0
I S. 4
17. 2
5. 6
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
167
TABLE F.-PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL FARM POPULATION JANUARY 1935
THAT REPORTED A NoNFARM RESIDENCE 5 YEARS EARLIER, FOR STATE AS A
WHOLE AND FOR SAMPLE COUNTIES IN 31 STATES
State total
State
Farm pop-
Sample counties
Moverl from nonfarm residence
Moved from nonfarm residenee
Fann pop-
ulation, lU351--------1ulation, J~as
Numher
Perrcnt
------Jliumher
Pereent
All States sampled'········· 25,!.'97,427
1,.566,009
6.0
3,145,315
183,909
5.R
1, ;.xn. 07-l
4. 0
f~)S, KIS
276, lllb
11.1,M.5
10.0,2
51, 7f,3
71,07~
26,920
146. 955
21,0U
140,138
11~. 922
25,614
6,337
2, 5S5
6,251
12,577
2, 3~5
4. 3
12. 3
4. 5
10. 6
9.1
319, r,,,8
l,·I0,5,\1+1
5.9
.,1ahBn10 .•••.......•••.....•......
.o\rizona ________________ . _________ _
.l\.rknnsa..,;; ________________________ _
CnlHornifL ... ______ - . __ . - ..•.. __ ..
Colorndo •••.....••.•.......•.•....
Flnrirla ...........•...............
Oeor~i& ...........•.•.............
Jo\.\·u _______________ ---- --- -------Kansa..~. _____________ . -----------Kentucky ........••••.....•••.•..
Loni~iana _______________________ ..
Michi~an ..••..........•.....•....
lll innesota...........•............
~I is~ouri. •.. _. _______ .• __ -- .. - . -- .
Montana .••.......•••••••..•.•..
JOU,0"3
1, I>-0,
:.r.,~
10. I
4. 4
IL 7
9. 7
22. 2"7
7.0
57, f-i.~'l
70'1, 743
1, 307,~lfl
51, lf>8
48,:l\15
61,326
4. I
5.3
0. 9
4. 7
36, 4~9
!41,744
95,657
78, 4SS
113,368
2, 1,",I\
4, :15y
6,572
4,956
R.59, 351
840, 51-1
028, 487
1, !Kl, 499
195,262
31,186
110,413
49,676
81,91'>8
15, 6i4
3. 6
13. I
5. 4
6. y
8.0
160,439
IO!!, 12>!
164,199
147,857
26,710
5,684
1:1, 317
10,207
9,700
2,296
Xehraska ........................ .
New York ......•......•••........
Xorth Carolina ........•..........
Jliorth Dakota ...........•...•....
li.'lO, 694
78-1, 48:!
1,w2:i, 1s1
3115, 614
23,299
~,. 514
50, 2?7
11, 1,62
4.0
10. 4
55. 959
72, 68:1
163,341
2,290
8,434
71,245
5. -102
2,365
Ohio ........•.•............•......
Oklahoma .....••.................
C>re~on. ____ . ____________________ .
South Carolina •••..•..••••.••••..
1,127,405
l, 015, ,'><i:I
248, 7r.7
948, ·135
10.5, 2117
71, IHII
45, 141
32,510
9.3
7. 0
18.1
3. 4
124,040
114, 109
27, 5«
124,344
9,993
7, 4fi6
5,149
3,213
8.1
6, 5
18. 7
South Dakota ...••••..........•..
Tennessee
.•.. ----------------- ---_
Texa..,;;
____________________________
l:tah .•.•.........•..•......••....
3.'i8, 204
1. :mx. 420
2, 3:12. 6113
138,242
12,950
3. 6
4. 5
4. 8
6. i
53, 8,55
146,076
314, 4"5
27,625
2,266
5,621
11,641
I, 447
4. 2
3. 8
3. 7
5. 2
3. 8
14. 2
8. 4
6.8
135,545
40,575
43,011
105,100
4,950
6,678
3. 7
16. 5
II. 2
7.1
Hfi7, U7~
I, 053, 469
3:J.',, "40
5111,YIU
930,515
5Y, 400
112, 774
9,1111!
40,053
47, 81~
47,150
63,357
3. I
3.0
0, 334
4, 8~'0
7,419
3. 1
5.8
6. 3
5. 6
3. 5
12. 3
6. 2
6. 6
8.6
4. 1
11. 6
3. 3
3.3
2.6
Data not avnilahle for townships in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Source: Unilrd Slat,, Ctnau,, of Aqriculturt: 19~5.
1
For example, one of the major purposes of the rural relief studies
was to determine the distribution of the relief population between
farm and nonfarm residence. As an index of this distribution, the
percent of the rural relief cases located in the open country 28 was
determined. This index is available for each of the sample counties.
Significant and consistent relationships were found between this relief variable and the background factors used as controls. Figures
C and D show this relationship in the Corn Belt, the area used for
illustrative purposes.
In selecting the counties from the Corn Belt it was assumed
that the residence distribution and other aspects of the rural relief
""Outside of centere having 50 or more Inhabitants.
o,,
I
zed by
Google
168
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
population would depend to some extent upon the fertility of the soil,
upon the residence distribution of the general rural population, and
upon the proportion of wage laborers among agricultural workers,
and that a sample representative of these factors would also be representative of the relief variable. It appears that these assumptions
were essentially correct. There was an unmistakable tendency for
those counties having low per capita land value to have a large proportion of relief clients resident in the open country, and for those
counties having high land values to have a small proportion of their
relief clients in the open country. In other words, the relief variable
is negatively correlated with the background factor.2♦ This negative
relationship is not disturbed by the subgrouping of the counties on
the basis of the other two background factors. Regardless of the
subgroupings, counties with high land values had low proportions of
open country relief cases. Counties with low land values had high
proportions of open country relief cases, and counties with intermediate land values had intermediate values of the relief index
(figure C).
As was to be expected on logical grounds, a positive relationship
was found between the residence distribution of the general rural
population and the residence distribution of the rural relief population. Some relationship between the farm labor index and the relief
index was also found. The data do not show sufficient consistency,
however, to indicate clearly the nature or significance of this relationship (figure C and table G).
The relationship between the background factors and the proportion of the relief population resident in the open country is not entirely consistent but is disturbed in several instances by administrative factors and by the operation of temporary emergencies. Hence.
three counties (Hall and Johnson, Nebraska, and Hutchinson, Soutl~
Dakota) with very high land values show large proportions of agricultural families on relief due to the very great impoverishment of
the rural-farm population by drought in 1934 and by adverse weather
conditions during the spring of 1935. An unduly high proportion
of open country residents were on relief in Hickory County, Missouri,
because of drought in 1934 and floods in 1935. An unexpectedly low
percent of the agricultural population was on relief in Brookings,
South Dakota, due to the administrative shift of farmers from general relief to a special program of rural rehabilitation (table G).
"'The rank-dill'erence coetllclent or correlation was round to be -.53.
Dt
I
zedbyGoogle
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
169
Land walu. pe, caplla of Ille rural-farm populati.an
LDw•sl lhlrd
of counli•s
Middl• lhird
of co11n1i,s
Agrleullural
Hlghtsl lhlrd
of counli,s
wav- "'°'ken at a
percent of oil ogrlcullurol workffl
•••••• L-1 third of counties
- • - Middle third of countln
- - Highest third of counties
f 60
::,
0
u
LOW.SI
lhkd
of
counH,s
C:
•~ 40
.5
~
•~
It. 20
8
t
Rural-farm
population
OS 0
percent
or total
rural
population
C
60
::,
0
Middl•
third
of
counti•s
u
C
•~
-~
40
c
•u
______ ,
..............,,,,.
t 20
>7 . "
..
' .........
1::' 60
c::,
0
u
HigMst
third
of
counlin
C
•~ 40
.
E
c
u
I 20
F1G- C - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BACKGROUND FACTORS ANO THE
PERCENT OF THE RURAL RELIEF POPULATION
1,..0CATEO IN OPEN COUNTRY IN 27 SAMPLE
CORN BELT COUNTIES
.,June 1935
AF• IOII, lllllA.
Digitized by
Google
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
170
TABLE G.-RELATJONSHIP BETWEEN BACKGROUND FACTORS AND THE PERCENT OF
THE RURAL RELIEF POPULATION LocATED IN OPEN COUNTRY IN 27 SAMPLE COR.c"i
BELT COUNTIES, JUNE 1935
Land value per capita e,f the rural-farm population
.
Rural-farm
population as
percent of
total rural
populution
Lowest
third of
counties
Midclle
third of
counties
Jil~hest
third of
counties
•'-!!rlculturnl wage
workers as a
percent of all
afril'ultural
workers
Lov.·est third of
counties
Middle third of
Highest third of
counties
counties
Percent In open
country
Percent In open
country
Percent in open
country
Lowe.st
third of
counties
30
2li
15
Putnam
Guthrie
Woodford
Middle
thircl of
counties
Tl
15
11
Fountain
Hitchcock
Calhoun
Ili£hest
third of
counties
62
fl
11
Clinton
Scott
Ida
Lowe,st
third of
counties
.0
35
36
Smith
Wabaunsee
Johnson
Middle
thirc! of
counties
36
29
M
Hancock
Washln~on
Hutchinson
Jii~hest
!hire! of
counties
M
fl
23
Morgan
Whiteside
Pierce
Lowest
third of
counties
73
53
22
Hickory
Black Hawk
Marshall
Middle
third of
counties
52
fl
Tl
Ray
Mahaska
PR!!8
ITichest
thircl of
counties
60
~
49
Shelby
Brookings
Hall
It seems clear that the factors used in selecting a controlled sample
for relief purposes were relevant. This does not mean that the sampling procedure followed was a perfect one, for administrative factors, as well as such emergency conditions as drought, flood, hail,
insect infestation, strikes, etc., were not taken into account in selecting it. However, the sampling procedure followed gave sufficient
control of the variation in the general aspects of rural relief to assure
a fairly representative sample and thereby to render the main conclusions of the studies conducted reliable for most practical purposes.
Stati.~tical tests indicated that the sample counties u•e1·e, in general,
1·epresentatfoe with re8pect to certain (Upects of the rural relief population of October 1933.-As shown above, it was found a poste1·iori
that the background factors used in stratifying counties for the selection of samples were relevant in that they controlled a certain amount
of the rnriation in aspects of rural relief. Possibility of bias due to
local administrative policy and other local conditi.ons was, however,
oig1 -z-d by
Google
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
171
implicit in the sampling method used. The only complete check on
the extent of such bias would be a comparison of relief aspects found
in the sample counties ,vith those in all counties from which the
sample was drawn. Unfortunately no such check was possible since
no complete enumeration was made during the period when studies
were being conducted in the sample counties.
Only one complete census of the rural relief population was ever
taken. 25 That enumeration was made as of October 1933, only 6
months after the organization of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. Considerable information was collected by that census.
However, the published information is not satisfactory as a means of
checking relief samples taken more than a year later. In the interim
between the time the Relief Census was taken and the time the sample studies were made, important changes took place in the rural
relief field. These changes are reflected in such factors as the great
drought of 1934, the extension of Federal relief to include all counties of the country, the development of a special program of rural
rehabilitation, the development of a works program, and the development of higher standards of relief administration. In view of these
changes it is not to be expected that the various aspects of rural relief
in 1935 would be entirely similar to those of October 1933.
While the rural relief samples of 1935 cannot legitimately be
checked against the rural relief universe of October 1933, it is possible to check the extent to which the selected counties constituted a
sample representative of some phases of the rural relief population
of that month. From county data in the Unemployment Relief
Census, the representativeness of the sample counties was tested in
two respects, (a) with respect to aggregate numbers of rural relief
cases and (b) with respect to average number of persons per rural
relief case.
A close estimate of the aggregate number of rural cases receiving
relief in the 9 agricultural areas in October 1933 could have been
made from a count of the cases in the 138 sample counties. For example, the 138 counties contained 8.1 percent of all rural families in
the 9 areas in 1930. They contained 7.8 percent of all rural relief
cases in the same areas as reported by the Unemployment Relief
Census, a fairly close agreement. Such close agreement between
these ratios was not found in each of the nine separate areas though
in most areas a fairly satisfactory comparison was obtained (table
B). Likewise, a reasonably close estimate of the number of rural
cases receiving relief in 31 States in October 1933 could have been
made from a count of cases in the 304 sample counties selected to
represent these States. The 304 sample counties selected from 31
.. UnemJplo11m.ent Relief Census, October 11133, Federal Emergency Relief Admlnlstrntlon.
Dig tized by
Google
172
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
States contained 11.4 percent of all rural families in those States hi
1930. They contained 11.2 percent of all rural relief cases reported
by the Unemployment Relief Census. The relief ratio showed considerable departures in some individual States ( table D). Such discrepancies were to be expected, however, due to local administrative
factors contingent upon the developmental stage of rural relief in
October 1933.
The State samples were representative with respect to the average
size of rural cases in October 1933. In 283 counties selected to represent 29 States 26 the ratio of rural relief persons to cases was the same
ns in all counties from which the samples were selected, the ratio
being 4.5 persons per case. In nine of the separate States the average number of persons per case was the same for the sample as for
the State. In each of 13 States the sample average departed from
the State average by only one-tenth person per case. In no State
was the discrepancy greater than two-tenths person per case.
The fact that the sample counties were representative in these
respects increases the confidence that they were representative in
other respects, and the fact that they were representative of aspects
of rural relief in October 1933 increases confidence although it does
not prove that they were also representative in the months in which
interest centers.
Close comparison between the averages given oy the area and State
samples indicated that the two samples were actually representative
of the same relief population.-This in itself was not so much an
argument for the validity as for the reliability of the sampling procedure; that is, the procedure produced consistent results. In other
words, it may be said that regardless of whether the samples provided unbiased pictures of the populations they were supposed to
represent, they did provide consistent pictures of a relief population.
Begim1ing with June 1935, tabulations of the data given by the
Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population were
made by States for all States sampled. In order to preserve the
continuity of the previous surveys, however, tabulations were also
made by areas, combining the information collected in 138 counties
selected from 9 agricultural areas. Hence, in June and October the
results of two cross-section studies of the rural relief population
were available for comparison. Results of the one study were derived from a sample of about 29,000 schedules taken in 138 counties
selected from 9 agricultural areas. Results of the other study were
derived from a larger sample of nearly 61,000 schedules taken in 300
counties and 83 New England townships. The larger sample in""Colorado and Virginia excluded due to lack of, or small number of, cases in IIAlllple
counties. New England States excluded due to lack of Information bJ townablpa.
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
173
eluded 117 of the counties and about 23,000 of the schedules of the
smaller sample. The one sample was, however, in all respects at
least twice as large as the other (table H). Moreover, the larger
sample included all types of agricultural, and of most rural nonagricultural, enterprises in the United States.
TABLE H.-CoMPARISON OF LARGER AND SMALLER SAMPLE WITH RESPECT TO
SIZE AND WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIED RELIEF ITEMS, JUNE 1935
Smaller Larger
sample 1 sample'
Item
SIZS OJ' SAKPU:
Perrent or all counties sampled _____ -- ---··--- ----- --·-··········· ••••••...•..•..••.•..
Percent of all counties in vnited States._ ...•..... -·······-····················· .••....
Percent ol all rural families (l~:lO) in areas or States sample<L ..... _......•..••.•.......
Percent of all rurnl familie.s (w:m) in Cnited States ..•••.• ·--·-························
Percent of all !arm operntors ( 19:JS) in areiis or States SBmpled .••.•..............••.•..
Percent of all farm operators (IO:l51 in United States-.•.•...••.......•.•.........•.•••.
Total numher ol ca.se schedules taken .............•.....•.....••••.•.••...•...•.•..•..
Total number of aisea in sample counties and townships ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..
8. 2
4.5
8. I
4.4
8.1
6.0
29,258
68,616
12.1
9.8
12, I
88
12.1
10.0
60,674
120,471
10.6
6. 6
12.6
38.8
31.0
11. 7
39.5
73.0
10. 9
-24.9
4. 3
43.3
16.3
35.1
5.2
1.6
P.5
10.8
6. 7
12.0
39.1
31.ft
13. I
38.0
72..
?0.6
-24. 7
4.3
42. g
16.0
35.8
BSUSJ' ITSIIS
Percent or rural relief ra~~ among all rutal families, 1930. _••••••••••••......•..••.••.•
Percent of relief farmers among all !armers, IW.5 .. ·-···························· •.•....
Percent of unemployable cases among all rural cases ••.••••.••.•..•...•.•..•..••.••.•..
Percent of v!llage cases among all rural ca..ses ...• ···········-···-······················
Percent oflarm operator heads among all heads ...••••••••••••••.•.•........••..••....
Percent oflarm laborer heads among all heads_.-······································
Percent or nonagricultural heads among all heada .••.••..••••••.•••.••...........•.....
Percent or normal families among all=-···········-·-······························
Percent of broken families among all ca.ses ___ ····--·---- .. ----·················· ....•..
Percent chan~e In number of rural cases, June to October 1935 .........•.......•...•. _.
Average number of persons per rural case .... ·-······-·-·······························
Percent of persons under 16 years of age among all relief persons •........•.•....••...•.
Percent of persons 16 to 2-1 years of age among all relief persons .•••••.........•....•••.
Percent of persons 25 to 64 years of age among all relief persoWJ .•••.•.••.•••••.•..••••.
Percent of persons 65 years and over among all relief persoWJ ••.•..••••••••••....•..••••
Avera~e number of workers per employable rase .. •·-··············-···················
Percent of !•person households among all rural cases •••••••.••.•••••••.••••••••••••....
6.:1
I. 6
9.9
138 counties.
• 300 oounLies and 83 New England townshl~.
1
Notwithstanding the great difference in size and geographical coverage of the two June samples, when the results were compared it
was found that nearly all of the general conclusions drawn from the
one were substantiated by the other. For example, the relationship
between the relief population and the general population was not
widely different in the two samples (10.5 and 10.8 percent). The
distribution of the relief population with respect to residence, employability, occupational charact~ristics, age, and household composition was not significantly different in the two samples. The percent
decrease of the case load from June to October 1935 was almost identical in the two samples (24.9 and 24.7 percent) (table H).
What significance is to be attached to the close correspondence between the results of the area and State samples i Two probabilities
are indicated. It is probable that the rural relief population in the
nine areas originally sampled was, as a whole, not essentially different in many respects from that in the combined areas not sampled
137296°-37--13
DigtizedbyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
174
(see discussion of areas not sampled, page 148). It is further probable that the counties and townships selected as State samples or as
parts of State samples but lying outside the original 9 areas (there
were 117 such counties and 83 New England townships) represent
:fairly well that portion (or most o:f that portion) of rural United
States outside the 9 areas. It appears that provisional generalizations concerning the general aspects o:f rural relief and embracing the
entire rural United States may be made :from either sample. Such
generalizations would in all probability be sufficiently accurate for
practical purposes.
LIST A.-COUNTIES IN NINE AGRICULTURAL AREAS
JJJastern Cotton Area
Alabama:
Autauga.
Barbour.
Bibb.
Blount.
Bullock.
Butler.
Calhoun.
Chambers.
Cherokee.
Chilton.
Choctaw.
Clarke.
Clay.
Cleburne.
Coffee.
Colbert.
Conecuh.
Coosa.
Covington.
Crenshaw.
Cullman.
Dale.
Dallas.
De Kalb.
Elmore.
Escambia.
Etowah.
Fayette.
Franklin.
Geneva.
Greene.
Bale.
Henry.
Houston.
Jackson.
Lamar.
Lauderdale.
Lawrence.
Lee.
Limestone.
Lowndes.
Macon.
Madison.
Marengo.
Marlon.
Alabama-Continued.
Marshall.
Monroe.
Montgomery.
Morgan.
Perry.
Pickens.
Pike.
Randolph.
Russell.
St. Clair.
Shelby.
Sumter.
Talladega.
Tallapoosa.
Tuscaloosa.
Walker.
Washington.
Wilcox.
Winston.
Arkansas:
Ashley.
Bradley.
Calhoun.
Chicot.
Clark.
Clay.
Cleburne.
cteveland.
Columbia.
Conway.
Oralghead.
Crittenden.
Cross.
Dallas.
Desha.
Drew.
Faulkner.
Garland.
Grant.
Greene.
Hempstead.
Hot Spring.
Boward.
Independence.
Izard.
Arkansas-Continued.
Jackson.
Jefferson.
Lafayette.
Lawrence.
Lee.
Lincoln.
Little River.
Logan.
Lonoke.
Miller.
Mississippi.
Monroe.
Montgomery.
Nevada.
Ouachita.
Perry.
Phllllps.
Pike.
Poinsett.
Pope.
Pulaski.
Randolph.
St. Francis.
Saline.
Scott.
Sharp.
Union.
Van Buren.
White.
Woodruff'.
Yell.
Georgia:
Baker.
Baldwin.
Banks.
Barrow.
Bartow.
Ben Hill.
Bleckley.
Bulloch.
Burke.
Butts.
Calhoun.
Campbell.
Candler.
oig1 -z-d by
Google
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
175
Eastern Cotton Area-Continued.
Georgia-Continued.
Carroll.
Catoosa.
Chattahoochee.
Chattooga.
Cherokee.
Clarke.
Clay.
Clayton.
Cobb.
Colquitt.
Columbia.
Coweta.
Crawford.
Crisp.
Dawson.
De Kalb.
Dodge.
Dooly.
Douglas.
Early.
Elbert.
Emanuel.
Evans.
Fayette.
Floyd.
Forsyth.
Franklin.
Glascock.
Gordon.
Greene.
Gwinnett.
Ball.
Hancock.
Haralson.
Barrie.
Bart.
Beard.
Henry.
Houston.
Irwin.
.Jackson.
.Jasper.
.J eff'erson.
.Jenkins.
.Johnson.
Lamar.
Laurene.
Lee.
Lincoln.
McDuffie.
Macon.
Madison.
Marlon.
Meriwether.
Mlller.
Mitchell.
Monroe.
Montgomery.
Morgan.
Murray.
Newton.
Oconee.
Oglethorpe.
Paulding.
Peach.
Georgta---C-0ntlnued.
Pickens.
Pike.
Polk.
Pulaski.
Putnam.
Quitman.
Randolph.
Richmond.
Rockdale.
Schley.
Screven.
Spalding.
Stephens.
Stewart.
Sumter.
Talbot.
Taliaferro.
Taylor.
Telfair.
Terrell
Tift.
Toombs.
Treutlen.
Troup.
Turner.
Twiggs.
Ul)l'on.
Walker.
Walton.
Warren.
Washington.
Webster.
Wheeler.
Whitfield.
Wilcox.
Wilkes.
Wilkinson.
Worth.
Louisiana:
Avoyelles.
Bienville.
Bossler.
Caddo.
Caldwell.
Catahoula.
Clalburne.
Concordia.
De Soto.
East Carroll.
Evangeline.
Franklin.
Grant.
.Jackson.
Lincoln.
Madison.
Morehouse.
Natchitoches.
Ouachita.
Pointe Coupee.
Rapide!!.
Red River.
Richland.
Sabine.
St. Landry.
Tensas.
Louisiana-continued.
Union.
Vernon.
Washington.
Webster.
West Carroll.
Winn.
Mississippi:
Adams.
Alcorn.
Amite.
Attala.
Benton.
Bolivar.
Calhoun.
Carroll.
Chickasaw.
Choctaw.
Claiborne.
Clarke.
Clay.
Coahoma.
Covington.
De Soto.
Franklin.
George.
Grenada.
Binds.
Holmes.
Humphreys.
Issaquena.
Itawamba.
.Jasper.
Jeff'erson.
Jefferson Davie.
Jones.
Kemper.
Lafayette.
Lamar.
Lauderdale.
Lawrence.
Leake.
Lee.
Leflore.
Lincoln.
Lowndes.
Madison.
Marlon.
Marshall.
Monroe.
Montgomery.
Neshoba.
Newton.
Noxubee.
Oktibbeha.
Panola.
Pike.
Pontotoc.
Prentiss.
Quitman.
Rankin.
Scott.
Sharkey.
Simpson.
Smith.
Sunflower.
Digitized by
Google
176
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Eastern Cotton Area--Contlnued.
Mississippi-Continued.
Tallaba tchie.
Tate.
Tippah.
Tishomingo.
Tunica.
Union.
Walthall
Warren.
Washington.
Wayne.
Webster.
Wilkinson.
Winston.
Yalobusha.
Yazoo.
Missouri:
Dunklin.
New Madrid.
Pemiscot.
North Carolina:
Anson.
Cabarrus.
Catawba.
Cleveland.
Cumberland.
Franklin.
Gaston.
Halifax.
Harnett.
Hoke.
Iredell.
Johnston.
Lee.
Lincoln.
North Carolina-Contd.
Mecklenburg.
Montgomery.
Northampton.
Polk.
Richmond.
Robeson.
Rowan.
Rutherford.
Sampson.
Scotland.
Stanly.
Union.
Warren.
South Carolina:
Abbeville.
Aiken.
Allendale.
Anderson.
Bamberg.
Barnwell.
Calhoun.
Cherokee.
Chesterfield.
Clarendon.
Colleton.
Darlington.
Dillon.
Dorchester.
Edgefield.
Fairfield.
Greenville.
Greenwood.
Hampton.
Kershaw.
Weatern
Oklahoma:
Beckham.
Bryan.
Caddo.
Choctaw.
Comanche.
Cotton.
Oreek.
Garvin.
Grady.
Greer.
Harmon.
Haskell.
Hughes.
Jackson.
Jefferson.
Kiowa.
Le Flore.
Lincoln.
Love.
McClain
McCurtain.
McIntosh.
Marshall.
Muskogee.
Okfuskee.
Okmulgee.
South Carolina--COntd.
Lancaster.
Laurens.
Lee.
Lexington.
McCormick.
Marlboro.
Newberry.
Oconee.
Orangeburg.
Pickens.
Richland.
Saluda.
Spartanburg.
Sumter.
Union.
York.
Tennessee:
Carroll.
Chester.
Crockett.
Dyer.
Fayette.
Gibson.
Hardeman.
Hardin.
Haywood.
Henderson.
Lake.
Lauderdale.
Lawrence.
McNairy.
Madison.
Shelby.
Tipton.
Cotton Area
Oklahoma--COntinued.
Potta wa tomle.
Roger Mills.
Seminole.
Sequoyah.
Stephens.
Tillman.
Wagoner.
Washita.
Texas:
Anderson.
Angelina.
Austin.
Bastrop.
Bee.
Bell.
Bosque.
Bowie.
Brazos.
Burleson.
Caldwell.
Cameron.
Camp.
Cuss.
Cherokee.
Childress.
Coleman.
Texas-continued.
ColUn.
ColUngswortb.
Colorado.
Coryell.
Cottle.
Crosby.
Dallas.
Dawson.
Delta.
Denton.
De Witt.
Ems.
Erath.
Falls.
Fannin.
Fayette.
Fisher.
Foard.
Fort Bend.
Franklin.
Freestone.
Gonmles.
Grayson.
Gregg.
Grimes.
Guadalupe.
177
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
Weatern Cotton Area-Continued.
Texas-Continued.
Hall.
Hamilton.
Hardeman.
Harrison.
Haskell.
Henderson.
Hidalgo.
Bill.
Hockley.
Hopkins.
Houston.
Boward.
Bunt.
Johnson.
Jones.
Karnes.
Kaufman.
Knox.
Lamar.
Lemb.
Lavaca.
Lee.
Leon.
Limestone.
Live Oak.
Texas-Continued.
Lubbock.
Lynn.
McLennan.
Madison.
Marlon.
Martin.
Milam.
Mitchell.
Montgomery.
Morris.
Nacogdoches.
Navarro.
Nolan.
Nueces.
Panola.
Polk.
Rains.
Red River.
Robertson.
Rockwall.
Runnels.
Rusk.
Sabine.
San .Augustine.
San Jacinto.
Texas-Continued.
Sari Patricio.
Scurry.
Shelby.
Smith.
Somervell.
Starr.
Stonewall.
Taylor.
Terry.
Titus.
Travis.
Trinity,
Upshur.
Van Zandt.
Walker.
Waller.
Washington.
Wharton.
Wheeler.
Wichita.
Wilbarger.
Wllliamson.
Wilson.
Wood.
Appalachtan-O.iark Arec1
Arkansas:
Boone.
Carroll.
Crawford.
Franklin.
Johnson.
Madison.
Marlon.
Newton.
Searcy.
Stone.
Washington.
Georgia:
Dade.
Fannin.
Gllmer.
Habersham.
Lumpkin.
Rabun.
Towns.
Union.
White.
Illlnols:
Franklin.
Hamilton.
Bardin.
Johnson.
Pope.
Saline.
Williamson.
Kentucky:
.Adair.
.A.llen.
Bell.
Breathitt.
Kentucky---<::ontlnued.
Butler.
Caldwell.
Oarter.
Casey.
Clay.
Clinton.
Crittenden.
Cumberland.
Edmonson.
Elliott.
Estill.
Floyd. ·
Grayson.
Greenup.
Harlan.
Hopkins.
Jackson.
Johnson.
Knott.
Knox.
Larue.
Laurel
Lawrence.
Lee.
· Leslie.
Letcher.
Lincoln.
Livingston.
McCreary.
Magoffin.
Martin.
Meade.
Menifee.
Metcalfe.
Kentucky-Continued.
Monroe.
Morgan.
Muhlenberg.
Ohio.
Owsley.
Perry.
Pike.
Powell.
Pulaski.
Rockcastle.
Rowan.
Russell.
Wayne.
Whitley.
Wolfe.
Missouri:
Bollinger,
Camden.
Carter.
Crawford.
Dent.
Douglas.
Iron.
Madison.
Oregon.
Reynolds.
St. Francois.
Ste. Genevieve.
Shannon.
Taney.
Washington.
Wayne.
Digitized by
Google
178
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Appalachian-Ozark .Area-Continued.
North Carolina :
Alexander.
.Alleghany.
.Ashe.
Avery.
Buncombe.
Burke.
Caldwell.
Chatham.
Cherokee.
Clay.
Graham.
Haywood.
Henderson.
Jackson.
McDowell.
Macon.
Madison.
Mitchell.
Moore.
Randolph.
Swain.
Transylvania.
Watauga.
Wilkes.
Yancey.
Oklahoma:
Adair.
Cherokee.
Delaware.
Latimer.
Pushmataha.
Tennessee:
Anderson.
Benton.
Bledsoe.
Blount.
Bradley.
Campbell.
Cannon.
Carter.
Claiborne.
Clay.
Cocke.
Coffee.
Cumberland.
Decatur.
De Kalb.
Fentress.
Franklin.
Grainger.
Grundy.
Hamblen.
Hancock.
Hawkins.
Hickman.
Houston.
Humphreys.
Jackson.
Tennessee-Continued.
Jefferson.
Johnson.
Lewis.
McMinn.
Macon.
Marion.
Marshall.
Maury.
Monroe.
Morgan.
Overton.
Perry.
Pickett.
Polk.
Putnam.
Rhea.
Roane.
Scott.
Sequatchie.
Sevier.
Smith.
Stewart.
Sullivan.
Unicoi.
Union.
Van Buren.
Warren.
Washington.
Wayne.
White.
Williamson.
Virginia:
Albemarle.
Alleghany.
Amherst.
Appomattox.
Bedford.
Botetourt.
Buchanan.
Campbell.
Carroll.
Craig.
Culpeper.
Floyd.
Franklin.
Giles.
Grayson.
Greene.
Henry.
Lee.
Madison.
Montgomery.
Nelson.
Orange.
Page.
Patrick.
Rappahannock.
Rockbridge.
Virginia-Continued.
Russell.
Scott.
Smyth.
Spotsyl vanla.
Stafrord.
Tazewell.
Wise.
West Virginia:
Barbour.
Boone.
Braxton.
Calhoun.
Clay.
Doddridge.
Fayette.
Gilmer.
Grant.
Greenbrier.
Hampshire.
Hancock.
Hardy.
Harrison.
Jackson.
Kanawha.
Lewis.
Lincoln.
Logan.
McDowell.
Marlon.
Mason.
Mercer.
Mineral.
Mingo.
Monongalia.
Monroe.
Morgan.
Nicholas.
Pendleton.
Pleasants.
Pocahontas.
Preston.
Putnam.
Raleigh.
Randolph.
Ritchie.
Roane.
Summers.
Taylor.
Tucker.
Tyler.
Upshur.
Wayne.
Webster.
Wetzel.
Wirt.
Wood.
Wyoming.
Lake States Out-Over Area
Michigan:
Alcona.
Alger.
Alpena.
Michigan-Continued.
Charlevoix.
Cheboygan.
Chippewa.
Michigan-Continued.
Antrim.
Baraga.
Benzie.
D1g1
_e(j
by
Goos Ie
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
179
Lake State, Out-Over Area-Continued.
Mlchlgan-COntlnued.
Clare.
Crawford.
Delta.
Dickinson.
Emmet.
Gladwin.
Gogebic.
Grand Traverse.
Boughton.
Iosco.
Iron.
Kalkaska.
Keweenaw.
Lake.
Leelanau.
Luce.
Mackinac.
Manistee.
Marquette.
Mason.
Menominee.
Midland.
Missaukee.
Michigan-Continued.
Montmorency.
Newaygo.
Ogemaw.
Ontonagon.
Oscoda.
Otsego.
Presque Isle.
Roscommon.
Schoolcraft.
Wexford.
Minnesota:
Aitkin.
Beltrami.
Carlton.
Cass.
Clearwater.
Cook.
Crow Wing.
Hubbard.
11:llsca.
Koochiching.
Lake.
Lake of the Woods.
Mtnnesota--Continued.
Pine.
Roseau.
St. Louts.
Wisconsin:
Ashland.
Bayfield.
Burnett.
Douglas.
Florence.
Forest.
Iron.
Langlade.
Lincoln.
Marinette.
Oconto.
Oneida.
Price.
Rusk.
Sawyer.
Taylor.
Vilas.
Washburn.
H a11 and Dai,.,, Area
Jllchigan:
Arenac.
Bay.
Genesee.
Ingham.
Jackson.
Kent.
Lapeer.
Livingston.
Macomb.
Mecosta.
Muskegon.
Oakland.
Osceola.
Ottawa.
St. Clair.
Sanilac.
Washtenaw.
Minnesota:
Anoka.
Becker.
Benton.
Carver.
Chisago.
Dakota.
Dodge.
Douglas.
Freeborn.
Goodhue.
Houston.
Isanti.
Kanabec.
Kandiyohi.
McLeod.
Meeker.
Mille Lacs.
Morrison.
Minnesota-Continued.
Mower.
Olmsted.
Otter Tail.
Pennington.
Pope.
Red Lake.
Rice.
Scott.
Sherburne.
Sibley.
Stearns.
Steele.
Todd.
Wabasha.
Wadena.
Waseca.
Washington.
Winona.
Wright.
New York:
Albany.
AIIPgnny.
Broome.
Cnttaraugus.
Cayuga.
Chautauqua.
Chemung.
Chenango.
Cllnton.
Columbia.
Cortland.
Delaware.
Dutchess.
Genesee.
Greene.
Jefferson.
New York---Oontinued
Lewis.
Livingston.
Madison.
Montgomery.
Oneida.
Onondaga.
Orange.
Oswego.
Otsego.
Rensselaer.
St. Lawrence.
Saratoga.
Schoharie.
Steuben.
Sullivan.
Tioga.
Tompkins.
Washington.
Wyoming.
Ohio:
Ashtabula.
Belmont.
Columbiana.
Delaware.
Geauga.
Jefferson.
Licking.
Lorain.
Medina.
Portage.
Stark.
Trumbull.
Tuscarawas.
Union.
Wayne.
Digitized by
Google
180
Farmer& on Relief and Rehabilitation
Hag and Dairg Area-Continued.
Pennsylvania :
Beaver.
Bedford.
Bradford.
Bucks.
Chester.
Crawford.
Cumberland.
Erie.
Franklln.
Juniata.
Lawrence.
Lebanon.
Mercer.
Montgomery.
Montour.
Susquehanna.
Tioga.
Washington.
Wayne.
Wyoming.
Vermont:
Addison.
Caledonia.
Chittenden.
Franklin.
Lamoille.
Orange.
Orleans.
Rutland.
Vermont-Continued.
Washington.
Windham.
Windsor.
Wisconsin:
Adams.
Barron.
Brown.
Buffalo.
Calumet.
Chippewa.
Clark.
Columbia.
Crawford.
Dane.
Dodge.
Door.
Dunn.
Eau Claire.
Fond du Lac.
Grant.
Green.
Green Lake.
Iowa.
Jackson.
J'etferson.
Juneau.
Kenosha.
Kewaunee.
La CrOl!Se.
Wisconsin-Continued.
Lafayette.
Manitowoc.
Marathon.
Marquette.
Monroe.
Outagamie.
Ozaukee.
Pepin.
Pierce.
Polk.
Portage.
Racine.
Richland.
Rock.
St. Orolx.
Sauk.
Shawano.
Sheboygan.
Trempealeau.
Vernon.
Walworth.
Washington.
Waukesha.
Waupaca.
Waushara.
Winnebago.
Wood.
Com Bell
Colorado:
Yuma.
Illinois:
Alexander.
Boone.
Brown.
Bureau.
Carroll.
Cass.
Champaign.
Christian.
Coles.
De Kalb.
De Witt.
Douglas.
Edgar.
Ford.
Fulton.
Gallatin.
Greene.
Grundy.
Hancock.
Henderson.
Henry.
Iroquois.
Jersey.
Kane.
Kankakee.
Kendall.
Knox.
La Salle.
Lee.
IDlnoie--Continued.
Livingston.
Logan.
McDonough.
McHenry.
McLean.
Macon.
Macoupin.
Marshall.
Mason.
Menard.
Mercer.
Morgan.
Moultrie.
Ogle.
Peoria.
Platt.
Putnam.
Rock Island.
Sangamon.
Schuyler.
Scott.
Shelby.
Stark.
TaU!well.
Vermilion.
Warren.
Whiteside.
Will.
Winnebago.
Woodford.
Indiana:
Benton.
Boone.
Carroll
Cass.
Clinton.
Decatur.
Delaware.
Fayette.
Fountain.
Fulton.
Gibson.
Grant.
Hamilton.
Hancock.
Hendricks.
Henry.
Howard.
Jasper.
Johnson.
Knox.
Madison.
Miami.
Montgomery.
Morgan.
Newton.
Parke.
Pike.
Pulaski.
Putnam.
Randolph.
Rush.
o
l.Z
byGoogle
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
181
Oorn BeZt--ContiDued.
Indlnna--Contlnued.
Shelby.
Tippecanoe.
Tipton.
Union.
Vermilion.
Wabash.
Warren.
Wayne.
White.
Iowa:
Adair.
Adams.
Audubon.
Benton.
Black Hawk.
Boone.
Bremer.
Buchanan.
Buena Vista.
Butler.
Calhoun.
Carroll.
Cass.
Cedar.
Cerro Gordo.
Cherokee.
Chickasaw.
Clarke.
Clay.
Clinton.
Crawford.
Dallas.
Delaware.
Des Moines.
Dickinson.
Emmet.
Fayette.
Floyd.
Franklin.
Fremont.
Greene.
Grundy.
Guthrie.
Hamilton.
Hancock.
Hardin.
Harrison.
Henry.
Humboldt.
Ida.
•
Iowa.
Jasper.
Jefl'erson.
Johnson.
Jones.
Keokuk.
Kossuth.
Lee.
Linn.
Louisa.
Lyon.
Madison.
Mahaska.
Marlon.
Iowa-ContiDued.
Marshall.
Mllls.
Mitchell.
Monona.
Monroe.
Montgomery.
Muscatine.
O'Brien.
Osceola.
Page.
Palo Alto.
Pocahontas.
Pottawattamie.
Poweshiek.
Ringgold.
Sac.
Scott.
Shelby.
Sioux.
Story.
Tama.
Taylor.
Union.
Wapello.
Warren.
Washington.
Webster.
Winnebago.
Woodbury.
Worth.
Wright.
Kansas:
Allen.
Atchison.
Bourbon.
Brown.
Chase.
Cheyenne.
Clay.
Cloud.
Coffey.
Decatur.
Doniphan.
Douglas.
Franklin.
Geary.
Graham.
Jackson.
Jefferson.
Jewell.
Johnson.
Linn.
Lyon.
Marshall.
Miami.
Morris.
Nemaha.
Norton.
Osage.
Phlllips.
Pottawatomie.
Republic.
Riley.
Shawnee.
Karuias-Continued.
Smith.
Wabaunsee.
Washington.
Minnesota:
Blue Earth.
Brown.
Chippewa.
Cottonwood.
Faribault.
Jackson.
Lac qui Parle.
Le Sueur.
Lyon.
Martin.
Murray.
Nobles.
Pipestone.
Redwood.
Renvllle.
Rock.
Watonwan.
Yellow Medicine.
MillBOuri:
Andrew.
Atchison.
Bates.
Benton.
Cedar.
Clinton.
De Kalb.
Geutry.
Henry.
Hickory.
Holt.
Nodaway.
Pettis.
Ray.
St Clair.
Snllnc.
Worth.
Nebraska:
Adams.
Antelope.
Boone.
Boyd.
Buffalo.
Burt.
Butler.
Cass.
Cedar.
Chnse.
· c1ay.
Colfax.
Cumlnir.
COBter.
Dakota.
Dawson.
Dixon.
Dodge.
Dundy.
Fillmore.
Pranklln.
Frontier.
Furnas.
Digitized by
Google
182
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Corn Belt-Continued.
Nebraska-COntinued.
Gage.
Gosper.
Greeley.
Hall.
Hamilton.
Harlan.
Hayes.
Hitchcock.
Howard.
Jefferson.
Johnson.
Kearney.
Knox.
Lancast.er.
Lincoln.
Madison.
Merrick.
Nance.
Nemaha.
Nuckolls.
Otoe.
Pawnee.
Phelps.
Pierce.
Platte.
Polk.
Redwlllow.
Richardson.
Saline.
Nebraska-Continued.
Sarpy.
Saunders. ·
Seward.
Sherman.
Stanton.
Thayer.
Thurston.
Valley.
Washington.
Wayne.
Webster.
York.
Ohio:
Auglaize.
Butler.
Champaign.
Clark.
Clinton.
Darke.
Fayette.
Greene.
Hancock.
Henry.
Logan.
Madison.
Marlon.
Miami.
Montgomery.
Paulding.
OhlO-COntlnued.
Pickaway.
Preble.
Putnam.
Ross.
Van Wert.
Warren.
Wood.
South Dakota :
Bon Homme.
Brookings.
Brule.
Charles Mix.
Clay.
Davison.
Douglas.
Gregory.
Hanson.
Hutchinson.
Kingsbury.
Lake.
Lincoln.
McCook.
Miner.
Minnehaha.
Moody.
Sanborn.
Turner.
Union.
Yankton.
Spring Wheat Area
Montana:
Cascade.
Chouteau.
Daniels.
Dawson.
Fallon.
Fergus.
Hill.
Judith Basin.
Pondera.
Prairie.
Richland.
Roosevelt.
Sheridan.
Stillwater.
Teton.
Valley.
Wibaux.
North Dakota:
Adams.
Barnes.
Benson.
Billings.
North Dakota-Contd.
Bottineau.
Burke.
Burleigh.
Cavalier.
Divide.
Dunn.
Eddy.
Emmons.
Foster.
Golden Valley.
Grant.
Hettinger.
Lo~an.
McHenry.
McIntosh.
McKenzie.
McLean.
Mercer.
Morton.
Mountrail.
Nelson.
Oliver.
North Dakota--Oontd.
Pierce.
Ramsey.
Renville.
Rolette.
Sheridan.
Sioux.
Slope.
Stark.
Stutsman.
Towner.
Walsh.
Ward.
Wells.
Willlams.
South Dakota:
Brown.
Campbell. •
Corson.
Edmunds.
McPherson.
Spink.
Walworth.
Winter Wheat .A-rea
Colorado:
Sedgwick.
Kansas:
Barber.
Barton.
Clark.
Comanche.
Kansas-Continued.
Dickinson.
Edwards.
Ellis.
Ellsworth.
Ford.
Gove.
Kansas-Continued.
Grant.
Gray.
Harper.
Harvey.
Haskell.
Hodgeman.
Digtized:iyGoogle
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
183
Winter Wheat Area--Contlnued.
Xanruu,-Oontlnued.
Kingman.
Kiowa.
Lane.
Lincoln.
McPherson.
Marlon.
Meade.
Mitchell
Ness.
Osborne.
Ottawa.
Pawnee.
Pratt.
Rawlin8.
Reno.
Rice.
Rooks.
Rush.
Rus~ell.
Saline.
Sedgwick.
Seward.
Kansae-Contlnued.
Sheridan.
Stafford.
Stanton.
Stevens.
Sumner.
Thomas.
Trego.
Nebraska:
Banner.
Cheyenne.
Deuel.
Kimball
Perkins.
Oklahoma:
Alfalfa.
Beaver.
Blaine.
Canadian.
Cimarron.
Custer.
Dewey.
Oklahoma-Continued.
Garfield
Grant.
Harper.
Kay.
Kingfisher.
Major.
Noble.
Texas.
Woods.
Woodward.
Texas:
Armstrong.
Carson.
Castro.
Floyd
Gray.
Hale.
Hansford.
Llpecomb.
Ochiltree.
Swisher.
Ell1s.
Ranc,.ino Area
Colorado:
Archuleta.
Costilla.
Custer.
Dolores.
F..agle.
Garfield.
Grand.
Gunnison.
Hinsdale.
Huerfano.
Jackson.
Larimer.
Las Animas.
Moffat.
Montezuma.
Ouray.
Park.
Rio Blnnco.
Routt.
Saguache.
San l'tllguel
Montana:
Beaverhead.
Big Horn.
Broadwater.
Carter.
Custer.
Garfield.
Glacier.
Golden Valley.
Granite.
Jefferson.
Lewis and Clark.
Madison.
Meaghl:'r.
Musselshell.
Park.
Powder River.
Powell.
Rosebud.
Sanders.
Sweet Grnss.
Wheatland.
Oregon:
Baker.
Crook.
Grant.
Hamey.
Jetrerson.
Klamath.
Lake.
Malheur.
Wallowa.
Wheeler.
Utah:
Daggett.
Garfield.
Grand.
Iron.
Kane.
Morgan.
Piute.
Rich.
Summit.
Tooele.
Wasatch.
W ashlngtOJl.
Dig1t1zet1byGoogle
184
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
LIST B.-SAMPLE COUNTIES REPRESENTING NINE AGRICULTU~
AREAS
Baatern Ootton Arca
Alabama:
Bullock.
Calhoun.
Conecuh.
Winston.
Arkansas:
Calhoun.
Craighead.
Pike.
Georgia:
Chattooga.
Dodge.
Heard.
Jenkins.
McDuffie.
Georgia-Continued.
Madison.
Mitchell.
Pike.
Webster.
Louisiana:
Concordia.
Morehouse.
Natchitoches.
Webster.
Mississippi:
Lawrence.
Tippah.
Washington.
Winston.
Missouri:
Pemiscot.
North Carolina:
Cabarrus.
Sampson.
South Carolina:
Allendale.
Calhoun.
Fairfl.eld.
Pickens.
Tennessee:
Henderson.
Weatern Cotton Area
Oklahoma:
Jackson.
Lincoln.
Texas:
Bastrop.
Cass.
Texas-Continued.
Collin.
Houston.
Karnes.
McLennan.
Montgomery.
Texae-Oontlnued.
Shelby.
Terry.
Wilbarger.
Appalachian-Ozark Area
Arkansas:
Madison.
Georgia:
Lumpkin.
Illinois:
Franklin.
Kentucky:
Johnson.
Knox.
Lee.
Muhlenberg.
Missouri:
Shannon.
North Carolina:
Jackson.
Wilkes.
Tennessee:
Cocke.
White.
.Williamson.
Virginia:
Bedford.
Lee.
Page.
West Virginia:
Boone.
Marlon.
Nicholas.
Pendleton.
Lake Statea Out-Over Area
Michigan:
Gogebic.
Oscoda.
Schoolcraft.
Minnesota:
Pine.
Wisconsin:
Forest.
Sawyer.
Ha11 and Dairy Area
Michigan:
Sanilac.
Minnesota:
Benton.
Olmsted.
Otter Tail.
New York:
Broome.
Livingston.
New York-Continued.
Oneida.
Washington.
Ohio:
Geauga.
Stark.
Pennsylvania :
Bradford.
Wayne.
Wyoming.
Wisconsin:
Chippewa.
Sauk.
Walworth.
DigtizedbyGoogle
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
185
Corn Bell
Illinois:
Scott.
Whiteside.
Woodford.
Indiana:
Fountain.
Hancock.
Morgan.
Shelby.
Iowa:
Black Hawk.
Calhoun.
Guthrie.
Iowa-COntinued.
Ida.
Mahaska.
Marshall.
Page.
Washington.
Kansas:
Smith.
Wabaunsee.
Mls!'!ouri:
Hickory.
Ray.
Nebraska:
Hall.
Hitchcock.
Johnson.
Pierce.
Ohio:
Clinton.
Putnam.
South Dakota :
Brookings
Hutchinson.
Spring Wheat Area
Montana:
Chouteau.
North Dakota:
Burke.
North Dakota-Contd.
Emmons.
Hettinger.
Hainsey.
Oolorado:
Sedgwick.
Kansas:
Pawnee.
Karnms-Contlnued.
Saline.
Oklahoma:
Harper.
South Dakota:
Corson.
Edmunds.
Winter Wheat Area
Oklahoma-COntlnued.
Kingfisher.
Texas:
Carson.
Ranphing Area
Colorado:
Archuleta.
Garfield.
Routt.
Montana:
Garfield.
Montana-continued.
Granite.
Madison.
Meagher.
Oregon:
Baker.
Oregon-Continued.
Crook.
Utah:
Garfield.
Grand.
Piute.
LIST C.-SAMPLE COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS REPRESENTING
34 STATES
Alabama:
Calhoun.
Conecuh.
Dale.
Dallas.
Marshall.
Shelby.
Winston.
Arizona:•
Cochise.
Graham.
Pinal.
Yavapai.
Arkansas:
Calhoun.
Craighead.
Grout.
Madison.
Marion.
Miller.
Phillips.
Pike.
Prairie.
Yell.
1
California :
Glenn.
Humboldt.
Kings.
Lake.
Lassen.
Madera.
Mono.
Monterey.
San Bernardino.
San Joaquin.
Ventura.
Yuba.
Colorado:
Alamosa.
Archuleta.
Garfield.
Kiowa.
Kit Carson.
Routt.
Sedgwick.
Teller.
Connecticut :
Fairfield County :
Easton.
Monroe.
New Fairfield.
Wilton.
Hartford County :
Burlington.
Granby.
Rocky Hill.
Simsbury.
South Windsor.
Suffield.
Litchfield County.
Barkhamsted.
Bethlehem.
Canaan.
Goshen.
Harwinton.
Kent:
Middlesex County:
Durham.
East Haddam.
In surve1 during October, November, and December 1935 only.
DigtizedbyGoogle
18G
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Counties and Town.iihips Represen.ting
-'4 States-Continued.
Kansas-Continued.
Connecticut-Continued.
Gove.
Middlesex Cty.--Contd.
Greenwood.
Essex.
Hamilton.
Middlefield.
Jefferson.
New Haven County:
Beacon Fulls.
Neosho.
Pawnee.
Cheshire.
Russell.
Madison.
Orange.
Saline.
Seward.
Oxford.
Prospect.
Smith.
Southbury.
Wabaunsee.
New London County :
Kentucky:
East Lyme.
Boone.
Lebanon.
Hickman.
Montville.
Johnson.
Preston.
Knox.
Voluntown.
Larue.
Tolland County :
Lee.
Coventry.
Mercer.
Hebron.
Metcalfe.
Somers.
Rowan.
Tolland.
Scott.
Windham County:
Todd.
Ashford.
Webster.
Canterbury.
Louisiana:
Pomfret.
Acadia.
Woodstock.
Concordia.
Florida:
Morehouse.
Bradford.
Natchitoches.
Broward.
Plaquemines.
Jefferson.
Pointe Coupee.
Lee.
Tangipahoa.
Polk.
Terrebonne.
Washington.
Vernon.
Georgia:
Webster.
Chattooga.
Massachusetts :
Dodge.
Barnstable County:
Greene.
Dennis.
Heard.
Eastham.
Jenkins.
Mashpee.
Jones.
Lumpkin.
Berkshire County :
McDuffie.
Alford.
McIntosh.
Cheshire.
Madison.
Florida.
Mitchell.
Richmond.
Murray.
Sheffield.
Muscogee.
Bristol County:
Pike.
Freetown.
Tattnall.
Rehoboth.
Ware.
Westport.
Webster.
Dukes County:
Iowa:
Gay Head.
Appanoose.
- Oak Blutl's.
Black Hawk.
Essex County :
Calhoun.
Essex.
Emmet.
Georgetown.
Guthrie.
Middleton.
Ida.
Salisbury.
Maha8ka.
Franklin County:
Marshall.
Buckland.
Monona.
Colrain.
Washington.
Shutesbury.
Kansas:
Warwick.
Barber.
Whately.
Ford.
Massachusetts--Contd.
Hampden County:
Chester.
Monson.
Tolland.
Hampshire County:
Belchertown.
Cummington.
Southampton.
Middlesex County :
Ashland.
Carlisle.
Littleton.
Stow.
Townsend.
Norfolk County:
Avon.
Wrentham.
Plymouth County:
Duxbury.
Plympton.
Scituate.
Worcester County:
Boylston.
Charlton.
Hubbardston.
Mlllvllle.
New Braintree.
Michigan:
Barry.
Berrien.
Gogebic.
Kalkaska.
Leelanau.
Mecosta.
Monroe.
Oscoda.
Presque Isle.
Sanllac.
Schoolcraft.
Minnesota:
Benton.
Big Stone.
Hubbard.
Kittson.
Olmsted.
Otter Tail.
Pennlnj?ton
Pine.
Pope.
Redwood.
Rock.
St. Louis.
Scott.
Missouri:
Adair.
Douglas.
Franklin.
Hickory.
Holt.
Johnson.
Mlller.
Newton.
Pemiscot.
Ralls.
□,·
I
zed by
Google
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
187
Counti<'s and Townships Representing S.f States-Continued.
Missouri-Con tin ue<l.
Ray.
Shannon.
Montana:
Chouteau.
Daniels.
Garfield.
Granite.
Lake.
Madison.
Meagher.
Prairie.
Nebraska:
Box Butte.
Hall.
Hitchcock.
Johnson.
Morrill
Pierce.
Richardson.
Sheridan.
Thayer.
New Hampshire: •
Belknap County:
Gilmanton.
Carroll County :
Eaton.
Tamworth.
Cheshire County:
Alstead.
Chesterfield.
Troy.
Coos County:
Dummer.
Northumberland.
Pittsburg.
Grafton County:
Dorchester.
Enfield.
Franconia.
Haverhill.
Hebron.
Holderness.
Thornton.
Hillsborough County:
Deering.
Greenville.
Hudson.
Milford.
Peterborough.
Merrimack County:
Bow.
Canterbury.
Warner.
Rockingham County:
Fremont.
Newington.
Newton.
North Hampton.
Nottingham.
Strafford County:
Milton.
Strafford.
New Hampshire-Contd.
Sullivan County:
Charlestown.
Springfield.
New York:
Broome.
Livingston.
Oneida.
Schuyler.
Washington.
North Carolina:
Alamance.
Cabarrus.
Caldwell.
Ohowan.
Franklin.
Gates.
Harnett.
Jackson.
Onslow.
Pasquotank.
Perquimans.
Stokes.
North Dakota :
Burke.
Emmons.
Hettinger.
McHenry.
McKenzie.
Ramsey.
Richland.
Stutsman.
Ohio:
Athens.
Brown.
Clinton.
Geauga.
Hardin.
Monroe.
Muskingum.
Ottawa.
Putnam.
Seneca.
Oklahoma:
Carter.
Custer.
Harper.
Hughes.
Jackson.
Kingfisher.
Lincoln.
Pushmu !:aha.
Rogers.
Oregon:
Baker.
Olatsop.
Crook.
Josephine.
Morrow.
Polk.
South Carolina:
Allendale.
Calhoun.
South Carolina-Contd.
Colleton.
Fairfield.
Georgetown.
Lee.
Newberry.
Pickens.
South Dakota:
Brookings.
Corson.
Custer.
Edmunds.
Grant.
Hand.
Hutchinson.
Jackson.
Meade.
Tennessee:
.Anderson.
Cocke.
Fayette.
Franklin.
Hawkins.
Henderson.
Stewart.
White.
Williamson.
Texas:
Bastrop.
Bosque.
Brewster.
Burleson.
Carson.
Cass.
Collln.
Colorado.
Fisher.
Floyd.
Freestone.
Frio.
Hansford.
Houston.
Karnes.
Lamb.
McLennan.
Montgomery
Palo Pinto.
San Saba.
Shelby.
Starr.
Sutton.
Terry.
Upshur.
Upton.
Webb.
Wilbarger.
Utah:
Box Elder.
Garfield.
Grand.
Piute.
Sevier.
Weber.
• In survey during Jone 1935 only.
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
188
Farmer, on Relief and Rehabilitation
CountieB and Township, Repre,enting 34 8tatel-Contlnued.
Virginia:
Alleghany.
Bedford.
Charles City.
King William.
Lee.
Mathews.
Mecklenburg.
Page.
Powhatan.
Pulaski.
Southampton.
Virginia-Continued.
Staff'ord.
Westmoreland.
Washington:
Adams.
Benton.
Chelan.
Cowlitz.
Jefferson.
Stevens.
West Virginia:
Boone.
Marlon.
West Virginia-Contd.
Nicholas.
Pendleton.
Wisconsin:
Calumet.
Chippewa.
Crawford.
Forest.
La Crosse.
Portage.
Sauk.
Saw:ver.
Walworth.
LIST D.-STATES SAMPLED, BY REGIONS
Northern States:
Iowa.
Kansas.
Michigan.
Minnesota.
Missowri.
Nebraska.
New York.
North Dakota.
Ohio.
South Dakota.
Wisconsin.
Southern States:
Alabama.
Arkansas.
Florida.
Georgia.
Kentucky.
Louisiana.
North Carolina.
Oklahoma.
South Carolina.
Tennessee.
Texas.
Virginia.
West Virginia.
Western States:
Arizona ( October 1935
only).
California.
Colorado.
Montana.
Oregon.
Utah.
Washington.
New England States:
Connecticut.
Massachuseth..
New Hampshire (June
1985 only).
Cig1 . zed by
Google
<
~
...:l
:::>
~
~
t:1:1
C.)
al
OI
...~
~
Ill
j
~
!'.l
Ill
.
~
.. m:
..
I
.ll'I(
IIMQt
.1·uu
,i.snonT
11:a:1111:ru:111
n:.1
ON
n:.1
ON
.l'IJllT.I Ill c11on::r.r UB'.I.O
-,MO ◄ IDO
◄.:
.,z.,::zi ..
◄::]
r.
mloz~::~ii
... o .. p~
"ii 1111'51111
11t .. .,D: ◄ !5IO
-~•.t:
.. 0
~~
i&
1111
:1::111~:>0 NI 0:1: .\1:13
ml:>NTAOT .IIOUT.LnlllTB:rW .10 :rll"ITA
c-U'84P8 uonvimqwqai 10 aA1mp
i:i:i-g
."
:.: .. !;j
;.
z0
i::
~~
i~
-◄
~
b
=I 0
I=.
◄~
Ill !!j
....
;111
OM;...:11
)I • II
t;'31VJI
0.11
ll>IOl'I 110 :r!i:O
Sll1VI(
·ll.olll>IOl'I 110
llNO :1r.1"ITII ON
11:IINIJO.O
110ll:ldd011:>
1.Nl'N:11.
:r:r110lll'"I Ornlll&Nll
:roY
.10
H:lllKJlN llNrl
11:IIIIRQN :i!STO
ll"IYK
ll1l'llll.ol
:1:NON
r,,
Cl0
Ii I
Ii I
I" I
"I I
~
"""
=
I
I
I
I
II I
II l
ll I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
II I
II I
H
I II
I II
I II
I
II
I
I
l
I
0
II I
l
I
I I
I I
I
I
I II
I I
CII
N
"".
."
M)
0,
.
.
.
..
II I I
II I
II
I ~ I II
j :::C I I I II
I :!l I I I
I I I II
j "" I I
II
I l I u
I
u
I
I
"
I.
I
0
CII
r,,
M)
U>
0,
189
Google
~
◄
..
'
~
I -<-----
.. I I I I(
I I - I .. I .. II 2
cq
I I II I I
I I I II I I
I I II I I
I I I n I I
I I I II I I
'
I. I I
II
I
I II II Il
Cl0
I
wv:r.1. 111 ua11n I
1YW.L I
I ""
I
ll110111. !) NI
•lllll'.8110 O:l:J.01dlrll NOl!ll:1.1 ON
~:=~~~
ZOI Z ""°'lit
o~i~:
-=:.~~ .
◄
.:::;:~ I
aouT.rn:x>O nnsn
1111:111.t() 'l"lY
.1'1.110 .1:1n:r11 J1110•
.l'l.llO .1:1nn .1.311:lllO
ll110& ONV 1.:>:a:1110
•:l:i[) W:1110J.30 NI O:.Alll;)llll .1:an:rw ,10 :rnnA
•:1:11
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
~
i:,11
1-'"
.
"§
◄
i
0
◄
::!
:J
....
.....
==~= .
~O~P:u
:s:~~~ I
~~= .
M9.a~
I
~~~u
~.
0
IZ;
":rr◄
.a
"'
'
'''
C.l
0
GD
.
1A£P:
0
IC
i:
j
Ill
0
J
C,
j
9
CX1
;
:::>
~
.,;a
j
I
~
i:
-<
E
"'
en
~
~
j
0
''
-< :
i:: '' ''
~:' ':
e ~,. ..:' '.:
~
S
l~
r-.o"
. zO
p:: i, O
~ --:~:
! i,iii:
..:~z
137296°-87-14
0191 -zed by
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
190
SCHEDULE B
COUNTY __________________ _
STATE ____________________ _
F. E. _____________________
R. A. FORM DRS-77B _
DATE
FILLED BY _________________ _
SURVEY OF THE RURAL RELIEF SITUATION
Rural Rehabilitation Schedule
I.
CASES RECEIVING ADVANCES UNDER THE RURAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM.
I. MONTH AND YEAR FIRST CABE WAS PLACED ON ROLLS __________________ _
2. NUMBER OF NEW CASES ENROLLED:
a.
b.
BEFORE JULY 1 193L _________________________ _
j.
TOTAL NEW CASES _______________________ _
1
DURING
C. DURING
d. DURING
e. DURING
JULY_------------------- ___________ _
AUGUST _____________________________ _
SEPTEMBER __________________________ _
OCTOBER ____________________________ _
8. TOTAL CASES REMAINING ON ROLLS OCTOBER 31 1 1934- __________________ _
4. TOTAL CASES DROPPED FROM ROLLS _______________________ (:ef} MINUS (3)
a. BECAUSE NO FURTHER AID NECESSARY---,-----------------------b. FOR NONFULFILLMENT OF CONTRACT----------------------------C. FOB OTHER REASONS (SPECIFY UNDER REMARKS) _________________ _
6. NUMBER OF CASES RETURNED FROM REHABILITATION TO RELIEF THROUGH
OCTOBER 31, 1934 ________________________________________________ _
II.
NUMBER
OF CASES
EXPECTED TO Bill ON RURAL REHABILITATION ROLLS IN
FEBRUARY
1935 ___________________________________________________
_
1. CASES TO BE CARRIED OVER FROM OCTOBER __________________________ _
2. NEW CASES TO BE ADDED AJTIIR OCTOBER 31 ___ ------ ________________ _
Dnr zed by
Google
SCHEDULE C
F . E . R . A . FORK DRS-109
A. FOR NBW CAS.11:S
B. FOR CLOHD CASES
DAT E or F IR ST
BEUU OBD&B
DAT& or UST
B E LJU OR DER
0 . RESID KN CE-1'.: HECK ONK (X)
;(
-
FEDERAL EMERGEN CY RELIEF AD MINISTRATION
OP E N
CO UNT RY
HARBY L. HOPKINS , AD>U NISTRATO ll
DIVISION
or
)
(
R ESEARCH, STATISTICS AND FINANCE
TOW N
2li00- f 990
VILLAG E
60-2499
(
)
(1)
::i,-
c
R.
)
(
C
CORRIN GTON GILL, DJ'R ECTO R
C. FOR BBOPl:NE D BBLlllr Cil&S
DATE or FlllST Ill:·
LIU ORDER IN
PBl:8 11:NT B II LJBF
Pl:BIOD
DAT& or UST Ill:·
LJBF ORDER IN
PUVIOUS B&LIBF
P &BIOD
S URVE Y OP CURREN T CHANGE S 1.N THE RURAL R E LIEF POP U LATION
AO&NCT .. .. . . ... ... .. . .. . ..
I
H . YE AR LA ST H OVE D TO THIS COU NT Y
&. COLOR or HE AD or BO UBll: HOLI>CHECK ONK ( XJ
NBORO
WHIT&
F&R FR Oll
Jl&LIU
DAT& o r CLOSDATZ Or
OPKNlN G
ING
(
)
I
(
)
IF UOTH &R" 8P ltC[J' Y' .
0
(C.
""
i-i
~
O"
'<
0
0
~
rv
C
i:::
NAM& or C LIENT • • • • • • ••• • •• •• • •••• • • • • • • • •• •• •• • •• • • • • •• •••• • • • • • • •• • •• • • • •• •• •• •• • • •
1. IF 1030 Oil AFTER : CO UNTY OR STATE
F RO M w ruc o MO Vl: D
No . •• • •• • •
(STA TE )
(CO UN TY)
DAT & or TRANS·
ic:::
: t,
C O UNT Y••• ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • S TATE • • • • • •• • • •• ••• • • • ••• • •
A DDR&ss • • • • • _ . _ _ • - · _ • • _ • • • ___ _ _ _ _ • • • • • _ •• _ _ • • • - · _ . _ __ • _ • • CAH
D. FO R B&llABlLJTATION Cil&S
I
I -
~
i:::
(1)
....
::i
USU AL
)
~
~
F . ACR ES IN FARM OR HO >ll!:STE AD
OTHKB
(
-
AT TIM E o r
OP &N lN O
AT TIM E o r
CLOS ING
I . R ECEIV ED Rlt LIU DURINO-<:B:KCK (JO
11132
1933
(
(
)
)
103 f
(
)
~
::i,~
::i
CQ
(1)
-~-
Cl)
i:::
R.
e,,
....
....
~
....
SCHEDULE O---COntlnued.
:s
I[. P&BSONil AND OOCVPATIONil DATA
PJ:llSONS 1 - TJ:AllS or AO• WOlll[INO o• DJ:l[INQ wo•lC
ALL PJ:B80NS IN llJ:LIJ:r CASI:
;;;
0
=~
.
.., ~. ""'
.
.. . 8. .
~
-- ---- ---- "'
.
z ~o
0
:,:
RELi.•
TIOSS!llP
TO BEAD
OJ'
BOUSE•
BOLD
I!!
e!
:l., .,.,
►
~
.,[::
Oi,j
OCCUPATION
INDUBTBT
zO
0
;;;=-
Q
0
"',~-.
8.
~
CJ
0
~,-rv
1
2
4
►
◄
,._
,..i
_,.
,..,:l
Q
0
0
<.>
►
6
A.
5
3
----- -- BEAD
---- -- - 2
- 3 ---- -- -- -- --- ---- -- -- -- 4
---- - - --6
-- ---- - - -6
---- -- - --7
---- -- -- -8
-- ---- - - - --
-
7
B
1
9
---- - -10
- ---- - 11
- -- -12
---- -- - -- -13
-- ---- -- - -1'
.
CURRJ:NT J:KPLOYlfJ:NT STATUS
. .~
.,
;;;
Lt.IT &lft'LOTIOHT A'f USUAL OCCUPJ.'1'1011
."' .
. -s . -
j
z .. •
,._ "'i:o
z,.
;. _,.
0
►
◄
Oi:,
,..i
j~
,..,:l t""
►
.
;j
Q
0
II:
,-0
8
:.
◄
~~
.
Q
8
C
9
-- -- --
INDUIITBT
t!
-z
0
<.>
11
10
◄
...
;
,.w
:,:II _:,:
i:,Q
.....j \!!◄~..
Q
Q
D
►
◄
.. w
OCCUPATION
J.J.ft•NAH OCCUPATION
j
OCCUPATION
lNDUIITllT
0
<.>
• --
12 I'
(11
;:
14
13
--
-- -- --- - -- --
--
.a:
l
:ti
~
-- -- -L. BEASON POil OPRNJNO OB ll•OPJ:NJNOCBBCI ON• <XI
Q
CBKCIC FOB CL08m OB BJ:OPUBD
CJ.1111!1
JI. D TD CJ.Sa Wil CLOSED FOB ••ASON8 1 OB 2
Gift TD POI.LOWING INPOBJIIIJ.TION FOB TB•
or TB• BOUHBOLD INVOLTIU>
K•111••·
I (
).
1 (
),
2 (
) LOSS or IOB IR OBDINABT aKPLOT•
KltHT.
a<
) DCUJID OUIRUT :DD'LOTIOJIT,
8 ( ) LOSS Oil D&PLKTIOII or .l81ll:T8.
a<
) CBOP JUBlClr'BD
CROP PRICJ:8,
4 (
) CROP rAILUR& oa LOSS OJ' LIVJ:BTOCJ:.
'
6 (
) OTB.B-l!PECDY.
6 (
OB lNCILLUIJ:D
) TBANUIIB TO OTO& AO&NCT.
) OTDB-BP&CIJT.
-[....
()"
JIii . Bit.I.SON roa CLOSINO-CUJ:CK ONlt (X)
(
§
:ti
(11
-
------
-- - - --- -- --- -- ----
~
3
Q
LlNJi
NUJIIIB•B
8BOWN
IR IC 1
OCCUPATION
INDUBTBT
WltRKLT
SA.llHDiOS
g·
O. D' RIUD 'W.U
■ NO.t.O■D
Ill
.t.OIUCULTUlt ■ IIDIC■ .t.O■
ll.t.BS SNO.t.OBD Ill
.t.011.lCULTUBS
1-a
...
7-11
1008
IIOBB
Q. II'
UI
L.UIT
OWNSR
CROPOB 11.t.N·
PSB
.t.OBB
TSNu■ S
BBNTLA·
N • .t..
SB
BOBBB
.t.l(O'lllff
8T.t. TUii
.t.CRSS
OPIIB·
.t.UD
c.u■ B&C■IVJ:D
PBrNClP.t.L
PBODUC1:
D.t.TB
BNDll:D
BBASON roa
SNDINO
KONTBilfD
Yll:AB
or
llLIKJ'
BBi.iSP BBCSIVIID
WORK
BBUU
DffiECT
RBI.al'
BOTH WORK
AND DIRECT
RELIEF
PBOPOSSD
VOR
BEBABILI·
TATION
YES/NO
~
.un".t.NCU TO D.t.TB
KONTB
.t.ND l l i l
J'KB. 1935
-----
0
'-9
fi
~
a
CY
'<
C')
0
~.-(v
COil•
KIT•
KSNT
n:.t.a
or
LAST
RBRA·
BSPAT·
BILIT.t.•
KKNT TOT.t.L TION
OOODtl
SUB•
SIST•
BNCII
OOODII
J(IITJIOD
RBP.t.T•
11.t.LKSNTS
.t.NCB
TO
DUS
D.t.T■
- - --- --- --- - --- - -
•
•
•
•
s:
0
0
~
P. D' C.t.8S 111 ON BIUl.t.lllLIT.t.TION BOLLII
TOTAL
c,i
§'11B. 1936
D.t.TK
11:N•
BOLLJ:D
a::
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
• •
• s
or ■ J:P.t.TIISN1'--<:JDCX
::i,
(I)
i:::
~
SIIPLOTIIBNT ON-
C":)
HLrLIQUIDATING
PBOIJ:C1:
i:::
'WOBI[
DIVISIOK
PROIIICT
::
s....
OTR■ B
Q
D.t.TJ:........ ••••
r!LUD BT··········•······•--·-•---------
§
(Q
D.t.TS____________
PILLED BY ••• ·-····---·-·--·-··-·-----···-
c,i
t,:i
E"
~
(i;•
Git
,_.
~
r.
I
....
&. B • .l. rOBK DBll-108.l
SCHEDULED
.1.. KONTH or eUBVET
11.
l[JN1)
NJIW (
or C.l8ll-<:HJICI[ ON& (X) .
) UOP&NJID ( ) CLOSJID (
:
l'EDJUU.L EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINIBTRATION
• • BllilON ,OB OPENING oa REOPENING :
CHIICJ: ON& (X).
1. I.088 or &KPLOTK&NT (WITB1N ,01111
KONTBS).
.l. ( ) WOBD nOOB..lK.
B. ( ) l'BIT.lftOB&&OUL.UIOOVJ:BN·
KENT.
C. ( ) OWN ACOOUNT.
D. ( \ om•• (BPIICIFT B&LOW).
( ) LOB8 oa DJ:PL&TION o, .lllllE'r.!.
2.
( ) Dll,Cll&.lHD &.lllNINOB ROM
I.
CUBBENT EKPLOTKJINT.
( ) L08110rB&allTTUKJINTIT.lTU8.
4.
a. ( } C&OP rAILUBll OB L08II or
LIVJISTOCII:.
( ) 1NC11&.l8&D N&JIDS (8P:a:IJY BS8.
LOW).
) OTBJI& (BP:r:ctn' BJILOW) .
r, ID, 8, OK 7111 CBIICJ:JID BPIICIJ'T.
0
co·
;=.
;;;·
~
~
0
0
-
~
rv
I
DAR Or
D.lTJ:Or
rmBT
Al'lllBTANCll
,_______,___ ,___ ,___
PJIBIOD
nlll!T • •• • •••••
PBOOJI.AK
SURVBY OP
CVIUIBNT CBANGBS
.A.Gm«:Y _ _ _ _ _ __
ADDU811 _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
D. RUIDSNCE- CUEC R ONE (X )
TIKI:
IUNS 11181 •••••
KOJITll or
BUB.VEY • .•• .
D' UIIO oa UTJI&: COUNTY AND 8TATli
J'&OK W1IJC1I KOVJ:D
LAST
1
1
\1L-
OPSJI
COUN·
LAOS
TBT
MHMIIII
I
ODtJNTT
-
------( )
( )
)
(
( )
(
)
( )
POPULATION
ST.I.ft _ _ _ _ _ __
r.
Cull No. _ _ _ _ _ __
COLO& or Rll.lD
ON& (X)
WHITll
---( )
BT.lTll
NJIO&O
(
or BOUs■ BOLD--<:IIJICII:
OTH&B (SPJll"lrT)
)
.
RJ:usr
F=
I
es, OB 1119 CIBCDl:D SPIICD'T
ltsr&llllD TO RUllTTl.ll·
!c:r
D';".8:~
R&LIU
KSNT .lDKlNlBTIIA TION
I
Yll8
I
MO
1- - - - --1 - - - - - 1 - - - - 1
-
.. i I
II: . Ir ma C.1.8& WAS CLOSED roa RR.1.9011 1, .l TO D, SRC·
TJON 1, GIVS TBS ,OLLOWJNO IN,OIUU.TIOKroa TBS
KllKBEB or TU BOUSSBOLD lNVOLVBD
.I.KOURT or RSI.ID RSCIIIVSD
WOIU:
}
Ir ID, 4, II, 011,
O. Ir CJ 811: BIICEIVSD BSLIEr
TOWN
4111111
REuEP
IN THE RURAL
C01:7lffY_ _ _ _ _ __
~
OWN ACOOUNT.
OTBEB (SPJIClrT BJILOW).
INCllSASllD S.lBNINOB FBOM
2.
CUBBJINT BKPLOTKSNT.
) CBOrs K.&Sl[STED OS IN•
3.
CU.lll&D CROP PBIC&S.
( ) LOANS (SPIICIJ'TSOUBCS BSLOW).
4.
( ) QOVSRNKSNT BSNSnT (IIPJI•
I.
an BELOW).
8. .l.88l8TANCS PBOVlDllD BT:
.l. ( ) ll8STTL&K&NT .lDIIDIJIITB.l•
T"ION .
B. ( ) LOCAL AGENCY (SPBCll'Y BSLOW).
LANDLORD.
C.
REL.& TIVES OR FRIENDS.
D.
OTffBR (SP'.EMYY BELOW) •
( ) ADMlNISTRATIVB POLICY.
7.
8. ( ) CLrllNT MOVED OR PAil.SD TO
BBPORT.
) OTHBR (SPECIFY BELOW) .
II.
c.
D.
N.1.1'& or CLIIINT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
........ ........ ....... .
1
) WOBJ:8 PBOOBAK.
) PBIV.lftOBBJIOUL.l&GOVJIBN•
KSNT.
00111111'0TON GILL, Dmn:10&
.l8SlllT.lNCJ:
8JICOND •••••••• •••••• ••••••• • •• • ••••••
TUIRD •••••••• • • ••••• ••• •• • • ••• ••• • •• • •
rouam ••• •• •• ••• • •• • ••• • • •••• • •••••• •
FUTB •••••••••• • •••••••• • • ••••••••••••
.l. (
B. (
DIVISION 01' RESEARCH, STATISTICS AND FIN.A.NOE
ll. n.1.a LA8T KOVBD TO TB1II COUNTY
C. &KllllOllNCT BJILIU AND ILKJIROJINCY
Jl)(PlOTKJINT maTORY
I . BSA80NrO&Cl081NG: CBIICli:ONS (X).
1. SKPLOTKSNT SECURED.
IUJIBT L. BORDal, .ADKINIIITlU. TO&
'
LIJIJI
JIUKBSR
IIBOWN
IN
8JICTIOML,
COLUKNI
OCCUP.HION
INDUSTRY
WJ:1111:•
LY
BARN·
!NOS
•
BOUB8
WOBI[•
JID
f
(\
;;:
g
::i:,
(\
~
Q
:::i
Q.
~
~
-i...
g·
Q
O"
OCCUPATIONAL DATA
L. PltRSON .U. DA TA
ALL PERSONS
ALL PERSONS DI BIIUEr CAH
ALL UIISONS JIHl4 YICAUS or AGJC WOR KJ SO OR 811EKINO WORK
..,
l 6 - &t YEARS
....
EDUCATION
;;;
RJCLA TtONsrup
TO HEAD or
HOUSE HOLD
'4
II
2
(1)
'
6
6
7
8
[-I
N
~
~
CJ
0
o2~
9
JO
II
12
13
14
16
I>-
OIi
::l
8
p
HEAD
3
◄
'
Q
,.
RESTLY
UNl:Ml'LOT&D
IIIIPLOYIID
UST &MPWYIIIENT
0
II
ol
◄
s
6
◄ o
0
~iil
7
_8
- - -- - -
0
g
0
"o
10
11
IJ
9
--
-- - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - - -- -- -- --- - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - -- -- - - --- -- -- ------- - -- -- -- -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - --- - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - - -- -- -- --- -- -- --
--
""'
.. z
◄"..
Q
USUAL OCCUPATION AND DIDUSTRY
.,
OCCUPATIO!f
0
~=S::i....
12
.
....
....
.... "''"
~~
IMD178TBT
'"z
"◄
IJ11
13
H
--
---
Q
00
-=IJ15
-----
::.
"z
Z0
OCCUPATION
IMDUSTBT
PZ
17
18
i:::
a
-Q
i:::
~
~
:::,
--
--
!
---
~
-~-
~
--
i:::
Q.
If, U Bll:AD WA8 IINOAOIID Ill AORICULTUBII DUBINO LAllT 10 TIIARS
LABT 8TATU8
YIIAB8 BNOAOIID
1~
::,,
("')
--
----
~
~
~
16
~
s;
§-
Q~
◄
0
z
II
z
2
j .,
.
.
..e: " ...,
"'8
z ..
~
"z
:ai
~
o= ".
.
. ~=
:I z
., ..
.
8
:h
8
-- - - -*- -- -- - - -- - -
=
.
Jr
◄ Q
Ir CUR·
CUBRJCNT IIIIPLOYIIJCNT:
&NTZRYJ:8,
NO, N. 4.
◄
0
I
IN SCHOOL
(CHIICJt)
LAST
GRAD&
COIi•
PLSTJCD
PRIIHNT
STATUS:
1-17-10
~ u , ao~
o
PU
11.1.N•
.I.GBB
I I I I I
TBN•
ANT
LA·
BOB•
U
N • .l,
nm
Ams
OPIIB· IINDICD
.I.T&D
FlLLSD BY ••••••••• DATIi ••••••
EDlTIID BT ••••••••• D.t.TII ••• • ••
,_.
g::
SCHEDULE E
W. P . A. Fou, DRS- 40IIA
A. llli80N FOR CLOSING: llliLIU PERIOD WBlCII
) WORU PROO RAll.
) PRIVATJ: oa RJIGULAR GOVICRN•
llJ:NT.
c. ( ) OWN Atx;O'UNT.
D. ( ) OTHJ:R (SPJICJYY BllLOW) .
( ) INCREASJ:D EARNINGS J'ROK CURRENT
U l PLOYll llNT.
< ) CROP MA RKJITED OR NCRl:ASJ:D CROP
PRICE.,.
( ) LOANS (SPIICll'Y 801JRCII BIILOW) .
( ) GOVBRNMKNT BIINEl'IT (SPl!lCIJ'Y BB•
LOW) .
All8lSTANCE PROVIDJ:D BY:
A . ( ) RJ:SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION .
II . ( ) LOCAL AGENCY (8PIICIJ'Y BBLOW).
c. ( ) LANDLORD .
D. ( ) RELA TIV &8 OR FRIENDS.
II . ( ) OTHER (SPECIFY BIILOW).
( ) ADllINISTll.A. 'ITVE POLICY (8PECIJ'Y DZLOW) .
( ) CUJI NT llOVJ:D OR J'AILED TO llEPORT.
( ) OTBJ:R (8PIICIJ'Y B ELOW) .
A. (
B. (
2.
a.
4.
6.
O.
7.
,.
8.
.
U ID, 4, 6, SB ,
e•, 7 , OB
CORRINGTON GILL
A881STANT .&.Dlllllll!TRATOR
BOWARD B. llYJ:RS, DffiliCTOR
DMSION OJ' BOCI.AL RESEARCH
~
IDENTIJ'ICATION
E.
IJ,
CASE NO •• ••••••••••••••••••
RBSIDJ:NCE : STATE • •••••• • ••••• • • ••• ••• ••• • •
COUNTY •••• • •••• _ •••••• ___ ._. __ •••••• • •
IN roNE !!AMPLE
YES ( ) NO ( )
vtLLAGII OR TOWN ••• •• ••••• • • •• •• • ••••
NUii: or J'lllLD .AGJINT.. .. ..... . . . . . .. ....
DATJ: or
INTERVU:W • ••••• •••••••••••
NAllll or BCmDULE CLERK • •••• • •••••••••••
!ICIIKDULll NO - - - ·· --· -· - · - - -
COLOR o r BIIA.D o r BOUHBOLD
CIIJ:Clt O!B (X)
NIIGRO
OTllllR (8PECIJ'Y )
B . DATIi OJ' THIS CLOSING
(
)
(
c.
D.
rOR CASIIS
REOPENED
SINCB
J UNE 1936
AND RE·
CEMNG
EMER·
GICNCY
UNEM·
PLOYMENT
R&Llllr
DURlNO
DECEM·
BE R 19115
2. (
)
a. c
)
4. (
)
) W ORKS PROGRAM .
) PRIVATE OR RE GULAR
GO VERNM ENT.
( ) OWN Aa;0U NT.
( ) OTH ER (SP IICIJ'Y BE·
LOW).
LOSS
OR DEPLETION or
ASSETS.
DECREA S ED
B ARNINGS
PRO M CURR E NT E MPLOY·
MENT.
RESETTLEMENT
LOSS 01'
STATU S.
5. (
6. (
7. (
) CROP J'AILUR II OR LOSS or
LIVESTOC E .
) INCRE ASED NEEDS (SPECll'Y
BELOW) .
) OTHER (SPECtJ'Y BELOW ).
Tlllll
OPIIN
COUN-
TBY
1UNll 11136
(
)
D EC. 11136 .
(
)
)
(l50-
241111)
--l
- -- ---(
(
)
DATIi or LA ST
ORDER 1N
PBIIVJOUS BIi•
Llll:J' PERIOD
TOWN
(260041199)
(
)
(
)
~
s
(1)
~
0
;:,
::i.:,
-~-
(1)
Q
lJ' lD, G, OR 7 IS CIIECU:0-SPECtFY
H . llll81DllNCJ:~IICJt TWO (X)
VILLAGII
PERIOD : CHECK
A. (
B. (
2 . DA TIii OJ' J'IR6T
0 RD IIB IN TR.IS
BIIUJ:J' PERIOD
- --
C')
&NT RELlEr
ONJ: (X)
1. LOSS or EMPLOYMENT .
llOUHBOLD
NAKE or CUJINT••••••••••••••••••• • •• • ••••
WBJTJ:
~
1. BEASON :roa BllOPENING PRES•
SURVEY OF R URAL HOUSEHOLDS THAT RECEIVED RELIEF
IN J UNE AN D WERE CLOSED PluoR TO DEC. 1, 1935
r.
'5'
N
a-rv
L.
I IS CDECI:K.D-81'1:CJYY
0
0
Cf)
IURJIY L. BOl'CN!I, .&.DKINlllTRATOll
INCLUDJ:D 1UNJ: 11136 : CHEClt (X)
1. J:KPLOYIUNT 811CURJ:D .
I-'
co
W ORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
a . TYPll AND AMOUNT or BIILIU
llEClllVJ:D I N DIICIIMBIIB
DlllllCT
11111.Jllr
W OJIK
ll llLIU
DlllJICT AND
WOR K
BllLIU
:::s
R.
!:tl
~
:::r-
Q
0-
-.....§=
::;·
;:,
C. II' CASII WAIi CLOSJtD MOllll THAN ONCII
SINCE JUNE 1036
MONTH or
CL081NG
DAT&
ACC.&PT&D
RUSON FOB. CLOIIING
-
O. UKILTUNDIIRCAllll RIISSTTLII·
K&NT ADIONIMRUION : TlCS
( ) NO ( ) Il'TESISCDIICl<&D
II . IF CASJC W.t. S REOPENED SINCS J UNII 11135
I. TllAR UST MOVJCD
TO TBlll COUNTY
MONTH or
REOPSNIN O
AD VANC&S TO D.t.TlC
t - -- - - - - - , - - - - i
MO ••••• • • ! TOTAL •• •• •• ••• • •
,$....
'D.t.T •••• • • I CAl'ITAL GOODS •• , • • • • • •
II' lllac> Oil UDR
xono raoM .t.N·
OTBllll COUNTY
or TB18 IITATll
RIIAIION roll UOPSNINO
~
(,i
MOV&D ROIi
ANOTBSR
8TATS
::i-
c
8UBSIST1CNCS
TB. •••• •••• I
D. BOUllmOLD llllCIII VIID IIT.t.U OR LOC.t.L
Rill.JU OB. AID DURING DIICllMJIU
1936: TU ( ) NO ( )
uua:r
N . om11:1l IIO UB.C ICS o r INCOIIJ: DIICllllBJ:B 11135
(N.t.1111: COUNTY)
l!OU B.C II
I. Tll.t.118 PlllOll TO 193& AND MOMTll8 DURING 11116 IN WBJCH HO USllHOLD
RIICSIVSD 11:ll ll ROIINCT UXJ:IIPLOTXS MT llJ:LUr: CH&CI[ ( X )
lllH
IIAN.,
rs■.1 IIAll.
I
11136
APll ., 11AlfUN1CrU LT AUG.-, 811PT.I
OCT., NOV .
PUBLIC OR
PRIVATll
N.t.lCll or
AGSNCT
(2)
(3)
I[. II' JllCAD WAS 11:NGAGJ:D IN AGlllCULTUBJ: DURING PAST 10 T J:Allll
0
'§.:
"'~°
c;
'<
CJ
~
(4)
LINK
NO.
$
TIIAU
11:NGAGSD
2 . B.6.NI..tCXX> UNTS, 8 A. VINOS ____ _ __ __
a.
1
• • • ••••• • •
BALll or P&B.SONAL BS LONGIMOS • •• , • •• • ••• • • •
6 . 8 ALJ: or FAR.II PllODUCS• • • •• •• •••• , • • • ••• ••••
ex>
ill.. ~
a
4
6
1-t • • •• (
4➔
. .. . (
7-10 •• • (
A. CROPS•••• •• • • • • •• • • • ••• ••• ••• , •• •• • ••• • •
DDSD• • • ••••••• • .. ••• Oll II' CUllUNT (
CJlllCI[
on
1
2
DAT■
IITATUII: CJIXI[ o n
a,
OWNSllOllll.UUOJ:ll
TSNAlfT • • . ••. • •• •. • •
CBOPPSll •• • •• ••.• .• .
U.BOUll • •. . • •.• . .. .
N. A ••• ••• • • •••••••• •
)
(
(
(
(
(
B. UVltllTOCI[ • • • •••• •• • • • • •• • ••• , •••• •• • • ••
XUXBSll or ACRJ:11
OPJ:llATJ:D
(4)
(3)
CllOP ACRJ:11 .. ..... . . . . . .. .
CASH CllOP ACRll8 •• • • ••• ••
OTHSll ACRllB ••••• • •• • • •• • •
TOTAL ACllJ:11 • • •••• • •••••• •
TTPII or CASH CllOP • • • • • • ••
IQ
ti:::
C
1. llJ:U.TIVICS AND FRlllNDS • • • • . . . • • • , $ •••• • • • •
LAST r a x OCCUPATION
(1)
I AMOUNT
4 . CUDIT ltllT.l ll Ll8HIID • • • • •• • •••• • •• , • • • • • •• •••
VALUll
C
c'
(N .t.11& STATII)
( ) - ( ) ( ) ( )_ ( ) ( ) ( >I ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
llllu:&r AOSNCT
TTPS or
.&_MOUNT RSPA.ID_, _____ _
19331
II' Tll8 Ill CBIICl[_Jll)
GOODS •••• • •• • • , ••••••
~
C, UVJ:STOCI[ PllODUCTS • ••• •• • • • , • •• • •• ••••
ti. A. A . A, PA YIIIINT8 • • •• •• • • • •• •• ••• , •• •• ••• • • •
7. VJ:TJ:IUNII COIIP&NSATION AND
P& NIIJONS • ••• •• ••• • •• ••• •• •••• • • , • • • • •••• ••
a.
OTBS B. SOUB.C ICS (SPSCIYT) • ••• •• • • • , • • • • •• • •• •
~
i:::
~
~
i:::
~
(,i
::i
~
::i1:l
cS
(,i
-~-
en
i:::
~
,:,,
0
~,.._
('v
.....
co
-:t
SCHEDULE E-Continued .
0.
~
c:o
PllllSONAL AND OCCUPATION.lL DATA
ALL PIIIIBONS l&-64 YIIARS
AOJ:
.I.LL PERSONS IN BOUSJ:BO LD
I
PRESl:NT STATl' S
(ENTER "YES" OR
"NO")
O
"'
:--
IN BOUSE·
~~
1u!~\~5
(CBE~II)
RELATIONSHIP
TO HEAD OJ'
HOUSEHOLD
-
.;
Id
0
0
.
:,i
z
z
"' •
r!
I!!
e.:
.n:i
Ill
"'
Ills
.. 8
o
P. BEASON l'OR INEUOI•
J:DUC.lTION
LA.ST
IN SCHOOL
(CBJ:Ci:)
ORAOII
COM·
PLETICD
III
" 0 _,
N
0a1g S
~
0 ~~ ~
◄
8
~Ii'
~
~
Ii'
0~
0
lS
or
:l:;,:
,
ALL PEIi.SONS l&-64 Yl!ARS or AO.I: WORII.•
ING OR 81:EKISO WORII.
".,
l:l ,o it ..A""◄0
0.:-. if"" : ~ i:i
~
-Ct,,!', 0 ◄..
fl ::l
li' .. l!:z
~ Z ::I z i:iJ • II g z
~;~it~=~- ~i
., .. Ii g it~ lll: Ii Q
~g,•., .. ~5' z .. ~
- a. O ~ O O ~..
I
~= .... =
OCCUPATION
INDU8TBT
0
OS
;-:
;,:
(1)
1
(2)
I
"""
:ii
..
O
:£
i;j
P
o:i
(4)
(S)
(6)
(7)
(8)
M
l;tl
(9)
(10)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(1/i)
(16)
(17)
I
(18)
HEAD
-l
--3 - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - l
-- - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - - + - - - I
11------•------1
-•6-1------1 --1--1--1 --1--1--1 --1--1--1 --1--1--- ,1----1 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1
-8- 1 - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - l - - l - - l - - l 1 - - 1 - · l - - 1 - - J
1---1---1------+------1
-1
1 - -1- - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - -
1---1--1--------------1
Q. REASON
FOR
NOT
WORKING OR 81!.IIXINO
WORK
CODB
1. BOUSEWTrlC
2, UNPAID HOME WORKER
8. STUDENT
4. CHRONIC ILLNESS OR
PHYSICAL DISA BIUTT
II. RKBLl:·MINDEDN t:SS
OR INSANITY
e. OTBKB (SPECIF£)
1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1---+---1--1------1-----1
7
--1------1----1--l--¼--l--1--1--1--1--1--1--1---1---l-l------1------1
8
I
;.:..:..
1
N.
t?>
I
tT
g
1--1--l--l --l--l--l-- ll~:---1-I--~~B~E~M~A::R.:_U:::__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I1--1----_ _ _'
... BEASON roa. 11:NDJNO
OOVERNMltNT
KHER•
OENCT ltlolPLOYMENT
I 10
CODI:
C;
0
an
,......
-1----1-1-1-1--1--1-1
I
1-1----1-1-1-1--1--1-1-1--1-1----------
I
I
II
12
1-----1-1-1-1--1--1-1-1--1-1--------------
-1-----1
.
IU
,_ - I
16
-----------1
1-----·1
i
---------t
1-1-1--1--1-1-1--1-1--------------------1-1-1--1--1-1-1--1
l--1--1--1 --1--1--1 --I
1
~
~
~
§
~
~
Q
0
'<
0
:::s
~
1, -1-----1
<Ci'
Q.
~
~
:z;
1
(3)
"l'j
~
~
z!;~?; :1 ..
::l
.:l = .. = :i
It:
= t::.zw
~ .. : = ~
~
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
l<H>I
I
l
I
I
-- 1 - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1
M
J:M•
CODII
1. PBTstCALLT OR MJ:N•
TALLY UNl'IT
2. NltEDIID AT ROHE
3. NO LONGER EUGIBLI:
l'OR RltUEr
4. OTBEB (SPJCCll'Yl
USUAL J:lolPLOY:lollCNT
1:4-0
BILITT l'OR W •. P.
PLOTMJ:NT
00
--s....·
0"
1. SECURED
ORDINARY
ltlolPLOYMl:NT
2. LtJD on oa PROIJCCT
lCNDltD
8. INSURED OB ILLNltSS
4. Dl!lCBAROlCD
6. OTBlt8. (8PKCll'YJ
§=
:::s
:::
=i
.,
a:
:,i
II
~
0
Q
jj
."
:,:
0
:,i
II
:,:
Q
.=
"
.~
"~
:,i
:II
NOSV»ll
-
M
-
,;:-
g
~
I~
~
I
I
I
I
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
I
IIIII
I
I I
IIIII
I~ I I I I I I I
I~ I I
199
_e(JbyGoogle
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
an110.-1. s11noH
~
I ~
11
~
§
~
..
I§ I I I
I § 1-1 I
•t
I
IE I I I
SOlllNIIT:11 'IUOJ.
."'
a:
!'Q5
:!';
:,:
◄
~
s
~
0UllH3)
""Jdftll "0110
(A3NllOVllftVN)
AJN:il.Dl:Ulff':il
,l,N:llftNll:ilAOO
NT0:1:11 :UTQ
'HO.I
<.. II ..
NJ NA\ORA "ON 113.LN:II)
ONION2
a:11011:a: :uva
"'
E
p
~
0
:,:
◄
i::
I
A:111:IIOT
11-.0:a:11 uva
.. o .. Ill NM.OHS "ON :ill>l'I
I
I~ I I I I I I
I~ I I
IIIIII
I~ I I I I I I I
I3 I I I I I I I
I~ I I I I I I
I I I IIII
I~ I I I I I I
SONI A'IHLIIOft
·IIIIT:11.10 :IILVII
.. o,. NT HAI.OHS ·oN :rNn
0~
a:11aN:11 :u.va
N1 NM.OHS "ON 11:llt<:U
( .. II..
ONIOS'i: HO.I NOSV:111
A:JN:1!.lH:illa
.L,A.00
:,ii ..
MZ
.~ . .
s.. .3
.
◄
t
oi
N
II
~
!!
~!
...h
t~
:z:Z
=;
~i:l
:,:
0
~
:ii ..
:,i"
.... ;
l:is
=~g3.
.z::!
"
~
.
3
.;
II
o,gr
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
200
DRS-162
SCHEDULE F
SOCIAL RESEARCH DIVISION, W. P. A.
NUMBER OF CASES AIDED AND AMOUNT OF OBLIGATIONS INCURRED FOB PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ASSISTANCE IN RUBAL AND TOWN SAMPLE AREAS
AGJ:NCT ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
BTATJ:... ••••••••••• •• ••• • • • • • • • • • ••••••• •• • • ••••••••• COUNTY••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
8JGNATURJ: e,r PJ:RSON REPORTING •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
DATIL..................................... RJ:PORT roB MONTH or•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 19•..•
TYPJ: or .USIBT.lNCJ:
NUXRJ:R
or CASJ:S
.IJDJ:D
.I.MOUNT
(2)
(3)
LINJ:
LINJ:1------------------------1
No.
NO,
(1)
1
2
3
4
6
II
7
8
PUBLIC .l8SJBT.llfa (J:NTBIU ro• PUBLIC .lGJ:NC0:8):
C.lffOOBICAL OB BPIICU.L A!!!IIBTANCJ::
ft.lTUTOBY .I.ID TO D:SPll:NDJ:NT CHILDB:SN ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• $ ••••••••••••
ft.lTUTOBY OLD .lO:S .l88ISTANC:S ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
ft.lTUTOBY .I.ID TO TH:& BLIND ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
ft.lTUTORY V:S'HUN'II .I.ID ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
00:SUL ASSJ8T.lNCJI I ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
OTHJ:B (BPJ:CUY):
1
2
a
4
5
II
7
8
,l, •.•.••••..•••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• · · · · · · · - . • • . . . - ...••••..•...••••.••••.
B . ••••.••••••••••••..••••••.•.•••.••••••••••••..••••••••.. - ......•.......•••......
11
JHT UNDUPLIC.lffD TOT.lL or C.llU R:SC:SITINO PUBLIC Al!IIIIIT,lNC& •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• - •••••••••••••••••••••••
11
10
PBJT,lT:S .l88J8T.lNCII (:&KTIUU roB PRJVAff ,lO:SNCJ:SI) ••••••••••• •••••••••• -·············
10
11
OTB&B .l!IIIJ8T.lNCII (:&NTIUU roa COIIBIN.lTIOK PUBLIC .I.ND PB[VAff
,lOIINCJ&B) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• _
11
1
=l=====I
=1==z=z==I
Additional Information conoernlnr general pnbllc assistance:
[LIJH 7, OOIITIKUJ:DJ
'O'lUTUCH:&D RICSID:SNT
P:SUONB
•um:sNT r .i.llJl.l:&8
LIJ(J:
1110.
7
KUXB:SII or
r.i.xnma
KUIIB&R or
P&MONII
UPBB8:SNTJ:D
AIIOUKT
KUXB&B or
P&II.IIOKI
.lXOUNT
<•>
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
TOTALKUIIB:SB
or PIIB80NI IN
CilU BIIC:&IT•
ING 00:SlliL
LllQ
PUBLIC illll8T- 1110,
.lNCII
(9)
--------·- .. ·---- ............................... ............. -------------- •-··········· -------·--------
C1g1tzed by
Google
7
Methodology of Rural Current Change Studies
201
SCHEDULE G
SUBVEY OF CUBRENT CHANGES IN TBB RURAL
(
(
RELIEP
PoPULAnoN
OON'IBOL C.llD JIU 109-B
) BJ:B.lBIUT.lTION
) BJ:LlJ:r
...... ___________ -- -- - -· -- -- -·--··-- - - --- ·-·· ---- - - -- - - -- -- ·- ··-------·------ CUii 1'0•• ·-- -·· --· -·-·-. _-USU.A.I.
r. O. ( )
OOCUP.A.TI01'
L.lB. ( )
BT.A.Tli-------··--·---·--·--···
TIIN. ( )
CROP,
( )
0TH. ( )
NONI:
( )
COUNTY·---------··----------·-
J
O. C.
F M A M
OPIINJ:D OR UOPJ:N:&D-•• ----------··-••-•·------· -·-· ____ ·--CLOSl:D--•-·••·•••••-·•····-·•·-··---·-·····-·-·--- ·-·- --•- ·-··
CilRiliD OVKR ••• -···--------··-·-•·········--·-·- --·- ____ -•·TB.a.ll'BF:SBBJ:D TO R:SHABILIT.lTION ______ •• __ ._. _______ ···- ··-TO BIi INCLUDJ:D IN 8.lllPL& ••••••••••••••••••••• _ --·· -··- --··
IICll:&DULII nLI.IID FROII UCOBDB ••••••• _ •• _•••••• -··- ____ ---·
FIN.lNCl.il INFORMATION &NT&B&D •••••••••• - •••• _ ---· -··- ••••
BCH&DULII 81:NT TO BUPIIBVISOB_ •••••••••• --····- ··-- ••••••••
8CIUIJ>ULII UTUBNJ:D BY 8UP&BVI80B •••••••••• _•••••••••••••
(
)
TOWN (
)
IIUIDP'~ TILL. ( )
QTY
( )
or P:SB80N8 11' BOUBUOLD _______ _
1'0.
---· ·-·-·•· ·-•·
--·- ··-·
____ ···••••••••
--·- -···
--·- ·-··
-·-- -··---· -··-
J
J
A
8
0
N D
____ -·-- ·--- ·--· ---· -·-- ___ _
-•-- -··- -··- --·· ____ ·--· -·--•-- ____ --·- _______________ _
________________ •••• ---· ··-·
··-· ···- -·-· ·-·- •••••••• --·•••• ···- ···- •••••••• -··- -··•••• --·· ·--· -··· ·-·· --·· ••••
-·-· ··-· •••• ·--· ·--- ···- ___ _
-·-- ···- -·•- ·••- -•·- -·•- -·••
SCHEDULE H
SURVEY 01' CUJIBENT CHANGES IN THE RURAL
RBLim,, POPULATION CoNTBOL CAIID
l>R8 109-D
1'.lll:S _ -•·- _-• -· __ •.• _. _.• -··· ·-. -· -· ______ ••••• _. -· •• -···· __ . -··. -· -•· ••• •• CAS:S NO ••••••• __ ·- ___ -·--·
BT.lTII --·--·-···-··--····-·-······ COUNTY-·-···-·•···-···-·-··--·•••• NUIIB:SR IN HOUSUOLD •••·•-USU.lL
r. O. ( )
T&N. ( )
CROP.
( )
O. C.
( )
TILL. ( )
OCCUPATION
LAB. ( )
OTB, ( )
NONI:
( )
:usIDP'CII TOWN ( )
J
F M A M
------------------+- - - 0P&NED OR B&OP:SNJ:D __ ···--·--·-··-····-··-··-·· --·C.lRRl&D OV&R ••••••••• --···-·---···-·-·-·--··-··· -··CLOSRD •••••••• -·-·---•-·-·············-·····---··- -···
CLOSED BRCA USE or:
WORKS PROORAK.----·--··---·-·-·-····--··-- -·-·
llBRTTLEIU:NT ADIIINISTRATION_. __ ••• __ ._ •• _ ·--OTHER REASONS-•·----·-···-----·-··-•---·--·--··
CAAE INCLUDED IN 60 PERCENT 8AIIPLJ:_._ •••• - ••• -··BCHEDULJ: FILLED PROII RECOBDS--·----···-···-·· -··-
J
J
A
----
8
0
N D
--1--11--1--
···- --·- --·- -··· -·-· -··- ---· ···- -··- -··· -••·
··-· •••• ·-·- ···- ____ -··- -··- -·-· ··•- ••••••••
-·-· ··-· ·--- -·-· ··-· -··· ____ -··· -··- ···- -••·
··-·
·--·
••••
·--··--
-·•- ·--· ···- ·--· ·-·· ••••
-··- ---· ···- --·· ---· ·-·-···--·-···----·-·-··--·
-·-- -··- ---· ---· ·-·- -·-·
-•·· •••• -··· •••• -··- ··--
Cig1
-·-···••••
••••
••••
··-- ••••
____ ·-··
-··--·····- ··-···- -···
-•••
••••
••••
••••
••••
zedbyGoogle
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
202
STATE SUPERVISORS OF RURAL RESEARCH
[Personnel rerord Mor Nov. 10, 1936)
Name
State
Period or cooperation
Allred, C. E .•....•...•.......•.......•..•... Tennessee ...........••..
Anderson, W. A-···········--·-···-·-·····-- New York ............. .
Beers, Howard W .......................... . Wa.shin1tton ............ .
Wisconsin ______________ _
New Jersey .....•.......
Boyer, Phillps B •••••••••••.••.•.•...•..••.. Tennessee.•.........•.•.
Brannen, C. 0 ..••.•........................ Arkansas .•..•.•••.......
Ore1ton .•••...••.••.•....
Arizona ....•....•.•••••.
Coen, B. F ................................. . Colorado ..•.••.•.••••.•.
Coffey, W. 0 .•••••.......................... Minnesota ......•••••••.
Dennis, W. V ....... ....................... . Pennsylvania ....•..••••
Dunran, 0. D .....•••....•.................. Oklahoma ... -··········
Eastman, M. Gale ...........•......•....... New Hampshire ..•.••.•
Gabbard, L. P ... ........... _..... _....... _. Texas ..•••..............
Geddes, Joseph A .......................... . Utah ..............•...•.
Gillette, John M .•••........................ North Dakota ..•.•.•.••
Hamilton, C.H •.••••.••..............•..... North Carolina ........ .
Bill, George W . ............................ . '\\'isconsin ______________ _
Bill, Randall 0 ••....•...................... Kansas ...••••.....•.•.•.
Bolisommer, B. 0. ·······-···-·····-·······
Hummel, B. L .....•••...........•••... -· -·· ◊l~:1~ia~::::::::::::::::
Kirkpatrick, E. L ..•........................ Wisconsin •..•.•••...•••.
Kraenzel, Carl F ..•••..•.................... Montana .......•.•...•.
South Dakota .••••.••••.
Washin1tton ..••••....••.
Larson, Olaf F . ............................ . Colorado .•••.•..•.•••.••
Lively, Charles E ..•••••..........•..•..•... Ohio •••••••.••..•.•.•••.
Moore, E. B ••••.••.••..............•....... Ore1?on ..••••..•.•.••.•••
Morl(an, E. L .•••..•....••••••.•.•..•.....•. Missouri .••...........••
Mumford, Eben •.••..•..........••••••.••.•. Michigan ••••.•.....•.••
Nelson, Lowry ••••••............••••..•.•... Utah .•....•.•.........••
Nicholls, W. D •.......••........•.•......... Kentucky ..•••.•.•.•.•..
California.•••••.•...••••
Louisiana ••••.•.•••.••••
Wakeley, Ray E .. ·······················-·· Iowa................•...
Whetten, Nathan L ......••.•....•••..•..... Conne.cticut. .....•.•.•.
Wllllams, B. O.·---··················-·-···- South Carolina ......•.•
Zlmmerman, Carle C ...........••..•...•.•. Massachusetts ........•.
tii:~~~i~·it~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
E!'~l~~ni1!i::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :
E~i~*- <:,~~~.~::::::::::::::: :::::::: ::
Jan. 16, 193.'i, to date.
Sept. 16, IY34, to July 1, 1935.
May 16, 1935, to Sept. 15, lll:!S.
Sept. 16, 11135, to Feb. 1, 1936.
Feb. 4, 1936, to date.
Nov. l, 1934, to Jan. 16, 193.'i.
Oct. 1, 1934, to date.
Jan. 2, 1936, to date.
Oct. 1, 1935, to date.
Oct. l, 1934, to Dec. 31, 193/i.
May 16, Ul35, to date.
Oct. 16, 1934, to date.
Sept. 16, 1934, to date.
June 1, 1936, to Jan. 31, 11136.
Oct. l, 1934, to date.
June 1, 1935, to date.
Nov. 1, 1934, to date.
Sept. UI, 1034, to June 30, 1936.
Feb. 1, 1936, to date.
Sept. 16, 1934, to date.
Oct. 1, 1934, to Aug. 31, 1935.
Nov. 1, 1934, to date.
Oct. 1, 1934, to Sept. 15, 1935.
July 16, 1935, to date.
Oct. 1, 1934, to date.
Oct. 1, 1935, to date.
Jan. 2, 1936, to date.
Jan. I, 1935, to dote.
Nov. 23, 1934, to Sept. 30, 1935.
June 25, 1935, to date.
Oct. 1, 1934, to date.
Sept. 24, 1934, to Dec. 26, 1934.
Sept. 16, 1934, to date.
Nov. I, 1934, to June 15, 1935.
Oct. 1, 1931, to date.
Sept. 16, 1934, to date.
Oct. ICI, l!IH, to date.
Mar. 1, 19:l5, to date.
May 16, 1935, to date.
Temporary State 8upen;i8ors of Rural Researc1'
Name
State
Anderson, T. W .••.•••••••••••. Georgia.
Florida.
Alabama.
Broderick, Katherine ••••••••••. Indiana.
Callin, A. E .....••••••••••••••.. Nebraska.
Crrek, Charles R .••••••••••••.. Indiana.
DeFord, John F .••...•••....... Nebraska.
Durham, W. E ••••••••••••••... Mississippi.
Facinoli, John .•... ·-·-·········· West Virginia.
Galbraith, Charles 8 ..•••••••••• Florida.
Name
State
Johansen, Sigurd ...•••••••••.•••
Lindstrom, D. E ..••..•... - •••..
Link, Irene L .... •··········-···
Lounsbury, Thomas ...•.•.•.•••
McClure, John B ..........•.•..
Matthews, M. Taylor ...••..••.•
Minear, Kenneth ••••••••••••••.
Rapp, Robert E .•.••••...••••••
Wilson, Edwin E .....••........
Illfnols.
West Vfrgjnla.
New York.
Alabama.
North Carolina.
West Virginia.
California.
Do.
Cig1
New Mei:lco.
zedbyGoogle
APPENDIX
C
GLOSSARY
203
Digitized by
Google
Dig 11ml oy
Google
APPENDIX
C
GLOSSARY
(The definitions given herewith are those used in the Survey of
Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population.)
Accessions.-New or reopened relief cases as of a given period.
Acres Operated.-Total acres in farm, regardless of whether
under cultivation or not. May be owned, rented, part owned, or
part rented.
Aged.-Persons 65 years of age and over.
Assets. ( See Loss or Depletion of Assets.)
Broken Familg.-Mother and children or father and children.
Capital Goods (as type of rehabllitation advance).-The purchase, rental, construction, or repairs of land, buildings, home equipment, livestock, work animals, feed, seed, fertilizer, equipment, farm
tools, or machinery, and any other capital outlays required to carry
out the rural rehabilitation program (F. E. R. A. Form RD-22a).
Carrg-Over.-Cases receiving relief in a given month that were
brought forward from an earlier month.
Case. (See Reli.ef Case.)
Cash Crop Acres.-Crop acres cultivated for the purpose of selling more than 50 percent of the produce grown on them.
Children.-Persons under 16 years of age.
Client. ( See Rehabilitation Client.)
Closed Relief Case.-A case to which an agency has ceased giving
relief from F. E. R. A. funds, whether or not the household continues to receive aid from some other Government agency. Thus
a household transferred from general relief to the Resettlement Administration after July 1, 1935, is a closed relief case; a household
in which a worker formerly on E. R. A. work relief was transferred to the Federal Works Program after July 1, 1935, is a closed
relief case, provided the household no longer receives general relief.
Crop Acres.-Acres actually cultivated by a farmer during onecrop season. The number of crop acres reported for farmers in this
survey was the number operated during the year of the survey or
the most recent year in which the farmer engaged in farming.
Cropper. (See Farm Cropper.)
Current Emplogment.-The current employment of a worker
whose household was on relief continuously from February through.
205
137296°-37-111
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
206
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
June was the nonrelie£ employment lasting 1 week or more during
February.
The current employment of a worker whose household came on
relief from :March through June was any nonrelie£ employment
during the week in which the first relief order was received.
Current Occupation.-The occupation engaged in by a person
currently employed.
Depletion of Assets. (See Loss or Depletion of Assets.)
Direct Relief,-Material relief in the form of cash or orders for
food, clothing, fuel, household necessities, rent, transportation, moving, and medical care, in return £or which the client is not required
to work.
Drought Relief.-Assistance extended to families in the drought
areas, often in the form of feed and seed loans with the requirement
that they be repaid by work on E. R. A. projects.
Employable Person. (See Worker.)
Employed.-Working £or wages, salary, commission, profit, or
other contribution to the family income, or enrolled on a pay roll, or
occupying a farm with the intention of resuming active work when
conditions permit. Thus, a farm operator residing on a farm, who
has suspended operations, as in the drought area, but who intends
to resume active farming, is considered employed; a person operating a farm or working on his own account, even though losing
money, is considered employed; a person who works regularly on
the home farm, or in shop or store, and by this work contributes
to the family income is considered employed even though he receives no wages or salary; a worker on strike, on vacation, or temporarily laid off due to illness or disability is considered employed,
as long as he is still on a pay roll; a person working as an apprentice is considered employed. A full-time day school student or a
housewife occupied full time in doing her own housework is not
considered employed.
Farm.-A tract of land of at least 3 acres or producing agricultural products of at least $250 value per year, which is directly
farmed by a farm operator, either by his labor alone or with the
assistance of members of his household or hired employees, or operated by a partnership of farm operators.
A farm may consist of a single tract of land or of a number of
separate tracts, and these several tracts may be held under different
tenures, as when one tract is owned by the farmer and another is
rented by him. When a landowner has one or more tenants or managers, the land operated by each is considered a £arm.
Farm Cropper.-A £arm operator who operates hired land only
and to whom the landlord furnishes all the work animals; i. e., a.
farm operator who contributes only his labor and receives in return
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
Glossary
207
a share of the crop. In this study, croppers were reported separately
from other tenants only in the cotton areas.
Farm Experience.-Number of years a person was engaged in
agriculture since 16 years of age.
Farm Laborer.-A worker whose usual or current occupation is
work on a farm, with or without wages, under the supervision of
the farm operator. This definition includes the wife, children 16
years of age or over, or other members of the farm operator's household who work regularly and most of the time on the household
farm (home farm laborers), whether they receive money wages, a
share of the crop, or board and room. It does not include household
members who perform only incidental chores on the farm. Unless
otherwise stated, a farm laborer in this study is one whose usual
occupation is that of farm laborer.
Farm Operator.-A worker whose usual or current occupation is
the management of a farm, whether as owner or tenant. ( See
Farm, Farm Owner, Farm Tenant, Farm Cropper.) Unless otherwise stated, a farm operator in this study is one whose usual occu•
pation is that of farm operator.
Farm Owner.-A farm operator who owns all or part of the land
which he operates. Salaried farm managers and squatters or homesteaders who are operating farms are classified in this study as farm
owners. ( See Farm.)
Farm Tenant.-A farm operator who operates hired land only,
furnishing all or part of the working equipment and stock, whether
he pays cash or a share of the crop, or both, as rent.
Farmer. (See Farm Operator.)
General Relief.-Cash, orders, and/or rental payments, provided
wholly or in part by Federal, State, county, or municipal funds
designated for the purpose of aiding the unemployed. Not regarded
as general relief are services, such as medical care, without material
aid; Federal surplus commodities; mothers' pensions, or other forms
of special allowances not reported to the State E. R. A. ; earnings or
allotments from the Civilian Conservation Corps; transient relief;
Works Program wages. ( See Direct Relief, Drought Relief, and
Work Relief.)
Government Benefit ( as reason for closing relief case).-A
payment from the Agricultural Adjustment Administration.
Grade Attainment.-The last year successfully completed in grade
school, high school, or college.
Head of Household.-lf the household consists of only one family, the head of that family is the head of the household. If the
household consists of two or more families, the oldest family head is
head of the household, unless he or she is 65 years of age or over.
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
208
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
In such a case the oldest family head who is less than 65 years of
age is head of the household.
In cases of households consisting only of two or more single,
widowed, divorced, or separated persons, without children, the pp,rson
with the largest earnings or property rights is head of the household.
In cases of married couples, with or without children, the husband-father is head, except when he is over 64 years of age and is
living with a son or daughter 21-64 years of age who is working
or seeking work. In such a case that son or daughter is considered
the head.
In the case of a widowed, divorced, separated, or single person
with children, the parent is head except when he or she is over 64
years of age and is living with a son ·or daughter 21-64 years of
age who is working or seeking work. In such a case that son or
daughter is head.
In cases in which a male and a female are equally eligible on all
other grounds to be considered the head, the male is the head. If
two or more persons of the same sex are equally eligible on all other
grounds to be considered head of a household, the oldest is the head.
HollU! Farm Laborer. (See Farm Laborer.)
. Inexperienced Worker.-A worker 16 to 64 years of age inclusive who has never had employment which lasted for 4 consecutive
weeks. (See Worker.)
Loas or Depletion of Assets ( as reason for opening relief
case).-Loss or depletion of cash reserves, bank deposits, or incomeproviding investments ; cessation of payments on annuities or insurance settlements; loss by fire, etc. Withdrawal of support by relatives or friends is not considered loss or depletion of assets.
New Case.-A case accepted on relief rolls during the month of
the survey which had never before received relief from the agency
accepting it.
Nonfamily Man.-A man not living with wife or with children.
Nonfamlly Woman.-A woman not living with husband or with
children.
Normal Famlly.-Husband and wife, or husband, wife, and
children.
Open Country.-Territory outside centers of 50 or more population.
Private Relief Agency.-A relief agency supported principally
by private funds. Example: Red Cross.
Public Relief Agency.-A relief agency supported by public
funds raised by Federal, State, or local taxation.
Regular Government Employment.-Nonrelief, nonemergency
employment under Federal, State, county, or municipal governments,
o,gr
_e,.JbyGoogle
Glossary
209
as contrasted with work relief, or with emergency government
employment.
Rehabilitation Advances......-Money, materials, real estate, or chattels. (See Capital Goods and Subsistence Goods.)
RehabUitation Client......-A person who has at some time received
material and/or advisory aid under the rural rehabilitation program
and who has not been removed from the active rehabilitation rolls.
Relief. (See General Relief.)
Relief Agency. (See Public Relief Agency and Private Relief
Agency.)
Relief Case.-One or more related or unrelated persons who live
together, receive assistance as one unit, and are considered as one
case by the agency giving the assistance. If two or more families
or nonfamily persons or a combination of families and nonfe.mily
persons live together but are treated by the relief agency as separate
cases, each is considered a separate case in this survey. Members of the immediate family away from home temporarily, on vacation, in hospital, in jail, etc., are included in a relief case, provided
they are expected to return within 6 months of the time of enumeration. (See General Relief.)
Relief Household. (See Relief Caae.)
Relief Period.-The period of time between opening or reopening
and closing of a relief case.
Renter. (See Farm Tenant.)
Reopened Case.-A case which had been given relief at some time
previously, and which was again accepted for relief by the same
agency after having received no relief for at least 1 full calendar
month or after having lost Works Progress Administration employment or Resettlement status.
Rural.-Open country and village.
Rural RehabUitation.-A program designed to aid needy agricultural households through loans or grants of capital or subsistence
goods and through advice in farm and home management. This
program was administered by Rural Rehabilitation Divisions of State
and local E. R. A.'s, prior to July 1, 1935, and after that date by the
Resettlement Administration.
Seeking Work.-Unemployed and actively looking for a job; or,
if temporarily ill or disabled, expecting to look for work as soon
as possible; or apparently wanting employment, although not actually looking for work.
Students looking for temporary work during vacation periods, or
looking for part-time work after full-time school hours, are not
regarded as seeking work.
SemiskUled Worker......-Manual worker whose occupation calls for
only a short period or no period of preliminary training and for
D1g1
zedbyGoogle
210
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
which only a moderate degree of judgment or manual dexterity is
necessary. Examples: factory operative, truck driver.
Separations.-Closed relief cases as of a given period.
Sharecropper. (See Farm Cropper.)
Skilled Worker.-Manual worker whose occupation usually calls
for a long period of training or apprenticeship, and for a degree of
judgment and/or manual dexterity above that required of semiskilled
workers. Examples: foreman, blacksmith, carpenter, machinist.
Subsistence Goods ( as type of rehabllitation advance).-Cash
and/or such commodities or services as food, clothes, fuel, medical
care, or any other necessities of life which the rural rehabilitation
cases might need, pending their complete rehabilitation (F. E. R. A.
Form RD-22a).
Tenant. (See Farm Tenant.)
Tenure.-The occupational status of a farm operator; i. e., owner,
tenant, cropper.
Town.-Center of 2,500 to 5,000 population.
Turn-Over.-The total volume of movement of cases onto and off
the relief rolls during a given period of time. ( See Accessions and
Separations.)
Unemployable Person.-A person under 16 or over 64 years of
age, or a person 16 to 64 years of age who is neither working nor
seeking work. (See Employed, Worker, and Seeking Work.)
Unskllled Worker.-Manual worker whose occupation calls for
no special training, judgment, or manual dexterity. Examples:
domestic servant, common laborer.
Usual Occupation.-The occupation in nonrelief employment, of
at least 4 consecutive weeks' duration at which a worker has been
employed the great~t length of time during the last 10 years. If
the worker has spent approximately the same length of time at
two or more occupations, the one at which he worked last is his
usual occupation.
Vlllage.-Center of 50 to 2,500 population.
Worker.-A person 16 to 64 years of age inclusive, working or
seeking work. ( See Employed and Seeking Work.)
Work Relief.-Relief given under the requirement that some work
be done on temporary emergency employment projects undertaken by
municipal, county, State, or Federal Government (or several of these
in cooperation). Wage payments to workers employed on the Federal
Works Program under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of
1935 are not considered work relief. In this study drought relief was
classified separately from work relief, although some of it was extended in the form of loans to be repaid by work on E. R. A. projects.
Working. ( See Employed.)
Youth.-Persons 16 to 24 years of age inclusive.
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
INDEX
211
Digitized by
Google
Dg1tzeobyGO
gle
INDEX
Accessions to relief rolls:
Paire
Definition_______________________________________________________
205
New cases ___________________________________________ 83, 130-135, 138, 208
Number of ____________________________________________ 82--85,130-135,138
Rates ottor--------------------------------------------------78-80,129
Reasons
________________________________________ 76-77,83-86,131-135
Reopened cases _________________________________ 83, 129, 131-135, 138, 209
Year of first accession to relief___________________________________
75
Acreage operated:
Definition_________________________________________________________
205
Factor in production ______________________________________________ 63-65
Rehabilitation farmers___________________________________________
65
Relief farmers ___________________________________________________ 63--6-5
Age:
DUferences between relief and rehabilitation clients _________________ 36-37
Rehabilitation household heads____________________________________
37
Relief household heads ___________________________________________ 81-36
.Agricultural Adjustment Administration, acreage reduction program____
11
.Agricultural experience: sec Farm experience.
Agricultural workers : see Farm croppers; Farm laborers; Farm operators ; Farm owners; Farm tenants.
.Amounts ot relief grants: see Relief grants.
.Allen, R. H., Cottrell, Troxell, Herring, and Edwards: Part-Time Farming in the Southca,,t_______________________________________________
90n
.Appalachian-Ozark Area:
Counties in _____________________ -------------------------------- 177-178
Delhwation of--------------------------------------- __________ 147, 150
xi
DeSC'rlption of____________________________________________________
Sample counties representing_____________________________________
184
.Arens surveyed :
Counties in ____________________________________________________ 174-183
Delineation of-________ ---------------------------~--------- 146-149, 150
Description of___________________________________________________ xi-xii
Sample counties representing ___________________________________ 184-185
Beck, P. G. and Forster: Sia: Rural Problem Areas, Relief-Reso11reesRehabilitation _______________________________________ xiin, Sn, 37n, 55n, 67n
Birth rute, excess, in poor laud areas__________________________________
8--9
Blackwell, Gordon W. and Wynne: Survey of Rural Relief Cases Closed
53n
for Administi-ative Reasom, in South Dalwta________________________
Broken fnrnlly:
Definition -------------------------------------------------------205
See also Family composition.
213
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
214
Index
Capital goods :
Page
Advances for----------------------------------------------------- 28--30
Definition ______________________________________________________ 16n,205
Type of rehabilitation advance ____________________________________ 28-29
Carothers, Doris: Chronology of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, May 12, 1933, to December SJ, 1935_________________________
13n
Carry-over of relief cases:
Definition-------------------------------------------------------205
Rates
____________________________________________________________ 78-79
Case load:
Characteristics of general relief load _______________________ 75---77, 82-8&
Farm operators receiving relief grants and rehabilitation advances__
4-7
Redistribution of general relief load ______________________________ 80-81
Rural and urban, receiving general relief__________________________
4
Rural rehabilitation ________________________________________ 4n, 17-18, 20
Cases:
Number and type surveyed______________________________________ lx-x
Selection of, within counties ____________________________________ 159-160
See also Case load; Rehabilitation program; Relief cases.
Cash crop acres, definition____________________________________________
205
13
Civil Works Administrution___________________________________________
Closed relief case:
Definition________________________________________________________
205
See also Separations from relief rolls.
Collection of data for rurnl relief studies ___________________________ 161-162
Composition of families: see Family composition.
Cooperation, factor in social reconstruction ___________________________ 95--96
Corn Belt:
Counties in---------------------------------------------------- 180-182
Delineation of __________________________________________________ 147,150
Description of--------------------------------------------------xii
Sample counties representing _____________________________ facing 150, 185
Cotton Areas: see Eastern Cotton Area; Western Cotton Area.
Cottrell, L. S., Jr., Allen, Troxell, Edwards, and Herring: Part-Time
Farming in the Southeast__________________________________________
90n
Counties in nine agricultural areas __________________________________ 174-183
Counties, sample :
Field studies conducted in ______________________________________ 156-Ui9
Representing nine agricultural areas ____________________________ 184-185
Representing 34 States _________________________________________ 185---188
Selection of, to represent areas _________________ : ________________ 149-153
Selection of, to represent States ________________________________ 153-156
Crop acres:
DPfinition________________________________________________________
205
See also Acreage operated.
Crop eontrol, factor In eeonomic reconstruction________________________
91
Crop failure, major reason for accessions to relief rolls________________
85
Croppers : see Farm croppers.
Current employment:
Definition _________________________________________________ x-xi,20:i-206
Sec also Employment status.
Current oecnpatlon:
Definition _______________________________________________________ xi, 200
See also Occupation.
Dig t1zea by
Google
215
Index
Page
Definitions of terms ___________________________________________ x:...xi, 205-210
Direct relief:
Definition-------------------------------------------------------206
Faetor in social reconstruction___________________________________
93
Grants _________________________________________________________ 104-107
Rural households recei.!ng _______________________________ 23-26, 100-103
Drought relief:
Agencies cooperating in program for ______________________________ 14--15
Definition ______________________________________________________ 24n,206
Rural households receiving ________________________ 24--25, 100-101, 104--105
Eastern Cotton Area :
Countie" in _____________________________________________________ 174--176
Delineation of_ _____________________________________________ 146-147, 100
Description of____________________________________________________
xi
Sample counties representing_____________________________________
184
Education:
Factor in production ____________________________________________ 69-71
Relief and nonrelief heads of households__________________________
69
Relief household heads ______________________________ 70-71, 128-129
Edwards, A. D., Allen, Cottrell, Troxell, and Herring: Part-Time Fanning
in the Southeast__________________________________________________ 90n
Emergency Appropriation Act, June 1934, relief to farmers under______
14
Employable case:
Definition ------------------------------------------------------75n
See also Workers.
Employability: see Workers.
Employment status, current:
Rehabilitation household heads ___________________________________ 60-61
Relief household heads and members _____________ 52--54, 116, 120-121, 123
See also Occupation.
Factors in production: see Acreage operated; Education; Farm experience; Livestock.
Family composition :
Rehabilitation households _________________________________ 39-41, 112-113
Relief households ________________________________________ 39-41, 110-111
J<'arm:
Definition _____________________________________________________ x:n,206
Size of: see Aereage operated.
Farm croppers:
Accessions to relief rolls, reasons for _______________________ 83-86, 131-135
Acrenge operated _________________________________________________ 63--65
Age:
Rehabilitation household heads ___________________________ 36--37, 109
Relief household heads _______________________________________ 31~
Definition ____________________________________________________ x, 206-207
Employability of households ______________________________ 41-42, 114--115
Employment status, current:
Rehabilitation household heads ______________________________ 60-61
Relief household heads and members _____________ 52--54, 116, 120-121
Family composition :
Rehabilitation households---------------------------- 30-41, 112-113
Relief households _____________________________________ 39-41, 110-111
Dig ii Zed by
Goog [e
216
Index
FarmFarm
croppers-Continued.
l'ap
experience _________________________________________________ M-00
Livestock ownership, relief and nonrellef households ________ 66-69, 127-128
Occupational redistribution ________________________________________ 81-82
Relief:
Amount of___________________________________________ 27-28,104-107
New cases among acce8sions__________________________________ 130
Number receiving general_____________________________________
4
Percent receiving rehabilitation and___________________________ 117
Turn-over ________________________________________________ 78-B0,129
Type of______________________________________________ 23-26,100-103
Residence:
Rehabilitation household heads _______________________ 40-ro, 118-119
Relief household heads ___________________________________ 49-50,116
Length of last continuous, in county _______________________ 45-47
With agriculture as usual occupation_____________________ 1.22
Separations from rellef rolls, reasons for _________________ 86-87, 1~138
Size of households, relief and rehabilitation _____________________ 37...a)
Time since leaving farm, length of_________________________ 55-M, 125
Workers, number of gainful:
Rehabilitation households.. ________________________________ 41--42, 115
Relief households---------------------------------------- 41--42, 114
Farm distress, extent and causes of___________________________________ 3-12
Farm experience:
Definition________________________________________________________ 207'
Factor in production _____________________________________________ M-00
Farm laborers:
Accessions to rellef rolls, reasons for _______________________ Slh'!6, 181-135
Age:
By famlly status_____________________________________________
36
Rehabllltation household heads ____________________________ 36--37, 100
Relief household heads_______________________________________ 31-36
Baste farm problem______________________________________________
12
Definition ________________________________________________________ x,207
Employabllity of households ______________________________ 41-42, 114-115
Employment status, current:
Rehabilitation household heads ________________________________ 60-61
Rellef household heads and members_____________ 52-M, 116, 120-121
Family composition:
Rehabilltntlon households _____________________________ 39-41, 112-113
Relief households _____________________________________ 39-41, 110-111
Farm experience_________________________________________________ 65-00
Livestock ownership, relief and nonrelief households ______ 66-69, 127-128
Occupational redistribution ______________________________________ 81-82
Rellef:
Amount of ___________________________________________ 27-28, 104-107
New cases among accessions__________________________________ 130
Number receiving generaL___________________________________
4
Turn-over_________________________________________________ 78-80,129
Type of_____________________________________________ 23-26,100-103
Residence:
Changes in __________________________________________________ 42-46
Rehabilitation household heads _______________________ 49-50, 118-119
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
Index
217
Farm laborers--Continued.
Residence-Continued.
Pap
Relief household heads ___________________________________ 49---ro,116
Length ot last continuous, iu county _____________________ 41>-47
With agriculture as usual occupation.:._____________________ 122
Separations from relief rolls, reasons tor _________________ 86-87, 13~138
Size of households, relief and rehabilitation _______________________ 37-39
Time since leaving farm, length of__________________________ M--66, 125
Workers, number ot gainful :
Rehabilitation households _________________________________ 41-42, 115
Relief households _______________________________________ 41-42, 114
Farm operators:
Accessions to relief rolls, reasons tor---------------------- 82--86, 130--135
Age:
Rehabilitation household heads__________________________ ~7, 100
Relief household heads _______________________________________ 31-36
Definition _______________________________________________________ x,201
Employability ot households ______________________________ 41-42, lli-115
Employment status, current:
Rehabilitation household heads ______________________________ 60-61
Relief household heads and members ______________ 52--54, 116, 120-121
Family composition:
RehabUitation households ____________________________ 39---41, 112-113
Relief households ___________________________________ 39-41, 110--111
Farm experience _________________________________________________ 65-00
Federal assistance, number receiving____________________________ 73-75
Livestock ownership, relief and nonreliet households _______ 66--00, 127-128
Occupation, usual:
Rehabilitation household heads___________________________ 118-119
Relief household heads, and redistribution _____________________ 81--82
RehablUtatlon advances, number receiving____________________ 4-7, 73-75
Relief:
Amount of_______________________________________________ 104-107
Changes in number receiving________________________ 73-75, 82--84, 138
New cases among accessions_________________________________ 130
Percent receiving rehab111tatlon and___________________________
117
Tum-over___________________________________________ 78--80,129
Type of______________________________________________ 23-26,100-103
Residence:
Changes fn ___________________________________________________ 42-47
Rehabilitation household heads _______________________ 49--00, llS-119
Relief household heads __________________________________ 49-50, 116
Length ot last continuous, in county _____________________ 45-47
With agriculture as usual occupation____________________ 122
Separations from relief rolls, reasons tor ______________ 86--87, 130, 13~138
Size ot households, relief and rehabilitation ________________________ 87-39
Time since leaving farm, length of___________________________ 55-56,125
Works Program assistance, number receiving ______________________ 73-75
See also Farm croppers; Farm owners; Farm tenants.
Farm owners:
Accessions to relief rolls, reasons for ______________________ 83-86, 131-135
Acreage operated _______________________________________________ 63-65
D1g1
zedbyGoogle
Index
218
Farm owners-Continued.
Age:
Page
Rehabilitation household heads ___________________________ 36-87, 100
Relief household heads ______________________________________ 31-36
Definition-----------------------------------------------~------ x,007
Employability of households------------------------------ 41-42, 114--115
Employment status, current:
Rehabilitation household heads ______________________________ 60-61
Relief household heads and members ______________ 52-54, 116, 120-121
Family composition:
Rehabilitation bouseholds ____________________ r-------- 39-41, 112-113
Relief households ____________________________________ 39-41, 110-111
Farm experience _________________________________________________ 65-66
Livestock ownership, relief and nonrelief households _______ 66--69, 127-128
Occupational redistribution _______________________________________ 81-82
Relief:
Amount of___________________________________________ 27-28,104-107
New cases among accessions__________________________________ 130
Number receiving generaL----------------------------------4
Percent receiving rehabilitation and_________________________
117
Turn-over ________________________________________________ 78-80,129
Type of ____________________________________________ 23-26,100-103
Residence:
Rehabilitation household heads _______________________ 40-50, ll&-119
Relief household heads ___________________________________ 49-60, 116
Length of last continuous, in county ____________________ 45-47
With agriculture as usual occupation____________________
122
Separations from relief rolls, reasons for __________________ 86-87, 136-138
Size of households, relief and rehabilitation _______________________ 37~
'Ii.me since leaving farm, length of___________________________ ~ . 125
Workers, number of gainful:
Rehabilitation households _________________________________ 41-42, 115
Relief households ________________________________________ 41-42, 114
Farm problems, basic:
Birth rate, excess, in poor land areas______________________________
&-9
Farm laborer___________________________________________________
12
Farming on poor land____________________________________________
8
One cash crop system, extension oL______________________________
10
Overcapitalization of farms______________________________________
10
Rural industries, decline of________________________________________
10
Size of farms____________________________________________________
10
Soll erosion_____________________________________________________
9
Tenant system------------------------------~-------------------- 11-12
Farm tenants:
Accessions to relief rolls, reasons for _____________________ 83-86, 131-135
Acreage operated ________________________________________________
~
Age:
Rehabilitation household heads ___________________________ ~7, 109
Relief household heads _______________________________________ 31--36
Definition------------------------------------------------------- x, 207
Employability of households _____________________________ 41-42, 114--115
Employment status, current:
Rehabilitation household heads _______________________________ 60-61
Relief household beads and members ______________ 52-54, llf>, 120-121
Dig t1zea by
Google
219
Index
Farm tenants-Continued.
Family composition :
·Page
Rehabilitation households ____________________________ 39-41, 112-113
Relief households_____________________________________ 39-41,110--111
Farm experience _________________________________________________ 65-G6
Livestock ownership, relief and nonrelief households ______ 66-69, 127-128
Occupational redistribution _______________________________________ 81-82
Relief:
Amount of-________________________________________ 27-28, 104-107
New cases among accessions_________________________________
130
Number receiving generaL___________________________________
4
Percf'nt receiving rehabilitation and__________________________
117
Turn-over _______________________________________________ 78-80,129
~'ype of_____________________________________________ 2~26,100-10:3
Residence:
Hchabilitntion household heads _______________________ 49-50, llS-119
Relief household heads ___________________________________ 49----50, 116
Length of last continuous, in county ______________________ 45-47
With ngriculture as usual occupation_____________________
122
Separations from relief rolls, reasons for __________________ 86-87, 136-138
Size of households, relief nnd rehabilitation _______________________ 37-39
Time since ll'aving farm, length of ___________________________ 55-56, 125
\Vorkers, number of gainful:
Rehabllitation households--------------------------------- 41-42, 115
Relief households ________________________________________ 41-42, 114
Farmers: sec Farm croppers; Farm operators; Farm owners; Farm
tenants.
Federal Emergency Relief Administration:
Establi~~ed _________________________________________________ _
13
Rural Rehabilitation Division of_ ________________________________ _ 1~2
Work relief program supplanted by Federal Works Program _______ _
22
Federal Surplus Relief Corporation ____________________________________ _
13
Folsom, Josiah 0----------------------------------------------------54n
Forster, M. C. and Beck: S~ Rural Problem Areas, Rclicf-ResourccsRehabilitation ------------------------------------ xiin, 8n, 37n, 51>n, 67n
Gainful workers: see Workers.
General relief:
Definition________________________________________________________
207
See al.Yo Relief grants.
Geographical location, general relief load______________________________
76
Geographical redistribution, general relief load ________________________ 80-81
Glossary, terms used in Survey of Ou1Tent Ohanges in the Rural Relief
Population ______________________________________________________ 205-210
Goodrich, Carter and Others: Migration and Economic Opportunity____
95n
Hay and Dairy Area:
Counties in ____________________________________________________ 179-180
Delineation of__________________________________________________ 147,150
Description of_ __________________________________________________ xi-xii
Sample counties representing_____________________________________
184
Head of household, definition _______________________________________ 207-208
HPrrlug, Harriet L., Allen, Cottrell, Troxell, aud Edwards: Part-Time
Farming in the Southeast_________________________________________
01g1• zed by
90n
Goog Ie
Index
220
Hoffsommer,
Harold:
Landlord-Tenant
ReZatiOM
and
R.elief
in
Paie-
Alaba,ma ---------------- --------------------------------------- lln, 51n
Hopkins, Harry L.: Spending to Save_______________________________
18n
Industries:
Responsible for closing relief cases ________________________________ 87-88
Rural, decline of_________________________________________________
10
Institutions and services, rural, factor in social reconstruction__________
96
Laborers: see Farm laborers.
Lake States Cut-Over Area :
Counties in__________________________________________________ 17S-179Dellneatlon of_________________________________________________ 147,150
Description of ·------------------------------------------------xi
Sample counties representing______________________________________ 184.
Livestock:
Loss of, reason for accessions to relief____________________________
85
Ownership of____________________________________________ 66-69,127-128Local relief, displaces Federal direct relief____________________________
22
McCormick, T. C.: Comparative Study of Rural Relief and N011rReHef
Households ________________________________________ 37n, 42n, 67n, 68n
Mangus, A. R.: Rural Negro on ReZief, February 1935, Tl1c __________ 28n, 39n.
Mangus, A. R. and Smith: Oases Receiving General R.elief in Urban and
Rural Areas, July 1993-December 1935______________________________
4n.
Methodology of rural current change studies :
Areas sampled------------------·--------------------------- 146-149, 150
Collection of data ______________________________________________ 161-162
Counties in nine agricultural areas ____________________________ 174-183
Representativeness of sample __________________________________ 162-174
Sample cases, selection of______________________________________ 159--160Sample counties :
Field studies conducted in __________________________________ 156--159·
Representing nine agricultural areas ________________________ 184-186
Selection of, to represent areas ______________________________ 149-153Selection of, to represent States ---------------------------- 15S--156
Townships, and, representing 84 States ______________________ 185-188
Sampling method _____________________________________________ 145--146Schedules----------------------------------------------------- 189-201
State supervisors of rural research ________________________________ 20'2
States sampled, by regions________________________________________
188Units of study _________________________________________________ 144-145
Migratory iabor, problem of__________________________________________
12·
Mobility:
Changes in residence____________________________________________ 42-47·
Length of last continuous residence in county ______________________ 45-47
Time since leaving the farm, length of______________________ 55--56, 125
Monthly Reports of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration____ 14n, 16n.
National Resources Board Report _______________________________ Sn, 9n, 10n
Negroes in two Cotton Areas :
Acreage operated----------------------------------------- 63-6&
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
Index
221
Negroes In two Cotton Areas-Continued.
Age:
Pair•
Rehabilitation household heads _______________________________ 36--87
Relief household heads_______________________________________
35
Education of relief household heads ______________________________ 71,129
Employment status, current, relief household heads and members __ 120-121
Family composition:
Rehabilitation households ____________________________ 39-41, 112-113
Relief households------------------------------------ 39--41, 110-111
Occupation, usual:
Rehabilitation household heads ____________________ 59-61, 118-119, 126
Relief household heads_______________________________________
124
Rehabilitation advances, amount and type received ________________ 29, 80
Relief:
Amount of____________________________________________ 27-28, 1~108
Turn-over ________________________________________________ 7S--80,129
Type of________________________________________________ 25,1~103
Residence:
Rehabilitation household, heads ____________________________ 118-119
Relief household heads______________________________________
122
Size of households, relief and rehabilitation ______________________ 37-89
New England States:
Accessions to relief rolls, reasons for---------------------------135
New relief cases among accessions______________________________
180
Sampled, list of__________________________________________________
188
Separations from relief rolls, reasons for__________________________
138
Nonagricultural workers:
Aeeessions to relief rolls, reasons for ____________________________ 131-135
Employment status, current, rehabilitation household heads _____ 60--61.123
Family composition :
Rehabilitation households _____________________________ 39-41, 112-113
Relief households _____________________________________ 39--41, 110-;lll
Occupation, usual:
Rehabilitation household heads __________________________ 60, 118-119
Relief household heads _________________________________ 57, 81-82
Relief:
Amount of___________________________________________ 27-28,1~107
Separlitions from relief rolls, reasons for ______________ 86--87, 136-138
Turn-over_-------------------------------------------- 78--80,129
Type of _______________________________________________ 25, 100-103
Sire of households, relief and rehabilitation_ _______________________ 37-89
Workers, number of gainful:
Rehnbflltation households _____________________________ 41-42, 115
Relief households _____________________________________ 41-42, 114
Nonfamily man or woman:
Definition______________________________________________
208Sec also Family composition.
Nonrellef households:
Education of heads, compared with relief________________________ 00-n
Livestock ownership among, compared with relief_________ 66--69, 127-128
Normal family:
Definition_______________________________________________________
20S
Bee aZso Family composition.
137296°-87--16
oig1 -z-d by
Google
222
Index
Northern States:
.Accessions to relief rolls, reasons for_____________________________
Industry of reemployment for closed relief cases___________________
New relief cases among accessions________________________________
Sampled, list of__________________________________________________
Separations from relief rolls, reasons for__________________________
Pap
182
88
130
188
188
Occupation: aee Farm croppers ; Farm laborers ; Farm operators; Farm
owners ; Farm tenants; Nonagricultural workers.
Occupational shifts:
Heads of rehabilitation households________________________________
61
Inftux into agriculture ________________________________________ M-55, 123
Open country, definition______________________________________________ 208
Opening of relief case :
Time between loss of job and_____________________________________ ll6;'S8
Bee aiao .Accessions to relief rolls.
Operators: aee Farm operators.
Overcapltalization of farms___________________________________________
Owners: see Farm owners.
10
Part-time farming, factor in economic reconstruction__________________
90
Population policy, factor in social reconstruction _______________________ 94--00
Ranching Area:
Counties in ______________________ ------------------------------ 183
Delineation of__________________________________________________ 148,150
Description of___________________________________________________ xi-xll
Sample counties representing_____________________________________ 185
Reconstruction Finance Corporation___________________________________
4
Reconstruction programs :
Economic:
Crop control__________________________________________________
91
Part-time farming____________________________________________
90
Soll conservation_____________________________________________
91
Submarginal land retiremenL-------------------------------90
National coordination needed ______________________________________ 96-87
Social:
Cooperation-----------------------------------------~------- 95-96
Direct
93
Institutions and services, ruraL_______________________________
96
Population policy_____________________________________________ IK-95
Rehabilitation, rural__________________________________________
94
Standard of living, higher____________________________________
96
relief________________________________________________
Work relief ------------------------------------------------- 93--94
Tenancy problems------------------------------------------------ 91~
Redistribution of general relief load:
GeographicaL ____________________________________________________ 80--81
Occupational--------------------------------------------------- 81-82
Rehabilitation program, rural :
.Advances:
.Amounts of __________________________________________________ 29--80
Definition__________________________________________________ 209
Farm operators receiving _____________________________________ 73-ffi
Dig ii Zed by
Goog [e
223
Index
RehabUltatlon program, rural-COntlnued.
.Advances-COntlnued.
Pap
Number of cases recelving, by State ___________________________ ;15-22
Relief grants, and, farm operators receiving____________________ 4--6
Types 0 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28-29
See al8o Capital goods; Subsistence goods.
Clients, defl.nitlon ----------------------------------------------209
Defl.nition..______________________________________________________ 2KJ9
Division, F. E. R. A..--------------------------------------------- 15-16
Factor 1n social reconstruction ____________________________________ 96-94
Households aided :
.Acreage operated--------------------------------------------65
Employabillty of members-------------------------------- 41-42, 111>
Family composition___________________________________ 40-41, 112-118
Beads of:
.Advances in status _______________________________________ 60-61
.Age________________________________________________ 86-37,100
Employment status ______________________________________ 60-61
Farm experience, length of------------------~------------- 65-66
Occupation, usuaL ____________________________ 59--00, ;1.18-119, 126
Residence, changes in ___________________________________ 42--47
Location of________________________________________________ 5-7,20
Residence___________________________________________ 49--00,118-119
87-39
Size of ---------------------------------------------------Workers,
number of galnfuL ____________________________ 41-42,
115
Load, description of_______________________________________________
4n
Transferred to Resettlement .Administration_______________________ 21-22
Relief cases :
Age of heads_____________________________________________________ 81-36
Changes in load ________________________________ 78-80, 82-88, 84, 129-188
Defl.nitlon________________________________________________________ 209
Education of heads______________________________________ 69-71, 128-129
Employability________________________________________________ 41-42, 114
Employment status, heads and members __________ 52--M, 116, 120-121, 128
Family composition.. ______________________________________ 89-41, 110-111
Farm experience, length of ______________________________________ 65-66
Livestock ownership, compared with nonrelief______________ 66-69, 127-128
Location of_______________________________________________ l>-7,76,80-81
Mobility of______________________________________________________ 42--47
Occupation, usual, heads __________________________________ 5<h':i2, 81, 124
Opening of, and loss of job, time between __________________________ ~
Residence________________________________________________ 4:Z-ro,116,122
Size of -------------------------------------------------------- 87-39
Time since leaving farm, length of____________________________ 5.5-M, 1.25.
Workers, number of galnfuL _________________________________ 41-42, 114
Year of flrst receipt_of relief______________________________________
75.
Bee alao .Accessions to relief rolls; Carry-over of relief cases; Separations from relief rolls.
Relief grants :
Amounts of_____________________________________________ 27-28,104-108
Farm operators receiving_________________________________________
Year of fl.rst receipt of____________________________________________
Relief load : ,ee Case load.
Cig1 . zed by
4--6
75
Google
224
Index
Relief studies, rural : see Methodology of rural current change studies.
Pap
Relief trends _________________________________________________ 78--88,129-138
Relief turn-over:
Definition________________________________________________________ 210
Bee also Accessions to relief rolls; Carry-over of relief cases; Separations from relief rolls.
.Relief, types of ______________________________________________ 23-21, 100-100
Report on the Works Program________________________________________
22n
Reporting of Public and Private Assistance in Rural anll Toton Areas:
Sample counties------------------------------------------------US9
Schedules used___________________________________________________
200
Representativeness of sample, rural relief population ________________ 162-174
Resettlement Administration:
First Annual Report_ __________________________________________ 16n, 22n
Bee also Rehabilitation program, rural
Residence:
Changes in______________________________________________________ 42-47
Rehabllitatlon household heads _________________________________ 118-119
Relief household heads ____________________ SCHIB, 42-47, 49-50, 75, 116, 122
Rural rehabilitation : see Rehabilitation program, rural.
Rural relief studies: see Methodology of rural current change studies.
Rural research, State supervisors of, list______________________________
202
Sampling method of rural relief studies: see Methodology of rural
current change studies.
Schedules, for rural relief studies __________________________________ 189-201
Semiskilled workers :
Definition _____________________________________________________ 209-210
Bee also Nonagricultural workers.
Separations from relief rolls:
Definition________________________________________________________
210
Farm operators__________________________________________ 82-M,130,138
Industries responsible for---------------------------------- ______ 87-88
Rates of____________________________________________________ 78--3>, 129
Reasons for ________________________________________ 82-83,86--88,136-188
Sharecroppers : see Farm croppers.
Size of farms :
Inadequate_______________________________________________________
10
Bee also Acreage operated.
Size of households, relief and rehabilitation __________________ 37--39, 114-115
Skilled workers :
Definition________________________________________________________
210
Bee also Nonagricultural worker&
Smith, Mapheus and Mangus: Cases Reoeimng General Relief in Urba,.
anll Rural Areas, July 1933-Deoember 1935__________________________
4n
Social characteristics : ,ee Age ; Family composition ; Residence ; Sise of
households; Workers.
Boll conservation, factor in reconstruction______________________________
91
Soll erosion__________________________________________________________
9
Sources of. data______________________________________________________
Ix
Southern States:
Accessions to relief rolls, reasons for______________________________
133
Industry of reemployment for closed relief cal!ell-------------------88
o,gr
_e(JbyGoogle
Index
225
Page
Southern States-Continued.
New relief cases among accessions _______________________________ _ 130
Sampled, list of_________________________________________________ _
188
Separations from relief rolls, reasons for _________________________ _ 137
Spring Wheat Area:
Counties in-----------------------------------------------------182
Delineation
of__________________________________________________ 147,llSO
Description of____________________________________________________
xi
Sample counties representing_____________________________________ 185
Standard of living, factor in social reconstruction______________________
96
Submarginal land retirement, factor in economic reconstruction________
90
Subsistence goods :
Advances for ____________________________________________________ 2S-30
Definition ___________ ------------------------------------------ 16n,210
Type of rehabilitation advance____________________________________ 28-29
Survey of Current Change& in. the Rural Relief Population:
Sample counties________________________________________________ 156-lW
Schedules used _____________________________________________ 191-199,201
Survey of Public and Private .Aa8i8tance: aee Reporting of PubUc and
Private .Assistance in Rural an.II Town Areaa.
Survey of the Rural Relief Situation, October 1934:
Sample counties__________________________________________________
156
Schedules used------------------------------------------------- 189-190
Taeuber, Conrad: Work of the Resettlement Ac!min41tration m the Work&
Program, The______________________________________________________
21n
Tenancy problems, factors in economic reconstruction __________________ 91-92
Tenant system, basic farm problem____________________________________ 11-12
Tenants : aee Farm tenants.
Tenure:
Definition________________________________________________________ 210
Usual, status _____________________________________________________ l!()...G2
Terms, definitions of----------------------------------~------------ 20C>--210
Troxell, W. W., Allen, Cottrell, Herring, and Edwards: Parl-Time Farming in the Boutheaat_______________________________________________
00n
Town, definition_____________________________________________________ 210
Types of families: aee Famil;r composition.
Unemployable person, definition_______________________________________ 210
Unemployed workers:
Rehabilitation household heads----------------------------------- 60-61
Relief:
Amount of _________________________________________________ 104-101
Type of ____________________________________________________ 100-lm
Relief household heads and members _____________________ 116, 120-121, 123
Unskilled workers:
Definition________________________________________________________ 210
8ee al8o Nonagricultural workers.
Usual occupation:
Definition_____________________________________________________ 210
8ee also Occupation.
-Vlllage, definition--------------------------------------------------
o,, I zed by
210
Google
226
Index
Pa!Nl
Webb, J'ohn N.: M4Trator11-0a8#al Worker, Th.e________________________ 12n
Western Cotton Area:
Counties in ___________________________ ------------------------- 17~177
Delineation of __________________________________________________ 147,150
Description of____________________________________________________
:Ii
Sample counties representing______________________________________ 18'
Western States:
Accessions to relief rolls, reasons for______________________________ 134
Industry of reemployment for closed relief cases___________________
88
New relief cases among accessions_________________________________ 180
Sampled, list of__________________________ · _______________________ 188,
Separations from relief rolls, reasons for__________________________ 187
Wbite collar workers: see Nonagricultural workers.
Winter Wbeat Area:
Counties in_____________________________________________________ 182-183
Delineation of__________________________________________________ 148, 150·
Description of____________________________________________________
n
Sample counties representing------------------------------------- 185Woofter, T. J'., J'r.: Landlord (141,d Tenant on th.e Ootton Plan.tatwn______
9n,
lln, 19n, 91n
Work relief :
Definition ------------------------------------------------------ 210·
Established------------------------------------------------------ 13-14
Factor in social reconstruction ____________________________________ 93-94Grants--------------------------------------------------------- 104-107
Rural households receiving________________________________ 28-26, 100-100
Supplanted by Works Program____________________________________
22
Workers:
Deftnltlons --------------------------------------------- 206,208, 200, 210Gainfnl, number of, relief and rehab1Utat1on households ____ 41-42, llt-11.G
Works Program:
i'arm operators receiving aid under------------------------------- 1t--'15
Separations from relief due to employment under------------------ 87-88
Supplants F. E. R. A. work program_______________________________
22
Works Program, Report on th.e____________________________________ 22n
Wynne, Waller, J'r. and Blackwell: Suroey of Bural Relief <lases OZosed
for .Adm,nlBtram,e Rea,sona ln 8out71. Dakota_________________________ 58n
Year of first receipt of relief__________________________________________
0
Digitzed by
Google
7f>
@FedFRASER