The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Division of Research
Work Projects Administration
Research Monographs
I. Six Rural Problem Areas, Relief-Resources-Rehabilitation
II.
Ill.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
XXL
XXII.
XXIII.
XXIV.
Comparative Study of Rural Relief and Non-Relief Household,
The Transient Unemployed
Urban Workers on Relief
Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation
Chronology of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
May 12, 1933, to December 31, 1935
The Migratory-Casual Worker
Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
Part-Time Farming in the Southeast
Trends in Relief Expenditures, 1910-1935
Rural Youth on Relief
Intercity Differences in Costs of living in March 1935, 59 Cities
Effects of the Works Program on Rural Relief
Changing Aspects of Rural Relief
Rural Youth: Their Situation and Prospects
Farming Hazards in the Drought Area
Rural Families on Relief
Migrant Families
Rural Migration in the United States
State Public Welfare Legislation
Youth in Agricultural Villages
The Plantation South, 1934-1937
Seven Stranded Coal Towns
Federal Work, Security, and Relief Programs
1"
\
.I '(
1
- •
FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY
John M. Canaocly, Ad•l•ldrotor
WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION
Howwcl 0. Hunter, Co••lu/OltW
Conlnston GIii, Auldo•t Co.•luloner
DIVISION OF RESEARCH
Howwcl B. MY911, Dhdw
FEDERAL WORK,
SECURITY, AND RELIEF
PROGRAMS
by
Arthur E. Bums
and
Edward A. Willlaal
•
RESEARCH MONOGRAPH XXIV
1941
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Letter of Transmittal
WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION,
Wa8hington, D. 0., Ju1U 6, 1941.
Sia: There can be little question that prior to 1930 relief did not
receive its proper share of attention from students and writers in the
social sciences. During the last decade, however, economists have
made numerous studies of the causes of unemployment; sociologists
have inquired at length into the effects of ensuing destitution upon
individuals; students of political science have probed into problems
of administering relief. Statisticians have gathered data on the
various categories of the relief population: the number of persons
receiving public aid; their ages, sex, race, employability, and previous
occupations.
These particularized studies have often thrown much-needed light
on hitherto obscure areas of the relief problem. They do not, however,
completely meet the needs of intelligent laymen and of those student.a
of the social sciences who are not specializing in relief problems. Such
persons have neither the time nor the inclination to piece together
all these specialized studies and to map out significant trends. In a
sense, they cannot see the forest for the trees.
This report attempts to point up the major developments in the
field of relief during the last decade and, by placing the problem in
its economic setting, to make possible an understanding of the present
relief problem as a whole. Chapter I is designed to set the stage by
describing the impact of the mass unemployment of the thirties upon
the relief problem. The present activities and future programs of the
Federal Government regarding relief must be viewed as part of a
continuous pattern rather than as isolated incidents. For this reason,
chapter II is devoted to sketching relief administration prior to 1933,
or the background from which Federal grants for relief emerged in
1933. Succeeding chapters trace the work of the FERA, the CWA,
and the highly significant relief developments of 1935. Federal work
and security programs from 1935 to the present time arethendescribed.
A chapter on the genera.I relief programs of the States and localities
since 1935 follows, and a final chapter presents certain conclusions
concerning the relief problem of the future.
report was prepared in the Division of Research, Work Projects
Administration, under the direction of Howard B. Myers, Director
rhis
Ill
Digitized by
Google
I
I
I
IV • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
of the Division. The authors, Arthur E. Burns and Edward A.
Williams, wish to acknowledge the contribution made by Edith M.
Curry in assisting in the securing of source material for the report.
Acknowledgement is also made to Elliot Beideman and to Simon
N aidel for assisting in gathering and organizing material for chapters
IX and X, respectively.
Respectfully submitted ..
CORRINGTON GILL,
Assi8tant Gommi8sioner.
HoN. HowARD
0.
HUNTER,
Commissioner of Work Projects.
Digitized by
Google
Contents
Pa,,
Summary - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chapter I. The economic background
XI
- - -
1
Chapter II. The relief problem prior to 1933 - - Relief problems and policies before 1929 _
Breakdown of the local relief system _ _
Early Federal activities (1930-1932) __ _
11
Chapter Ill. The Federal Emergency Relief Program in 1933
The grant method _ _ _ _ _
FERA objectives _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
21
21
11
14
16
24
Early FERA work relief _ _ _ _ _
27
Chapter IV. The Civil Worlcs Program
29
Chapter V. The Federal Emergency Relief Program, 193+-1935
Direct relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Special programs _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
37
40
41
_Rural rehabilitation program __ _
Federal Surplus Relief Corporation
Emergency education program _ _
College student aid program _ _ _
Transient program _ _ _ _ _ _ _
41
_
_
_ _ _ _
_
43
44
45
45
Number of cases receiving emergency relief _
46
Cost of emergency relief: sources of funds _
47
Summary _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
48
Chapter VI. Changing relief policy, 1935
- - - - - - _
49
Chapter VII. Wode for the
The Work Projects
Projects _ _ _
Wages _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
53
unemployed _
Administration
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
Employment policy _ _
53
58
61
63
V
Digitized by
Google
VI • CONTENTS
Page
Other Federal programs for employables _
65
National Youth Administration
Civilian Conservation Corps _ _
Farm Security Administration
Public Works Administration
The Federal Works Agency _ _ _ _
Conclusion _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
66
67
69
70
72
74
77
Chapter VIII. The Social Security Program
Unemployment compensation _ _
Provisions of State laws _ _ _
77
The provisions for old-age security
The old-age insurance system
84
79
_ _ _ _
85
Coverage and eligibility under the system
Benefit payments _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
86
Financing the old-age insurance program
The old-age assistance program _ _ _ _ _ _ _
91
93
Other public-assistance programs under the Social Security
Act _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
96
The Federal Security Agency
Conclusion
87
97
97
Chapter IX. Social in1urance for railroad worlcen
The railroad. retirement system _
_ _ _ _
Coverage and benefits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Financing the system _ _ _ _ _ _ _
99
99
102
102
Railroad. retirement compared with Social Security
old-age insurance _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
103
The railroad. unemployment insurance system _ _ _ _ _
104
Comparison with State unemployment compensation
systems_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
107
Chapter X. General relief 1lnce 1936 __ - - - - - - - - - -
109
The problem of general relief since the discontinuation of
FERA grants _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
109
Digitized by
Google
CONTENTS • VII
Page
Number of cases receiving general relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Trend since 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
114
114
Factors influencing variations in the general relief
case load _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
115
A.mount of general relief extended to cases _ _ _ _ _ _ _
120
General relief standards: the average amount of general
relief per case _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
121
Changes in the composition of the general relief case load _
123
Chapter XI. Relief problem of the future
125
Appendix A. Supplementary tabla
131
Appendix B. List of tabla
149
Index - - - - - - - - -
151
ILLUSTRATIONS
Fl9ure
Persons benefiting from employment on Federal work programs
and public relief, January 1933-December 1940 _ _ _ _ _
xv
Photo9rapht
For the army _ _
Closed _ _ _ _ _
_ _
Idle _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Abandoned mine
Drought _ _ _ _
For education _ _ _ _ _ _
For the transient _ _ _ _ _
For transportation _ _ _ _
For recreation _ _
_ _
A defense need _ _ _ _ _ _
Sewing for the needy _ _ _
For youth _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
For the forests of the future
Rehabilitated _ _ _ _ _ _
Power for defense _ _ _ _
For the aged _ _ _ _ _ _ _
For the blind _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Security _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _
_
_ _ _
_
_ _
_ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _
_
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _
_
_
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _
_
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
_ Facing
Digitized by
XVI
2
3
8
24
38
46
52
53
60
61
66
67
70
71
96
97
104
Google
D191tized by
Goog Ie
Federal Work, Security, and RelieF
Programs
IX
Digitized by
Goog e
Digitized by
Goog Ie
SUMMARY
THE NEED for some public assistance has always existed in the United
States. There is, however, one extremely important difference between the relief problem as we have known it during the last decade
and as it existed prior to 1930. The new element which bas entered
the situation is the destitution arising from l,arge-acole, continuing
unemployment. And, largely because of this change in the relief
problem, there have been many revisions in relief policies and administration during the last 10 years.
In the years before 1930 the great majority of those receiving relief
were unemployables-chiefly the aged, mothers with dependent children, and persons with some mental or physical handicap making it
impossible for them to oompete in the labor market. It is true that
during our recurrent business depressions large numbers of unemployed workers became destitute and some of these received limited
public or private aid for short periods. The fact remains, however,
that these oonditions were regarded as temporary; the unemployables
were oonsidered to be the major relief problem.
Some needy people were helped by private charities; most, however,
had to seek public aid from the local poormaster or overseer of the
poor. Because "poor relief" was oonsidered to be a local problem,
the financing and administration of public assistance was held to be
the responsibility of the local government.
Most of the public relief offered during the first three decades of the
twentieth century was of the "outdoor" or home variety, and consisted
in the main of grocery slips and ooal orders. Institutional care was
provided for those who did not receive home relief. The able-bodied
destitute and those who were unable to work received the same type of
relief. In many localities, however, the able-bodied were put at
arduous "made" work, usually on a woodpile, to demonstrate that
they were not work-ehy. Categorical assistance, now highly developed under the present public-assistance provisions of the Social
Security program, was beginning to appear, but had not been sufficiently developed by 1930 to be of much significance in the relief
picture as a whole.
XI
□ig,1,zed by Google
XII • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Then, beginning in 1930, the Government was confronted with a
problem of human needs that was of unparalleled breadth and intensity. Mounting business failures and investment losses caused
widespread distress; declining agricultural prices and extensive
droughts impoverished vast numbers of the farm population. Above
all, however, unemployment deprived millions of families of their
sole source of livelihood.
Conservative estimates, such as those of the National Industrial
Conference Board, place the number of persons unemployed in the
United States in January 1930 at nearly 4 million; other estimates
are even larger. By December of that year approximately 7 million
persons were in the ranks of the unemployed. This large number
double,d during the early part of 1933. Further complicating the
situation was the fact that the hours of work of many persons still
holding jobs had been so reduced that their wages would not support
their families. Although unemployment declined after 1932 and 1933,
large-scale joblessness persisted throughout the decade. This persistent mass unemployment made relief a major problem and forced
the adoption of new relief methods.
Since relief bad traditionally been considered a local responsibility
in the United States, the State (and more particularly local) governments were asked to bear the brunt of the unemployment relief problem during the period 1930-1932. The first reaction of the local
governments was to extend relief to the jobless workers through the
old poor-law agencies. Private charity was urged to make strenuous
efforts. These regular public and private agencies, however, soon
proved inadequate for the task of dealing with the rising tide of needy
jobless.
Emergency local agencies, both public and private, were therefore
set up, especially in the cities. The financial difficulties of the localities, caused largely by crumpling real-estate values, soon forced State
governments to lend their aid. By the end of 1931 four States had
set up emergency relief administrations, and during the ensuing year
almost two score States established such agencies. But most States
had financial problems similar to those of the counties, cities, and
towns. An ever-growing demand therefore arose for help from the
Federal Government. Unemployment, it was urged, was a national
problem far beyond the power of States and localities to remedy.
The Federal Government, it was said, must cooperate with the States
and localities in furnishing assistance to workers made destitute by
lack of jobs.
Although Federal relief committees designed to encourage and
stimulate State and local action were formed in 1930 and 1931, and
some federally owned surplus wheat and cotton were distributed early
in 1932, substantial Federal aid in meeting the problem did not come
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY• XIII
until the passage of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act in
July 1932. Under this act the Federal Government set up a relief
fund of 300 million dollars from whioh States and localities could
borrow money at 3 percent interest.
By the time the new administration took office in March 1933, this
300-million-dollar loan fund had been practically exhausted, and Federal action on a large scale was generally agreed to be necessary. The
question was no longer whether the Fed.era.I Government should participate in financing relief, but rather how this participation was to
be accomplished and how much money was to be appropriated.
In May 1933 the Federal Emergency Relief Administration was
created. It started out with a 500-million-dollar fund for distribution
to the States, not as loans but as direct grants. The main task of the
FERA was to allocate Federal moneys to the States on the basis of
need and financial resources, and to issue broad rules and regulations
accompanying the grant to insure minimum relief standards and the
proper expenditure of Federal funds.
During the period of FERA grants (1933-1935) Federal relief policy')
was in a formative stage; it was necessarily a period of experimentation/
and formulation of relief policies. During this period relief progr&mS\
and techniques shifted considerably. Underlying all these changes, :
however, was a unifying tendency-a constant trend toward differen- ·
,
tiation of the relief groups. q~ded _by_ ~ _principle, the FERA ? . y'
emphasized the development of work programs for destitute employ- · ·· /
able persons and the institution of special programs designed to meet (
/
the particular needs of various groups on relief rolls, such as farmers, J ·
teachers, transient persons, and youth.
/
The experience gained under the FERA was of considerable importance in laying the foundation for a more permanent Federal security
program in 1935. This program, although modified in certain respects
from time to time, has continued in active operation and includes two
principal parts: (1) the Social Security program embracing unemployment compensation and old-age benefit systems, and public assistance
for certain categories of needy unemployables, and (2) a program of
work projects financed in whole or in part by Federal funds and giving
employment to a large but varying proportion of the needy ablebodied. Most of the employment since 1935 has been provided by
the Work Projects Administration (formerly the Works Progress
Administration). Partly because of the difficulties which the FERA
had begun to meet in using the grant system, the WPA was set up as a
"Federal" program. The financial limitations of these federally aided
programs, as well as the eligibility requirements, have meant, of course,
that numbers of needy persons must be left to the care of States and
localities. For such groups the State and local governments are conducting programs of "general relief."
Digitized by
Google
XIV • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Under the Social Security Act, which was passed in 1935, the
Federal Government is providing financial assistance to those States
opera.ting approved plans for aid to such classes of persons as the
destitute aged, the blind, and mothers with dependent children.
Payments were being provided (in States with plans approved by the
Socia.I Security Board) in December 1940 to 2,070,000 aged persons,
49,000 blind persons, and 358,000 families with dependent children.
Unemployment compensation programs are now opera.ting in all
States, and in December 1940 approximately 667,000 unemployed
were receiving weekly benefits. The old-age insurance program ca.me
into complete operation early in 1940; this has brought further large
numbers of persons within the security program.
About 3,660,000 persons were receiving employment under the
various Federal work programs in December 1940. Of this total a.bout
1,859,000 persons were employed under the program operated by the
Work Project.a Administration. The remainder were being given
work by the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Public Works Administration, and other Federal agencies cooperating in furnishing work
for the unemployed.
Those needy persons who a.re not included among Social Security
beneficiaries or among the workers on Federal employment programs
are usually forced to seek the "general relief" made a va.ila.ble by State
and local governments. In addition, general relief is at times extended
to supplement wages or benefits on Federal employment and security
programs. Approximately 1,240,000 families and single persons were
receiving general relief from the States and localities in December 1940.
The magnitude of the various relief and emergency activities
(Federal, State, and local) since January 1933 can be seen from the
accompanying figure which shows the total number of persons aided
by these governmental work and relief programs. The peak occurred
in January 1934 when 28,228,000 persons in 8 million different households benefited directly from these programs. During the period
since 1933 the major agencies through which assistance has been
offered have included the Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
the Civil Works Administration, the Work Projects Administration,
the Social Security Board (through its public-assistance grant.a), and
the State and local bodies administering general relief programs.
What can be said of the relief problem of the future? Will the
Federal work and security programs, as now constituted or in modified
form, continue to be necessary? Obviously, no simple "yes" or "no"
answer can be given. The future need for these programs will depend
upon our progress in eliminating as many as possible of the basic
ca.uses of destitution.
In recent yea.rs it has been erroneously assumed in some quarters
that economic recovery would somehow of itself eliminate the relief
Digitized by
Goog Ie
PERSONS BENEFITING FROM EMPLOYMENT ON FEDERAL WORK PROGRAMS
AND PUBLIC RELIEF
January 1933 - Otcember 1940
MIiiion
MIiiion
per sons
persons
30
30
2 51---
-
25
--
20
15
15
0
<g
10
N
~
er
'<
C)
0
a,.......
(v
5
5
,Cl)
C
~
0
0
1933
1934
1935
1936
Source: Estimates prepared by Work Projects Administration
In cooperation with Social Security Boord.
1937
1938
1939
1940
1!
-<
·~
•
Wl'A 3155
XVI • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
problem or reduce it to extremely small proportions. This assumption
ignores the fact that a very large proportion of those now receiving
relief or work relief would still remain in need even if there were an
increase in the number of jobs available.
For example, about 50 percent of the 5 million households receiving
public aid in June 1940 fall into a class that cannot hope to benefit
greatly by future increases in employment. In this large group a.re
the unemployables (the aged, the blind, dependent children, etc.)
receiving a.id under the public-assistance provisions of the Social
Security Act and other unemployables receiving a.id under the general
relief programs of the States and loca.lities. 1 Some form of a.id will
continue to be the major, if not the only, source of income for such
families; the need for a permanent program for this segment of the
relief population appears obvious.
The present problem of destitution among employable persons has
come about in the main because of the failure of the economic system
to achieve full employment. About Qne-half of the households
receiving public aid in June 1940 had an employable member. The
possibility of eliminating-or rather, reducing to small proportionsthe problem of employables depends in large measure upon the
success of efforts designed to expand the industrial system, to push
forward to new highs in production and employment.
The many difficulties standing in the way of full employment need
not be emphasized here. In addition to such well-known factors as
seasonal, frictional, and cyclical unemployment, there came to the
fore in the 1930's such influences as loss of foreign markets, decline in
the rate of population growth, the changing nature of technological
advances, and the retarding influences of an economy which has
reached a high degree of industrial maturity. All these factors help
to explain why the economic system during the 1930's failed to expand
to make full use of its labor and other resources.
The outlook for an increase in employment is now affected, of
course, by the national defense program. There is great interest in
the possible effect of this program in t,he immediate and more distant
fut,ure. As the rearmament program gets well under way in 1941,
the volume of investments and the level of income will increase
substantially. Government expenditures for defense purposes may
be viewed as a form of public investment; these, in turn, will be accompanied by a considerable volume of induced investment on the part
of industries producing for defense purposes. If these combined
1 Also included among those whose need for relief is not due to lack of employment opportunities are a number of persons with full-time employment who require
some relief to supplement earnings which are insufficient for the full support of
their families.
Digitized by
Goog e
Fedtral Works Agr11rv (IlightonJ.
For thP Amiy.
From July 1935--December 1940 the WPA constructed 251 armories.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY • XVII
investment.a become sufficiently large during the next several years
relatively full employment may be achieved.
Large increases in employment would alter our unemployment
problem considerably. It is easy to exaggerate, however, the a.mount
of reemployment that can reasonably be expected and the extent to
which such new employment would diminish the need for programs
of work for the destitute unemployed. We must remember that in
addition to the nearly 2 million workers employed on WPA projects
in December 1940, there were perhaps 6 million other unemployed
persons looking for work. WPA workers must compete for jobs with
these nonrelief unemployed who are on the average younger and have
had more recent employment in private industry. The fact that
many WPA workers are in areas only slightly affected by defense oontra.cts must also be taken into consideration.
Another significant fact is that a comparatively early stage of defense
preparations is apt to be the period of maximum employment. During
this period many jobs open up as new plants are constructed and new
equipment is prepared. Later, as emphasis shifts from new construction to maintenance, the need for labor is likely to decline. In such
a period of readjustment the need for government programs of work
for the unemployed would increase. It is extremely desirable that
plans be made for work projects for this oontingency in order to avoid
the errors inevitably arising from hasty improvisation.
Since the need for the various relief, work, and security programs is
not temporary, effort.a should be directed toward perfecting these programs. Experience gained in recent yea.rs points to the need for improvements along a number of lines. Some corrective action now
appears essential if the best results are to be achieved under the publicassistance provisions of the Soda.I Security Act for the aged, dependent
children, and the blind. Numbers of needy persons otherwise eligible
for benefits do not receive them because of technical residence re.quirements imposed by State laws. A still more serious failing is that the
benefits paid to eligible persons are clearly inadequate in many areas.
It has been suggested that perhaps the only way to remedy this situation would be to discard present provisions for "matching" State funds
with Federal moneys, and imtead to distribute Federal funds more in
accordance with the need of the various States.
The problem of maintaining an adequate system of general relief also
requires attention. As has been indicated, many destitute families
fall outside the scope of aid given under the specialized programs that
were developed during the 1930's. This residual group of families is
dependent upon whatever aid can be secured under the various State
programs of general relief. In only a limited number of States, however, is an adequate program of general relief in operation. Some States
help in the financing of their general relief program; others do not.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
XVIII• FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
The result is reflected in the exkemely low general relief benefits paid
in many areas. Some students of the problem (eel ihai standards o(
general relief should be raised Uirough Federal grants to the St.ates,
which would be required to observe Federal conditions in order t-0 receive the funds. There is much t-0 be said, however. for ilie view that
general relief is a-aditionally and properly the concern of St.a~ and
local governments, and that the motive power for improvements in
benefits and a.dministration should come from these governmental units.
Continued expansion and improvement of the present social
insurance measures seem necessary. At the present time a great
many workers are not covered at all under the two insurance programs.
Workers in agriculture, in domestic service, and employees of nonprofit institutions are among those excluded.. Also, the benefits
received. by many covered. individuals are too low for minimum support. In nearly all States the amount o( the weekly unemployment
compensation benefit, and the duration for which it is to be paid, are
related to past earnings of the recipient. Many workers therefore
receive only meager benefits (often below $5 per week in Southern
States) which are paid for only a few weeks. While unemployment
compensation is not designed to tide workers over long periods of
unemployment, benefits and duration should be made sufficient to
carry jobless workers for short periods without the need for relief.
Another important step in the direction of greater economic security
would be the adoption o( some system o( social insurance to afford
workers protection against loss of income arising from sickness and
disability. Some limited aid in this field is given at present through
State programs of workmen's compensation and through railroad
retirement legislation.
Maintenance of adequate work programs for the destitute unemployed seems essential. As pointed out above, joblessness of a
few weeks' duration may be handled by an augmented and more
generous unemployment compensation program. Long-term joblessness, however, requires different treatment. The desirability of
utilizing Government work programs rather than direct relief in meeting this problem seems increasingly apparent. Much useful work is
needed in virtually all localities. Moreover, the work programs can
be geared to take an even more important part in defense activities
than they have taken in the past.
In short, destitution can no longer be regarded as a temporary
problem to be treated on an emergency basis. Rather, it must be
viewed as a continuing problem necessitating a permanent and varied
program of economic security. This problem cannot be met by adopting a policy of drifting and waiting for the need for the various programs of relief, work, and security to disappear; instead, every effort
should be made to strengthen and integrate these programs.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Chapter I
THE ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
AN
OBSERVER, looking ha.ck, can often see a. pattern of social
and economic change which was obscure on nearer view. In 1941,
by ca.sting a. backward glance over the decade of the thirties, we see
more clearly the cha.in of events lea.ding to the development of the
present Government programs of relief, work, and security. It is
easier now to trace the sequence of events-the rising tide of unemployment, the huge-sea.le destitution following in its wake, the unavoidable failure of the old relief methods to meet the new problem of
ma.ss joblessness, and fina.lly the emergence of broader and more suitable programs. The present chapter will present the background for
this survey of relief, work, and security programs by pointing out the
relative severity of the unemployment crisis in the 1930's and by
indicating how this large-sea.le unemployment furnished the impetus
for new relief policies.
It is true that business depressions a.re not a. new development in this
country. During the recurrent depressions of the pa.st huge numbers
of unemployed workers became destitute and some of these received
limited public or private a.id for short periods. The fa.ct remains,
however, that these conditions were regarded as temporary; the need
for a basic revision of relief methods was not recognized.
In a.11 instances these earlier depressions were followed within a
year or two by a. period of recovery and expansion in which new high
ground ultimately was gained. Expansive forces in the economy
opened up new investment opportunities, and enabled the economic
system to provide new employment and to bring depression conditions
to an end within a. short period of time. While a. certain a.mount of
unemployment existed at a.11 times, an impetus to expansion was
provided by new industries, a rapidly growing population, the development of new territories and markets, and a growing export trade.
1
Digitized by
Google
2 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Although the labor supply increased and technological displacement
of workers was common, the total demand for labor grew as the economic system expanded. Under these circumstances unemployment
did not constitute a persistently serious problem. Nor did the
collateral aspects of insecurity-such as old age, dependency of children, and rural destitution-888ume the proportions of a national
problem, as they did in the 1930's.
A sharp distinction can be drawn between the earlier and temporary
dislocations and the economic difficulties of the decade following 1929.
This decade was marked by a failure of the economy to expand as it
always had hitherto. All major indexes, notably those on production
and national income, attest to this fact. Since the labor supply was
growing steadily throughout the decade, this failure of the economy
to expand and create new jobs resulted in a large-scale problem of
unemployment.
The special character of the economic difficulties of the last decade
is brought out in testimony presented to the Temporary National
Economic Committee:
The decade that has just passed is unique in American economic history. It
has been marked by the worst depression the country has ever known -a depreesion unparalleled both in severity and in persistence. At the end of the decade
recovery is still far from providing normally full employment of the country's
human and material resources.
Perhaps the best indication of bow much worse the economic difficulties of the
last 10 years have been than those of any previous period is afforded by a comparison with the so-called "great" depressions of the seventies and nineties. Produotion and employment are the most vital elements in economic well-being. Although it is only in comparatively recent years that employment figures have
been gathered, reasonably satisfactory production data are available 88 far back
as 1870. Indexes of general industrial production undoubtedly furnish the most
satisfactory measures for a comparison of the course of the three depressions •
• . . The differences in severity and length between the depression of the 1930's
and the two earlier depressions are so great as to suggest a difference in kind.
From 1929 to 1932 industrial production declined by almost 50 percent, 88 compared with a maximum decline in the nineties of 13 percent, and in the seventies
of 7 percent. The contrast in the three recovery periods is quite 88 striking.
In 1939 production averaged somewhat below 1929. In each of the earlier periods it had far surpassed the previous prosperity peak. Eighteen eighty-two
was 70 percent above 1872, and 1902 was 55 percent above 1892.1
Other data presented to the Temporary National Economic Committee on industrial production show an uneven but persistent upward trend from the 1860's through 1929. During the 1920's the
industrial production index averaged 264 (1899= 100). Each of the
three decades following 1900 showed successive increases, following
the upward trend clearly evident in the latter part of the nineteenth
~ 1
See Gill, Corrington, Unemployment and Tech=logical Change, Report No.
G-7, National Research Project, Work Projects Administration, Philadelphia,
Pa., April 1940, p. 2. This material was presented to the TNEC April 26, 1940.
Digitized by
Google
Far m Sccurilv Admini!iration ( Vachon).
Closed.
The drop in industrial production in the 1930's is cYiclencccl by the f:1cfuri, ·s
that Jay idle.
Digitized by
Google
Idle.
Al 1lin11f'.h t he labo r forl'<' ~1,.adil v i11n,·asi•d , l'lll pl 11\'me11t declined more thnn
10 11 1il li,;,, fr11 1t1 l !J:!\J to l!l:l2 .
Digitized by
GoogIe
ECONOMIC BACKGROUND • 3
century. In 1932, however, the index dropped below its 1914 level;
the entire decade of the 1930's averaged 236, only 19 percent above
the average for 1910-1919.2
The measurement of industrial production on a per capita basis
shows even more clearly the failure of the economy to expand because
it takes into account the effect of a change in population. Throughout the long period before 1930 the growth in per capita production
was marked. Per capita output in 1929 was twice that of 1900;
output in 1900 was twice that of the 1870's. Mter 1929, however,
the trend was abruptly reversed. Dr. Lubin, Commissioner of Labor
Statistics, in presenting data to the Temporary National Economic
Committee, said:
. . . In per capita terms the amount of production fell from 197 in 1929 to 102
in 1932, so that in terms of the products of our factories and our mines, the average citizen in this country had about as much available as he did in 1899.1
Of oourse, 1932 was a year of unparalleled depression. Yet for
the 10-year period of the 1930's per capita average output was 138,
compared with an average of 172 during the 1920's. Thus, on the
basis of this and other evidence, the decade just passed represents a
marked break in the long upward trend in production which featured
the industrial growth of this country.
A comparison between figures on industrial production and on the
labor supply throws light on the difficulties of the 1930's. The rate
of increase in production exceeded the rate of increase in labor supply
during the 1870's and 1890's.' During the 1930's, however, the
volume of industrial production failed to keep pace with the labor
supply. Indeed, the Federal Reserve index of production (19351939= 100) shows that during 9 of the 10 years production was lower
than during 1929; for only 1 year, 1937, it exceeded the previous high
level, and then by only 3 points (113 compared with 110). In the
meantime the labor supply increased substantially each year.
Employment and unemployment changes since 1900 are of utmost
significance, too, in an understanding of the need for the development
of the major relief, work, and security programs of the 1930's. Estimates of total labor force, employment, and unemployment have been
prepared for the 40-year period by the National Industrial Conference Board. 6 The total labor force increased steadily during the
1 lmJUtigation of Concentration of Economic P01Der: Economic Prologm, Part 1,
Hearings Before the Temporary National Economic Committee, 75th Cong.,
3d 8e88., December 1-3, 1938, pp. 24, 25, 200.
I /bid, p. 25.
• See Gill, op. cit., p. 5.
1 "Employment and Unemployment of the Labor Force 1900-1940," Confermu Board Economic Record, Vol. II, No. 8, New York, March 20, 1940, pp. 77-92.
Digitized by
Google
4 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
period, from 29 million in 1900 to some 55 million in 1940. Employment during the first 30 years of this period also followed an upward
trend; fluctuations occurred from year to year but employment generally kept pace with the growth in labor force.
After 1929 the situation assumed a materially different aspect.
Employment declined from its 1929 peak of 47.9 million to 37.7 million
in 1932. In the subsequent recovery employment rose to 46.6 million
in 1937, declined in 1938, and regained only pa.rt of the loss in 1940
under the stimulus of rearmament and war orders. Thus in the years
1930-1940 employment failed to regain the peak of the 1920's; in 1940
average employment was almost 1 million below the 1929 level.
Throughout the 1930's however, the labor force continued to grow
at an average rate of 600,000 each year, reaching a total of 55 million
in 1940. Employment thus failed to keep pace with the growing
supply of labor. As a result of the steady expansion of the labor
supply and the decline in employment, the 1930's witnessed a problem
of unemployment without precedent in this country.
Further evidence of the lack of expansion during the 1930's can be
seen in the data on national income. Previously, the long-term trend
in national income was upward, reaching its high point in 1929.'
Then it declined drastically until 1933. In 1939, when national income reached its highest total during the 1930's, it approximated the
1929 total in terms of "real income." 7 It was thus a decade without
expansion; the best that was done was to attain the approximate
level of 10 yea.rs earlier.
In terms of per capita income, however, the previous level was not
reached. "Since the population of the United States in 1939 was
approximately 10 million larger than in 1929 . . . there is
little doubt that the per capita real income in 1939 continued
well below that of 1929." 8
It is significant to note that although the national income in 1939,
expressed in terms of goods and services produced, was approximately equal to that produced in 1929, some 2.6 million fewer persons
• Inveatigation of Concentration of Economic Power: Economic ProlO(IIU, Part 1,
Hearings Before the Temporary National Economic Committee, 75th Cong.,
3d sess., December 1-3, 1938, pp. 5--12.
7 This refers to "real income" as estimated by the Department of Commerce.
In 1929 national income produced was over 82 billion dollars, in 1939 nearly
70 billion dollars. Prices in 1939, however, were lower than in 1929, and when
allowance is made for the difference in price, real income, or the quantity of
goods and services produced, was approximately equal to 1929.
Measurement of real income is difficult at best. The 1939 total of national
income was 16 percent below 1929, while wholesale prices were 19 percent lower
and living costs 17 percent lower. In 1939, therefore, total national income "was
at least equal to and probably above the previous record of 1929." See Suf"H1/
of Current Businesa, Vol. 20, No. 6, June 1940, p. 6.
1 /bid.
Digitized by
Google
ECONOMIC BACKGROUND • 5
were employed. Technological improvements undoubtedly account
for much of this difference in employment.
This situation contrasts sharply with the decades before 1930 when
employment, production, and national income forged ahead. As
shown above, the serious depressions of the 1870's and 1890's involved
no chronic problem of economic retardation. When these depressions
are compared with the period following 1929, the declines in production
seem insignificant. The volume of production recovered quickly and
advanced to new high ground, thereby providing jobs and income to
the growing labor force. No such expansion came about to take care
of the increasing labor supply of the thirties.
The restricted demand for labor during the l 930's reflects the pronounced decline in private investment expenditures and the concomitant decline in consumer purchasing power. Expenditures for
durable producers goods-roughly reflecting the volume of industrial
investment-declined from 10.2 billion dollars in 1929 to 2.4 billion
dollars in 1933.1 Another measure of investment activity may be
seen in the amount of "income-producing expenditures" which declined from 18 billion dollars in 1929 to 3 billion dollars in 1933.10
Although these expenditures increased in the recovery following 1933,
the average for the decade remained considerably below the average
for the 1920's. It is this type of expenditure which is primarily responsible for changes in the general level of employment. High levels of
consumer purchasing power, national income, and employment are
associated with large-scale outlays for industrial plant and equipment,
housing, and similar investments.
That the difficulties experienced in the l 930's were more than a
problem of depression was clearly brought out by testimony presented
to the Temporary National Economic Committee in 1939. For example, in analyzing the problem of prolonged unemployment and
curtailed national income, Dr. Alvin H. Hansen said:
Let us consider what is necessary in order to keep the income stream flowing
on a high level, once it has reached that level. The income received or realized
out of the productive process of the prior week or month will either be expended
for consumption or it will be saved. The part that is spent on consumption goods
and services automatically becomes the source of a new income stream. The part
that is saved may or may not feed into the income stream, depending upon
whether or not these savings are used either by the saver himself or by a borrower
for the purpose of capital goods, plant, machinery, industrial and commercial
construction, houses, office buildings, schools, or public works.
If the saver does not himself use the funds, or if he fails to find a borrower who
• Federal RuertHl Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 9, September 1939, p. 731. Another
indicator is the New York Federal Reserve Bank index of production of producers
goods, adjusted to trend, which declined from 115 in 1929 to M in 1932.
10 Jm,e,tigation of Conuntration of Economic Power: Savi'fl{la and Investment,
Part 9, Hearings Before the Temporary National Economic Committee, 76th
Cong., let 88BB., May 16-18 and ~26, 1939, p. 4018.
Digitized by
Google
6 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
will use them to purchase plant, equipment, and other capital goods, the income
stream dries up and unemployment prevails in the capital-goods indUBtriee. It
is highly eBBential that all that part of the current flow of income which i8 not expended on consumption goods, namely that part which is saved, shall be expended
either directly by the saver himself or indirectly through a borrower on new plant
and equipment of some sort. If the amount which is saved is large, as it i8 likely
to be at a high income level, it is nece88ary that equally large outlets be available
for these savings in equipment and plant expansion, and in residential and public
construction. . . •
To repeat, money spent or withheld for capital outlays is high-powered money,
whether in the upswing or in the downswing. Thus a society geared to a high
peak load of capital-goods production is likely to experience violent fluctuations
in income and employment, a high savings economy will remain a highly dynamic
economy so long as it is able to experience periodically great bursts of capital
outlays on plant and equipment. It is then a dynamic, rapidly expanding, and
progressive economy, despite its instability. But if such an economy fails to find
adequate investment outlets in plant and equipment for its new savings and for
its depreciation allowances, it will lose its dynamic quality and become a depressed
and stagnant economy, with a large volume of chronic unemployment. The highsavings economy can escape a fall in income and employment only through the
continuous development of new outlets for capital expenditures on indUBtrial plant
and equipment and on commercial, residential, and public construction.
So far as private investment outlets are concerned, this requires continuous
technological progress, the rise of new industries, the discovery of new resources,
the growth of population, or a combination of several or all of these developments.
We are completing this year a decade of unemployment on a scale never before
known in our history. This decade of unemployment was interrupted by a partial
recovery which culminated in 1937. This depression is of a magnitude and duration which has eclipsed all others, not excepting even the deep and prolonged
depreBBions of the seventies and nineties. It is a unique phenomenon. It cannot
be explained in terms of ordinary business-cycle analysis. For the time being at
least we are experiencing a chronic maladjustment, a failure of adequate outlets for
capital expenditures for a society geared to a high savings, high investment level.
We are caught in the midst of powerful forces in the evolution of our economy
which we but dimly understand. Something has gone wrong with the forces
making for expansion. We are undergoing a fundamental change in the structure
of our economic life. 11
Since chronically high levels of unemployment and low volumes of
income and investment affect adversely all elements of the population
it was inevitable that a great problem of destitution would arise in
the early 1930's. 11 It cannot be said, of course, that all destitution
stems from joblessness, but it is true that widespread loss of work
aggravates the insecurity which arises from causes other than unemployment. Unemployability due to old age, youth and lack of
experience, physical handicaps, or loss of the family head, inevitably
leads to destitution even in prosperous periods. Widespread unemployment aggravates these problems and, at the same time, contributes
its own problem of mass destitution.
11
Ibid., pp. 3500-3501, 3503.
The early Federal efforts (1930-1932) to cope with the problem are traced in
ch. II. Subsequent chapters outline the development of present programs.
11
D1git1zed by
Goog1e
ECONOMIC BACKGROUND • 7
Old-age dependency is a growing problem when considered from
the long-term point of view, because of the rapid growth in the
number of aged persons. u In a period of large-scale unemployment
many older workers, who in a prosperous period would be at work
and self-supporting, are unable to find jobs. The general decrease
in income and loss of personal resources bas made poverty in old age
inevitable for a great number who in better times would contribute
to their own support. Thus the problem of support which accompanies old age in any case, has been greatly intensified. The widespread and insistent demand for old-age security during the 1930's
can be attributed in large part to the chronically low level of employment in that period. 1'
Youth is a segment of the population that has been hit with exceptional severity by the large-scale unemployment of recent years.
The unemployment census of 1937 showed that the age group 1&-24
constituted almost one-third of all unemployed workers. Throughout
the 1930's millions of young people sought to find a place for themselves in business or agriculture. Because of their lack of experience
and an already overcrowded labor market, many were forced to drift
for long periods, securing odd jobs or part-time work now and then,
usually at extremely low wages. 16
Other groups, too, are affected by prolonged unemployment. It
is true that many handicapped persons, dependent children, and
other unemployables, require public assistance even in a period of
relatively full employment. Here again, however, the need for public
assistance is intensified when unemployment is general. Families and
relatives share much of the financial burden of support, but when
unemployment strikes at the incomes of these people, the need for
public assistance increases. With fewer people employed in the
1930's than during the latter 1920's, it was to be expected that destitution among the unemployed would have its effect on the unemployable groups as well.
Still another aspect of destitution is presented by the "depressed
areas." These are areas in which the principal industry has migrated
to other parts, or has suffered a permanent loss of markets, leaving
11 The change in age composition of the population is reflected in the figures
on the aged. In 1850 only 3 percent of the population was 65 and over. In 1940
this had increased to 6.4 percent, aggregating 8.4 million persons. Estimates
indicate that further increases are in store, both in absolute and relative terms.
National Resources Committee, The Problem, of a Changing Population, Washington, D. C., May 1938.
H In ch. VIII the reader will find a discuSBion of certain sections of the Soci&l
Security Act (p&SBed in 1935) designed to afford security to the aged.
u The work of the National Youth Administration and the Civilian Conserva-tion Corpe, two agencies created in the 1930's to furnish assistance to youth, is
outlined in ch. VII.
Digitized
Google
by
8 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
\
\
----
.
the local population with wholly inadequate job opportunities; or the
natural resources (e. g., lumber or coal) which formed the backbone
of economic activity may have become exhausted. Prolonged
drought conditions and gradual deterioration of farm land through
erosion often intensify rural destitution and create a long-term problem of poverty. 10 Again, it is true that these conditions exist even
in a period of general prosperity; but these problems are intensified
when the economy as a whole is depressed.
Rural destitution, of course, is not limited to "problem" areas.
Depressed agricultural prices during the 1920's brought about widespread distress in the agricultural regions. After 1929 the general
depression hit agriculture with particular force. The decline in
foreign demand, together with curtailed domestic purchasing power,
created a problem of chronic agricultural surpluses and low income. 17
Restoration of relatively full employment in the nonagricultural
sectors of the economy would diminish materially the problem of
rural destitution. To the extent that other causes, such as curtailed
foreign demand, are at work, however, the problem would remain,
although with lessened intensity, despite high levels of investment
and employment.
·
The general problem of destitution-one of unprecedented severity-which confronted this country during the 1930's, grew out of a
diversity of causes and affected all segments of the population. The
most important of all these causes of destitution was large-scale and
prolonged unemployment. In the early years of the depression, the
statistics of unemployment (averaging 11.9 to 14.4 million in 1933)
reflected largely the depression decline in employment. But although
this decline had been substantially reversed by 1939, unemployment
still averaged 9.1 to 10.8 million in that year. This persistence of
the problem at the end of the l 930's reflected, for the most part, the
failure of employment to keep pace with the labor supply which had
grown by 6 million since the outset of the depression. 18 The fact that
industrial expansion was arrested while the labor supply grew steadily
11 For detailed analyses of depressed areas see Beck, P. G. and Forster, M. C.,
Biz Rural Problem Area,, Research Monograph I, Division of Research, Statistics and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C.,
1935; Asch, Berta and Mangus, A. R., Fa,_, on Relief and &habilitatum,
Research Monograph, VIII Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937; Kifer, R. S. and Stewart, H. L., Farmift{I
Hazard& in tM DroU{lht Area, Research Monograph XVI, Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1938; and Brown,
Malcolm and Webb, John N., Seven Stranded Coal Touma, Division of Research,
Work Projecui Administration, Federal Works Agency, Washington, D. C., 1941.
11 See chs. V and VII.
11 The National Industrial Conference Board showe 6.0 mDlion; the American
Federation of Labor, 5.4 million; and the WPA National Reae&rch Project, 6.2
million for the 10-year period.
Digitized by
Google
W ork Proj, rls , ldmi nidral ion (Ilcrro n) .
Abandoned Mine.
Abandoned coal mines contribut€d to the destitution found in stranded coal towns.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
D1g1tized by
Goos le
ECONOMIC BACKGROUND •
9
provided the principal basis for the continuing need for programs of
public employment. 19
The relief, work, and social security programs developed in the la.st
decade should therefore be viewed in terms of basic changes in the
economic system which have affected the levels of investment and
national income. With the rearmament program getting well under
way in 1941, the volume of investment and the level of income will
increase substantia.lly. Public investment represented by Government expenditures for defense will no doubt be accompanied by some
induced private investment in the defense and many nondefense
industries. In time, these combined investments may become sufficiently large to provide relatively full employment, and thereby
modify to some extent the character of the unemployment problem of
recent years.llD The extent to which this happens in the next year or
so will depend upon the volume of investment associated with the
defense program. Beyond that, unless the conditions which led to
chronically low levels of private investment during the la.st decade
pass away, a recurrence of the problem can be expected, perhaps in
more serious form, after the stimulus from the rearmament program
is expended. In the long run, therefore, the size of the unemployment
problem and the accompanying programs of relief and public employment will be determined in large measure by the ability of the economy
to provide sufficient outlets for normal investment. 11
19 See chs. VII and XI.
• See ch. XI for a discussion of the poseible effect of the defense program upon
present relief, work, and security programs.
11 This study was completed in the first half of 1941, many months before the
entrance of the United States into the war in December of that year. The
authors believe, however, that the basic analysis presented above remains true
despite active participation by the United States in the war. Need for a work
program, although in a lesser degree, seems likely to continue over the next several
yean. The analysis of a postarm&ment period presented above applies equally
well to the postwar period.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
D191tized by
Google
Chapter II
THE RELIEF PROBLEM PRIOR TO 1933
RELIEF PROBLEMS AND POLICIES BEFORE 1929
Pueuc
RELIEF to the destitute was, until recent years, administered
chiefly under the "poor laws" of the various States. 1 These poor laws
were inherited from Colonial days, and were largely based on the
Elizabethan poor laws.' Few significant changes were made in the
method of administering public relief during the whole period before
1929. The great depression which began in that year tested current
relief methods to the utmost, and under the strain the poor-law system
broke down. The decade 1930 to 1940 saw more changes in our attitude toward public relief, and in our methods of administering it,
than had been made in the three preceding centuries.
Why did the public relief methods then prevailing buckle under the
1929 depression? Primarily, because they had been framed to deal
with the relatively simple relief problem of a young, quickly expanding,
and predominantly 8.lP"icultural nation. A brief backward glance will
1 See Abbott, Edith, Public A1mtanu: American Principle& and Policie,, Vol. I,
1940, Vol. II, in press, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; Breckinridge,
Sophonisba P., Public Welfare Adminiatration in tM United State,: Select Docu-
ment,, Second edition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, November
1938; Creech, Margaret, Three Centurie, of Poor Law Adminiatration, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1936; Kelso, Robert W., The Hiatory of Public
Poor Relief in Ma,,achu,etta, 16B~19B0, Boston and New York: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1922; Browning, Grace A., The Det1elopment of Poor Relief
Legi,lation in Kama,, Social Service Monographs, Number Twenty-five, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, August 1936; and Shaffer, Alice, Keefer, Mary
Wysor, and Breckinridge, Sophonisba P., The Indiana Poor Lato, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1936.
1 For an account of the development of English public relief methods over the
centuries see Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, Engliah Local GOtJernment: Engli,h Poor
Law Hiatory: Part I. The Old Poor Lato, 1927; Engli,h Poor Lato Hi,tory: Part II~
The La,t Hundred Year,, Vol. II, 1929, London: Longmans, Green and Co., Ltd.
11
Digitized by
Goog Ie
12 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
show why the old system of local relief and private charity was unable
to meet the problem of large-scale destitution arising from mass
unemployment.
During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when the
poor laws were taking form, the relief problem in the United States
was a comparatively simple one. The unemployables, who constituted the bulk of those requiring assistance, were thought of as being
primarily the responsibility of their relatives; care by the community
was assumed only where private charity was unavailable and the relatives could not be prevailed upon to provide assistance. The principle of local responsibility in caring for the needy was reinforced by
the usual availability, in these early years, of jobs for all able-bodied
persons willing to work. Those few worthy cases who required public
aid during short periods of unemployment looked to the localities and
not to the National Government. The locality was likewise charged
with the responsibility of caring for its own aged and handicapped.
Following the early practices, therefore, all State poor laws entrusted
to the locality (county, city, town or township) the task of administering and financing poor relief. Local poormasters or overseers of the
poor were charged with the duty of caring for the destitute of their
own communities.•
Wholesale acceptance of the many repressive features of the
Elizabethan poor laws of England, and their incorporation in the
poor laws of the United States, may likewise be traced directly to
, late eighteenth-century philosophy and the economic and social con, / ditions of the time. The early poor laws were often so drafted as to
1-- ~ ;equire recipients to take a "pauper's oath." Certain privileges of
1
\
citizenship, such as the right to vote, were not infrequently denied.
To give more than the barest minimum of public assistance to employables, it was argued, would be to encourage idleness and make inroads
upon the needed labor supply of the growing nation. To grant more
than the barest minimum to unemployables, it was believed, would
remove the inducement for relatives to take up their rightful burden.
The purely repressive theory of relief had, of course, lost ground
to some extent even prior to 1929. Indicative of the trend away
from the harshness of the old poor laws during the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries was the attempt to improve conditions
in almshouses and the increasing emphasis on "outdoor" or home
relief.
Institutional care was long regarded as the scientific method of
giving public relief, and it was the method chiefly used until very
late in the nineteenth century. In practice, however, it was subject
to the gravest abuses. Local almshouses tended to become filled
1 See Millspaugh, Arthur C., Public Welfare Organization, Washington, D. C.:
The Brookings Institution, 1935, ch. XII.
□ig,1,zed by Google
RELIEF PRIOR TO 1933 • 13
indiscriminately with all kinds of destitute people-the aged, homeless children, the infirm, the feeble-minded, the insane, prostitutes,
and vagrants. Repeated attempts were made to reform these institutions, and the early decades of the twentieth century saw considerable improvement in the administration of almshouses in a few States.
Efforts were also made to have those requiring special attention (the
insane, feeble-minded, etc.) sent to institutions particularly designed
to afford them the type of care required.
Also indicative of the attempt to differentiate the relief population
and to provide suitable care for the various groups was the development with the turn of the century of outdoor relief, or home relief,
as it is now called. Under this system certain needy persons were
furnished public aid in their own homes rather than being sent to
institutions.
While these attempts to modernize the old poor-law systems were
noteworthy, the actual results achieved throughout the country as a
whole were not great. Some localities gave no home relief; in such
areas all recipients of poor relief were forced to live in institutions.
In many States all sorts of destitute persons were still placed together
in poorhouses. The shocking conditions prevailing in almshouses
in many States as late as 1929 were notorious. 4 Home relief, the
major form of public assistance of the early twentieth century, was
often limited to meager donations of food and clothing. Still acting
on the assumption that need was always due to some personal inadequacy, those who administered poor relief did not feel that relief
recipients could be trusted with cash. 6
Perhaps the greatest divergence from the repressive policies of
traditional poor relief was the development of "categorical" relief.
Several decades before 1929 State legislatures had begun to recognize
that certain categories or classes of needy individuals, such as
mothers with dependent children, the blind, the aged, and certain
classes of veterans were entitled to more adequate and humanely
administered public assistance. This recognition resulted in the
passage of special legislation e (often termed categorical relief) for
these classes in a number of Sta.tes. 7 The first general pension law
for the blind came in Ohio in 1898. The first mothers' a.id law, giving
a.id to children in their own homes, was passed by Missouri in 1911.
• See, for example, Old Age Security, Report of the New York State Commission,
Legislative Doc. No. 67, 1930, Albany, pp. 395-399.
1 See Colcord, Joanna C., Caah Relief, New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
1936.
• See Lowe, Robert C., State Public Welfare Legislation, Research Monograph
XX, Division of Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
1939.
7 The categorical approach was given impetue through the Social Security Act
and is referred to again in ch. VIII.
Digit;zed by
Goog Ie
14 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
~fontana enact~ the first valid old-age pension law in 1923. It is
easy to overestimate the importance of this movement prior to 1929,
however. While the number of States passing such le.gislation was
fairly large, the numbers of persons actually aided were often small
and the sums granted remained inadequate. Much of the categorical
relief legislation was optional, and many of the counties in States
with such "county option laws" did not place the special assistance
programs in operation.
The legislative status of public relief in 1929 may therefore be summarized briefly as follows: The primary relief offered was that provided under the various State poor laws which were in operation in
all 48 States. Veterans' relief legislation had been enacted in 44
States and assistance for the blind in 22 States. Forty-three States
had provisions for aid to dependent children in their own homes, and
all but three States had laws concerning the c.are of dependent children
in foster homes and institutions. Assistance to the aged was given in
10 States. Local responsibility was the keystone of the relief methods
in operation. With the exception of veterans' relief and care of
dependent children by agencies or institutions, the local politic.al
subdivisions generally were charged with the responsibility for
administering and financing the various types of aid.
The public relief "system" which has just been briefly sketched
was supplemented by the activities of various private charitable organizations. Private charities were an important factor in some
localities; in others they were of little significance or were nonexistent.
The major portion of all relief provided in 1929 was extended by
governmental agencies. It has been estimated that in 1929 public
agencies were meeting about three-fourths of the cost of relief for the
country as a whole.•
BREAKDOWN OF THE LOCAL RELIEF SYSTEM
As has been indicated, few significant changes were made in the
relief systems and policies of the various States during the period
from 1789 to 1929. In 1929, as in the late eighteenth century, relief
methods were predicated on the assumption that, with relatively few
exceptions, unemployment was voluntary and should be treated as
such. Local responsibility was still generally regarded as an essential
feature of relief methods.
Meanwhile, the ground had been cut from under the basic principles
of the poor laws, with the development of the United States from a
simple to a complex economy, from a local agricultural and handicraft
economy to a predominantly industrial and specialized system. During this process wage employment had become more and more impor• See Colcord, op. cit., p. 17.
Digitized by
Google
RELIEF PRIOR TO 1933 • 15
tant for economic security, and at the same time tended to become more
and more difficult to secure. As a matter of fact, for some time before
1929 unemployment of varying intensity had become a regular feature
of our economy. Thus, estimates of unemployment covering the
period .from 1897 to 1926 for four major industries show an average
unemployment rate of 10 percent, with wide fluctuations between
prosperity and depression periods.• It is generally admitted that
1923 and 1926 were relatively prosperous years, yet in each of these
there were more than 13' million unemployed. 10 Local censuses of
unemployment in many localities over the last several decades also
indicate quite clearly the existence of numbers of involuntary
unemployed.
The theory of local responsibility for all relief measures had likewise been losing validity steadily with the growing industrialization
of the United States. In modem economic society, characterized by
a high degree of specialization and interdependence, unemployment
becomes primarily a national problem. Granting of relief to the
needy unemployed becomes a problem of national interest.
It is clear, moreover, that even prior to 1929 the growing volume' __\.- ~
of need and the limitations on the financial abilities of local govern- \- · ,
ments were factors in the main current working slowly toward Federal · ,J<
participation in the relief problem. Not generally recognized is the \ · ·
fact that relief expenditures had been rising constantly for several
decades prior to 1933. Public relief expenditures in 16 cities, for
example; increased from 1¼million dollars in 1911 to 20 million dollars
in 1928. 11 Thus, the steadily increasing cost of the relief problem
was another factor working toward State and, ultimately, Federal
participation. In short, the depression of the early 1930's accentuated and brought
sharply to public attention an unemployment and relief problem of
long standing. Changes in relief policies, financing, and organization
were inevitable in any event; the depression hastened their development.
1
Unemployment grew by leaps and bounds after the 1929 crash:;
and resulted in an ever-growing number of persons in need of public /
• Bee Douglas, Paul H., Real Wagu in tM United State,, 1890--19S6, Boston
and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930. See also Gill, Corrington,
Waited Manpo1Dff, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1939.
• The estimates quoted above are those prepared by the Committee on Economic Security appointed by President Roosevelt in 1934 to study the bases of a
program of social security.
• 11 Anne E. Geddes observes," At least since 1910 there has been a strong underlying upward trend in relief expenditures. The very great increase in expenditures
in the depression years represents a sharp acceleration of a tendency manifest
throughout the preceding two decades." See Geddes, Anne E., Trend, in Relkf
&pendituru 1910--1985, Research Monograph X, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937, p. xiii.
D1g1tized by
Google
16 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
assistance. The unemployment estimates of the National Industrial
Conference Board-estimates generally regarded as conservative-indicate that there were almost 4 million unemployed in the United
States in January 1930. By August over 4½ million persons were
without work; in December the number of unemployed had reached
nearly 7 million. A considerable number of these unemployed were
without substantial savings and were forced to apply for relief within
a short period after loss of employment. 12
The regular local poor-relief systems had not been designed to deal
with an unemployment relief situation of such magnitude and soon
began to bog down under the ever-increasing pressure. Many local
public and private emergency relief agencies were created during 1930
and 1931-mainly in the cities. The localities, however, were sharply
circumscribed in their quest for larger and larger sums for relief.
Rapidly declining real-estate values, the backbone of the local tax
systems and the real security behind local bonds, made the securing
of relief funds ever more difficult. The first State relief organization
was set up in New York in November 1931. Many State relief agencies
were set up in 1932, and State organizations were in operation in every
State by the end of 1933.
EARLY FEDERAL ACTIVITIES (1930-1931)
The rising tide of unemployment which had forced States to come
to the aid of their hard-pressed localities continued during 1932. The
States were not able to give adequate assistance because they were
beset by the same problem which had engulfed the localities-greatly
increased need for expenditures during a period of falling tax revenues
and extreme credit stringency. Under these circumstances demands
for active Federal participation became more frequent and more
insistent.
The first steps of the Federal Government in the field of relief were
taken cautiously and in complete conformity with the tradition of
local responsibility for relief. On the theory that the Federal Government could do its share by supplying advice and encouragement to
States and localities, President Hoover in the latter part of 1930 set
up The President's Emergency Committee for Employment. This
committee, headed by Colonel Arthur Woods of the Rockefeller
Statistics showing the extent of the relief problem (193~1932) for the country
U. S. Children's Bureau figures, gathered by 108
public agencies in 70 urban areas, give a clue, however, to the rapid growth of the
problem. The combined totals for the 70 areas show 52,698 families and single
persons receiving relief from public funds in December 1929. One year later
the totals had reached 141,640. By December 1931 and December 1932, respectively, the totals were 288,119 and 666,370. The reader interested in statistics
on increasing expenditures for relief during the period should consult Geddes,
op. cit.
11
as a whole are not available.
Digitized by
Google
RELIEF PRIOR TO 1933 • 17
Foundation, was designed to be merely a coordinating agency and
central clearinghouse for information; it had no funds at its disposal
for distribution.11 The Woods group worked largely through State
committees in more than 30 States and through local committees in ,
large industrial areas. The principal functions of these committees 1 /
were to point out the value of expediting State and local public and 1 -.
semipublic construction for giving employment, to encourage individuals to "give a job" and "spruce up" their homes, and to give publicity-, ~
to the relief efforts being ma.de in various loealities. 14
·
In August 1931, after Colonel Woods and several other members
had found it necessary to return to private life, a new committee was
established. Walter S. Gifford, president of the American Telephone
and Telegraph Company, headed the group, which was known as
The President's Organization on Unemployment Relief. The Gifford
Committee continued the work of encouraging State and local officials
and organizing private unemployment committees. The view taken' _;'
continued to be that direct Federal financial assistance was unwise
and that States and localities must bear the responsibility for unem-,
ployment relief. The stimulation of local relief efforts, both public
and private, was therefore the main concern of the Gifford Committee.
The advice and encouragement emanating from the Woods and
Gifford Committees proved to be an inadequate solution of the problems arising from increasing joblessness and destitution. Estimates
of the National Industrial Conference Board indicated that the number of unemployed had risen to 1O½ million by the end of 1931. Local
tax and credit resources were drying up while the need for expenditures
increased; it was becoming clear that businessmen could not be
expected to keep men on their pay rolls unless there was a prospect
of earning a profit. Demands arose in Congress and throughout the
country, therefore, for more tangible Federal assistance.
One of the greatest obstacles to Federal aid for unemployment
relief was the lack of clear precedent for such action. 11 Proponents of
Federal aid met the la.ck of direct precedent, however, by pointing to
the many instances where aid had already been advanced from
11 For an account of the activities of the "Woods Committee," see Hayes, E. P.,
Actwitiu of the President's Emergency Committee for Employment, Concord, N. H.:
The Runuord Press, 1936.
14 While Chairman Woods himself went so far as to suggest that the Federal
Government relieve unemployment by embarking upon a large-scale Federal construction program, this plan did not meet with the approval of the Administration.
11 The Federal Government had, of course, made an indirect entry into the
broad field of welfare through the creation of such agencies as the U.S. Children's
Bureau and the U. S. Public Health Service. In addition, it had made indirect
contribution to the relief of destitution through pensioning war veterans. The
Sheppard-Towner Act of 1921, providing for grants to the States for maternity
and infant hygiene, was another approach by the Federal Government into the
field of welfare and relief.
D1g1tized by
Google
\
/
18 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Washington to the victims of great natural disasters both in this country
and abroad. The economic crisis was said to be no lees a disaster than
fire or flood. Thus, like fire or flood, widespread unemployment was
looked upon as an emergency condition. During the period 1930-1932
few Congressional advocates of Federal financial aid for unemployment
relief based their cases largely, or even incidentally, on the recognition
of unemployment as a national problem and the consequent national
responsibility for unemployment relief. "Emergency" was the main
argument advanced at that time.
The first step toward Federal aid for relief was taken on March 7,
1932, when a Congressional resolution was approved authorizing the
Federal Farm Board to give the Red Cross 40 million bushels of
"surplus" Government wheat for distribution to the needy. In
July 1932 a similar resolution made poesible the distribution of 45
million bushels of wheat of the Grain Stabilization Corporation and
500,000 bales of cotton of the Cotton Stabilization Corporation.
The first real break with the tradition of purely local responsibility
for relief came with the passage of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932. 18 Title I of this statute made 300 million
dollars of Federal funds available for repayable relief advances to
State and local governments. This sum was not intended to cover all
local relief expenditures; it was supposed to serve as a supplement to
State and local resources for meeting the relief situation. 17 The
Reconstruction Finance Corporation, set up under an earlier law to
make emergency loans to financial institutions, industrial corporations,
etc., was named as the agency to distribute the 300-million-dollar fund
among the State and local governments making application. These
Federal advances were to bear interest at 3 percent.
State governors could apply for relief funds under the Emergency
Relief and Construction Act by certifying that the State was unable to
meet the relief problem from its own resources. The sums advanced
to States were originally intended to be repaid by deductione from
future Federal road grants, but this method of repayment was later
canceled 18 and the advances to States were converted, in effect, to
straight grants. In cases where a governor did not apply for aid, or
did not ask for sufficient funds, county or municipal governments in
need of aid were permitted to apply for funds by putting up their own
local securities as collateral. Some of these bonds a.re still held by
the Federal Government; others have been sold to private investors.
Approved July 21, 1932 (c. 520, 47 Stat. 709).
See Betters, Paul V., Williams, J. Kerwin, and Reeder, Sherwood L., Recent
Federal-City Relatiom, Washington, D. C.: The United States Conference of
Mayors, 1936.
11 Act approved June 18, 1934 (c. 586, 48 Stat. 993).
11
11
Digitized by
Goog Ie
RELIEF PRIOR TO 1933 •
19
The relief advances provided under the 1932 act were practically
exhausted by the time the new Administration assumed office on
March 4, 1933. A few months later, on May 29, 1933, when the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation officially ended its activities
under TitJe I of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, 42
States and 2 Terrioories (Hawaii and Puem Rico) had received relief
_
advances from the Corporation.11
While the distribution of the 300-million-dollar fund gave temporary )
aid oo some States and cities which found themselves in a serio~,
financial plight,• the trend ooward wider Federal participation in the 1
unemployment relief problem continued. By 1933 a great many(
localities were either bankrupt or perilously close oo the line. Many
State governments were unable oo provide substantial assistance oo
their localities. Increased revenues from taxes or borrowing was
impossible for many localities in the face of falling real-estate values.
Further, the "economy" moves made by State and local governments
in 1930-1932 had frequently involved the discontinuation of useful
public services in order that money could be diverted oo relief; such
vital services as schools, fire protection, hospitals, sanitation, an~
policing were being neglected. Under such circumstances, direct an~ . / 1
substantial Federal assistance in meeting the relief problem became a.,~ 1
necessity. Thus, on May 12, 1933, the Federal Emergency Relie:i L
Act of 1933 n was approved and 500 million dollars was made available 1.
for outright grants oo the States for relief. The Federal Emergency \
Relief Administration, created by the act, was designated as the agency
oo administer the granting of these Federal funds oo the States. By
the end of 1933 State emergency relief administrations were functioning in every State and were receiving grants from the FERA. 11
1t See Betters, Williama, and Reeder, op. cit., p. 6.
See also Wat.son, Donald S.,
"Reconstruction Finance Corporation," Municipal Year Book, 1997, Chicago:
International City Managers' Association, 1937, pp. 375 ff.
• The sum of 300 million dollars appears to have been too small; further, the
fact that local borrowers had to put up their bonds as collateral made it impoasible
for aome of the localities in greatest need to get any Federal money under the act.
11
C. 30, -'8 Stat. M.
• For a more detailed account of the entrance of the Federal Government into
the field of unemployment relief, see Williams, Edward Ainsworth, Federal Aid
for Rauf, New York: Columbia University Press, 1939, ch. I.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Chapter Ill
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF
PROGRAM IN 1933
WHEN FEDERAL aid to the States and localities for relief purposes
became urgent early in 1933, Congress was confronted with the
important task of determining the method by which such Federal
assistance was to be provided. Ultimately, as has been indicated, the
Congress decided to utilize the old device of grants-in-a.id to the Sta.tes. 1
What sort of relationships ca.me into being between the Federal Government and the S.tates and localities with the creation of the FERA in
May 1933? What were the aims and objectives of the newly created
Federal relief agency, and what methods did it use in putting them
into effect? It will be the purpose of this chapter to consider these
broad questions and to indicate the major relief trends set in motion
during the year 1933, the first year of existence of the FERA. 2
THE GRANT METHOD
A resum~ of the main provisions of the Federal Emergency Relief
Act of 1933 will serve to give some indication of the setup of the
FERA and the general relationships which developed between it and
the State and local relief administrations.
1 Standard works on grants-in-aid in the United States are: Key, V. 0., Jr.,
The .Admini&tration of Federal Grant, to Statu, Chicago: Public Administration
Service, 1937; MacDonald, Austin F., Federal Aid, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell
Company, 1928.
1 The FERA continued in active operation through 1935; for an account of the
Federal work activities inaugurated in the second half of 1935 and designed to
replace the FERA work program, see ch. VII.
21
Digitized by
Goog e
22 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Section 3 (a) of the act created the FERA and empowered the
President to appoint an administrator subject to the advice and
consent of the Senate.• Reflecting the quite generally accepted view
then held in Congress that the need for the FERA would be shortlived, section 3 (a) provided that the FERA was to expire 2 years
after the date of enactment of the act. Any unexpended balances
of funds provided under the act were then to be disposed of u the
Congress should decide.
Under the act of 1933, 500 million dollars was made available for
allocation by the FERA to the States.' Section 4 (b) provided that
out of this sum a maximum of 250 million dollars was to be granted to
the States on the basis of 1 dollar for each 3 dollars of public moneys,
from all sources, spent in the State for unemployment relief during the
preceding 3 months. The balance was to be available, in accordance
with section 4 (c), as a discretionary fund from which the Administrator might make grants to those States whose financial resources
were so low that they could not meet their relief problem under the
matching provisions of section 4 (b). Federal relief funds therefore
were to be allocated to the States in part under a prescribed statutory
formula and in part on a discretionary basis by the FERA. 1
Section 5 of the act prescribed that "any State desiring to obtain
funds under this Act shall through its Governor make application
therefor from time to time." This section further provided that the
following information must accompany all requests for funds: "(l) the
amounts necessary to meet relief needs in the State during the period
covered by such application and the amounts available from public
or private sources within the State, its political subdivisions, and
from private agencies, to meet the relief needs of the State, (2) _the
provision made to assure adequate administrative supervision, (3) the
provision made for suitable standards of relief, and (4) the purposes
for which the funds requested will be used." Section 6 declared
that ". . . the Governor of each State receiving grants under this
Act shall file monthly with the Administrator, and in the form
1 Harry L. Hopkins was named Administrator on May 22, 1933, and se"ed in
that capacity throughout the period of existence of the FERA. For a di8c1188ion
of the work of the new agency by the Administrator, see Hopkina, Harry L.,
Bpmdmg lo SaH, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1936.
• For an account of the mechanics of making FERA grants, see McCormick,
M. Riggs, "Federal Emergency Relief Administration Grants," Monlhlfl Report of
tM Federal Emergency Relief Adminiatration, Deumber 1 Thro'U{lla Deumber 81,
1986, Washington, D. C., 1936, pp. 1-33.
1 For a detailed account of the equalization formulas and methods utilized by
the FERA in making discretionary grants, see Williams, Edward Ainsworth,
Federal Aid.for Relief, New York: Columbia University Press, 1939, oh. V.
□ig,1,zed by Google
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF IN 1933 • 23
required by him, a report of the disbursements made under such
grants."'
This brief statement of the ma.in provisions of the Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933 gives some indication of the types of relationships which were to develop between the FERA and the State and
local relief administrations. But since there is considerable misunderstanding concerning the respective roles that were played by the FERA
and the States and loealities during the period of FERA grants, it may
be well to expand upon and emphasize certain basic facts. Relief
applicants did not receive their food orders or work-relief checks from
officials of the FERA. 7 Nor did relief applicants receive their relief
benefits from State officials. Instead, the actual administration of relief
was in the hands of the approximately 5,000 local relief agencies which
were in existence during the active period of the FERA. The FERA
allocated funds to the Governors of the various States. These officials
then turned the funds over to the State relief organizations which
in turn distributed Federal funds, along with State funds, among the
local relief organizations.• The local relief organizations spent thes(yfunds, together with locally provided money, for relief purposes.~
The functions of the FERA, in addition to granting funds to the 1
States, involved the issuance of broad policy regulations designed)
to promote minimum relief standards and the proper use of Fedeiy/
funds.
1
1 Section 3 (d) of the Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933 required the Administrator to print monthly, and to submit to the President and the Congress, a
report of activities and expenditures under the act. A report, known as the
MMllhly lupqrl of Ui.e Felkral Emergency Relief Adminiatration, was published
each month through June 1936 and is a valuable source of information concerning
the FERA. See also Whiting, T. E., Final Statiatical Report of Ui.e Felkral EmfffltAICY Relief Adminmration, Division of Statistics, Work Projects Administration,
Federal Works Agency, Washington, D. C., 1941.
' An exception to this general statement should be noted. The 1933 act, in
conjunction with an act of February 15, 1934, gave the Administrator of the
FERA the power to set up a Federal relief organization within a given State
and to make grants of Federal moneys to it. In several States for certain periods
the FERA did assume, for various reasons, the actual administration of emergency relief. Theee States were: Oklahoma, North Dakota, Massachusetts
(wort relief), Ohio, Louisiana, and Georgia. See Bartlett, F. 8., "Financial
Procedure in the Federally Operated Relief Administrations in Six States,"
MMllhly Report of Ui.e Felkral Emergency Relief Adminiatration, JuM 1 ThrO'IJ.(lla
Jv.m 80, 1996, Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 134-139; and Williams, op. cit., ch. IV.
1 For an article dealing with the distribution of intrastate funds, see Wells,
Anita, "The Allocation of Relief Funds by the States Among Their Political
Subdivisions," MontAly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Adminiatration,
Jv.M 1 ThroU(lla Jum 90, 1996, Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 56-87.
• Appendix table 1 shows the amount of obligations incurred for emergency
relief, by State and by source of funds, 1933 through 1935.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
24 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Table 1 serves to give a picture of the number of persons dependent
upon emergency relief during the period January 1933 to the end of
the active existence of the FERA in December 1935.10
Tol,le 1.-Number of Familia, Single Persons, Casa, Total Persons, and Percent of
Population Receiving Emergency Relief Under the General Relief and Special Programs,
Continental United States, by Month, January 1933-0ecember 1935 1
T otal res ident persons
He.siden t case•
Year and month
T otal
--,
Single. persons
Families
I
1Q33
l
January ••••.•...• . •. •. .. .
February . . . ..•.•.•••••...
M arch . ..........•..• . . . .•
tr:t .::::::::::::::::::::
June ... .. . ... . ...... .. ....
J nly ... ..... . .......... . ..
Au1m st. .. . .• . . .••• . •.•.. .
S(>p t<-m her . . .•••.•.•. . . •••
October •.• . . . ..•. •.• ••• •. .
November .......• • •.•. •..
D oc-ember ...... .••• ••• •..
I
Number
Peroont
of populatlon •
-·
Translentper-
I
4. 132. rm
4, 399, 697
4, 1177, 742 I
5, 070, N(lfl
4, i ~ . 427
4,2 13, M l
3, U2fi, i h.~
3, 78><, 41,.1
3, 4:!X, 07 4
3, 4711, 110
3, ~72, 31,),
3,104, 170
3, 738, 132
3 , 971 , 7&1
4, 502, 110:1
4, 570, ill ~
4, 2,\1 , C""-\
3, 793, 44\i
I
3,4 73, Wl
3,379, l\..",O
3, 021',, t-32
3, 040, /,\XI
3, 40R, .~77
2, 6.',6, 53\1
394, 430
427, 933
474. 839
5m, 163
473, 742
420. 0!!4
4,>3, 193
408, 1,.1 3
3\lY, 542
4:l,\ 51 7
411.1, 811
447, 6.11
16,M9,042
17,700, 078
13.2
H.l
20. (M\6. 070
16. 0
20,3!!7. 292
rn. 0 16, 333
16,925, 459
15, 454, 384
15, Ill.\ , 702
13,472, 610
13, 716, 641
Jr,, 264,911
11,769,495
16. 2
15. 1
13. 6
12. 3
12. I
10. 7
10,9
12. 1
9, 4
IQ34
Janua ry . . •• .....•• . •• . ••.
February .. . . . ....• •..•...
March .. . . ........ ... . . .. .
N'at.: : :::::::: : :::::::: :
June . . . .. ........ . ...... ..
J uly ...... . .. . .......... ..
August. • . ..
Rt> ptemher . . .. : : : : : :::::: :
Octolx>r
Novt•m ber __ : : :: : : : :::: :: :
ne"'mher • .... •. .. . . •....
1935
fonuory ...... .. ..... .. ...
February . . .... . ...•..... .
t~i,••=••••••••••:•••I
September . ....• . . •.••.•..
Octoher --···· ... ... . . . . . . 1
N ovember . . ........ . . . . .. .
Deoomher .. . ... ... ... . ··-1
I
2, IJ\l l , 5.111
3, l iS, 468
3, t187, OK\I
4, 4M, 07 1
4, 4,fi{}, 244
4,334, 072
4, :J02. l:l8
4,617, H6
4,736, 846
4, 812, 39:1
5, 002, ,',4 .~
!I, 279, 97!,
2,51 5, 087
2, 618, 461
3, 0-1 2.~07
3, 711,1, 046
3. Stl2, :iMi
3, 7!i1, ~07
3, 834, 103
4, 031 , 070
4, Of\2, 7M
4,071 . ~Of,
4,212, 446
4. 4S8, 065
6, -1vu. a:u1
5, 473,02 1
5, 4Yl. i f>5
s, 367, :ms
5, 184, 393 I
4, 814,752
4,392, 108
4, 2M, 11 6
3 , 93!1, 004
3, H 2, 132
3, 480, 02.'i
2, 617, 372
4,616, !182
4, &.lifi, 3[.,()
4, 587, :511
4, 4&1 , 846
4, 301 , 182
4, 018, 313
3,678, MO
3, 5.'>4, .~f\:I
:1, 2f>1, 2r,o
3, 085, 31:l
2, 85.1, 8 7t1
2, 084, 878
476,452
560, 007
586,376
674,005
740, 587
700, 099
82 1, 910
II, 224,01 0
11, 739, ll83
13, 71 5, 211
16,957, 922
17, 201, 400
16, 823, 562
17,190,695
18,107,006
18, Til, 868
18, 300, 510
18, 940, 150
20,052, IOI
873, 34:1
887, 671
904 , 41\4
002, ;,49
88.1. 211
796, 439
713, 1>59
60'1, M3 I
670. i M
M 6 , 81\l
626, 149
532,494
20,685,471
20,610,941
20,573,MI
20, 034 , 209
19, 264,431
Ii, 932. 478
16 , 149, 6-17
15, M4, US5
14, 234 . 3\li
13. 4.:\.\ 2.C,8
12, 386, :173
8, 01 7, 8\li-
644, 282
002, 025
fi.',i) ,
888
582, 865
1\58, 035
I
I
I
I
8. 9
9. 3
10. 8
13. 4
13. 6
13. 3
13. 6
14. 3
U.4
U.5
16. 0
15,8
16,2
16. 2
16. 1
15. 7
15. 1
14. I
12. 7
12. 2
11.2
10. 5
Q, j
7. 0
1211, 873
1411, 1111
164,'44
174, 138
187, ~
196,061
~173
221,714
236, 1103
266, 790
288, 1166
297, 0118
300, 41111
299,509
293, 676
273, 824
263, 668
253,340
245, 266
218,722
157,634
112,2n
64, 409
' Data for months from 1anuary through 1une 1933 are partly estimated.
• Based on estimated population M ol July 1 of each year.
• Figures obtained from mldmonthly census; coml)8J'Bble data not available for months prior to
February 11134.
Bouroe: Division or Btatlstloa, W orlt Projects Administration, W ashlngton, D, C.
FERA OBJECTIVES
From the beginning of the FERA program several major objectives
were continuously stressed by the agency. One of the principal
reasons for the establishment of Federal grants for relief was the fa.ct
\ ~ that relief funds in virtually all localities were insufficient. An out. , standing objective therefore was to encourage and, insofar as funds
" Bee also figure, p. XV.
□ig,1,zed by Google
Frderal Work!. lg,,,,..v (f'rv•>r).
Drought.
Severe droughts WPre among t ht> l]C\:eral f::wt o:·s int ensifyi ng the troubles caused
hy low pricPs.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF IN 1933 •
25
were available, make possible the provision of more adequate relief
throughout the country.
The remaining major objectives of the FERA can best be understood when it is realized that the broad relief problem of 1933 WBB a
compound of many previously existing kinds of relief problems.
The great stream of need wBB being fed by such tributaries BB the
unemployed, the underemployed, transients, destitute farmers, and fa.rm
workers,thea.ged,motherswithdependentchildren,youth,strandedrural
groups, and other special types. Each of the above broad groups, of
course, was itself ma.de up of widely differing types of individuals, whose
needs varied greatly and whose destitution was traceable to many
differing causes. Thus the needs of the unemployed unskilled
worker differed greatly from those of the jobless white-collar worker;
the relief problem of the urban unemployed worker was not the same
as that of his rural and small-town brother. Farmers on relief wer0
destitute for a wide variety of reasons; top-heavy debts, barren soil,~
severe droughts, and la.ck of equipment, seed, and stock were among~the special factors intensifying the troubles caused by low agricultural
prices.
The differentiation of the various relief groups and the establishment of special programs and policies designed to fit their individual
needs were accordingly undertaken as far as conditions permitted.
A major objective of the FERA was the development of work-relief) /
programs for the employable workers on relief rolls. In some areas~
this merely involved the continuation, revision, and expansion of\
existing local work-relief programs. A large-scale direct-relief program_..,
was instituted for those unable to work or for whom work projects
1
could not be devised. The rural rehabilitation program of the FERA) 'A, - · <. • ·( ,_ ,•
was created to ca.re for segments of the destitute rural group. In ( -'JI( -,_: addition, such special activities as a transient program, an ·,
emergency education program, and a college student aid program were )
instituted. The number of cases aided on these programs and
the obligations incurred a.re shown in appendix tables 2 and 3. 11
As has been indicated, the FERA sought to direct the use of
Federal funds through the issuance of regulations accompanying
grants of funds to the States. These regulations were issued from
time to time throughout the existence of the FERA; 12 certain of the
broad rules la.id down at the outset, relating to the types and a.mount
of relief to be given, a.re sketched here because they tend to throw
light upon the general setting in which the various programs were
carried out.
See table 1, p. 24, for the number of persons aided on the transient program.
summaries of all of the important written regulations, etc., issued by the
FERA for State guidance are to be found in Carothers, Doris, ChrOfl<Jlogy of the
Fe~al E-rgency Relief Admini&tration, Research Monograph VI, Division of
Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937.
11
11
Digitized by
Google
26 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Rule No. 3 of the FERA issued on July 11, 1933, indicated that
States might authorize local relief agencies to use Federal funds for
any or all of the following types of relief or their equivalent in cash:
(1) Food, and/or food orders or allowance, determined by the number, ages,
and needs of the individual members of the family in general acoordance with
standard food schedules.
(2) Orders or allowances for the provision of shelter, or its equivalent, where
necessary.
(3) Orders or allowances for light, gas, fuel, and water for current needs.
(4) Orders or allowances for necessary household supplies.
(5) Clothing or orders or allowances for clothing sufficient for emergency needs.
(6) Orders or allowances for medicine, medie&I supplies, and/or medie&I attendance to be furnished in the home.
1
1
In making the above necessities available, the States were required
by Rule No. 3 to "see to it that all such needy unemployed persons
and/or their dependents shall receive sufficient relief to prevent
physical suffering and to maintain minimum living standards." The
actual amounts granted were to be computed on the following basis:
(1) An estimate of the weekly needs of the individual or family including an
allowance for food sufficient to maintain physie&I well-being, for shelter, the
provision of fuel for cooking and for warmth when necessary, medie&I care and
other necessities. Taxes may be allowed in lieu of allowances for shelter, and not
to exceed the normal rent allowanee--providing such tax allowance is necessary
in order to maintain the shelter or home of the relief recipient.
(2) An estimate of the weekly income of the family, including wages or other
cash income, produce of farm or garden, and all other resources.
(3) The relief granted should be sufficient to provide the estimated weekly
needs to the extent that the family is unable to do so from its own resources.
The budgetary deficiency principle thus became an integral part of
FERA procedure at the outset. It should be remembered that this
principle was applicable to those on work relief as well as to those
receiving direct relief.
It is impossible to make any sweeping statements for the United
States as a whole concerning "adequacy" of relief during the period
of FERA grants. 11 It may be said, however, that most local relief
agencies gave special attention to food. This budgetary item appears
to have been covered more adequately than such other requirements
as shelter, light and heat, clothes, and household articles. During
the period 1930-1932 many localities had not been able, for financial
reasons, to allot a regular sum in the budget for rent. Nearly all
States came to include a regular rent item in the budget during 1934
and 1935. During these years of FERA grants there was also a
11 See Nicol, Mary Aylett, "Family Relief Budgets," MontAly Report of IM
Federal Emer(lfflcy Relief Adminiatration, June 1 Thro'Ul/h June ~O, 19~8, Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 140-156. See also Baird, Enid and Brinton, Hugh P.,
AHra,e 0-al Relief Benefit,, 19SS-19S8, Divisions of Research and Statistica,
Worb Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1940, table 3, p. 12.
Digitized by
Google
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF IN 1933 • 27
steady improvement in the manner in which other budgetary items
were met.
Some idea of the increased "adequacy" of relief during the period
1933-1935 may be gained from an examination of the statistics on
average relief benefits. Whenever possible the Federal relief agency
adjusted its grants to States so as to effect a gradual leveling upward
of relief allowances in areas where relief was particularly inadequate.
Under the FERA the average amount of relief extended per case
(families and single persons) for the country as a whole increased
from $14.13 in May 1933 to a peak of $28.13 in January 1935. 14
In interpreting the above averages, of course, it should be borne in
mind that they include a number of cases where only supplementary
assistance was given, and that some cases received relief during only
part of a month. Actually, therefore, the average benefits given to
cases completely dependent upon relief in January 1935, for example,
were higher than the $28.13 shown in the table as an over-all average.
Nevertheless, it may be said in general that, despite a substantial
rise in relief averages under the FERA, the total funds distributed
were not enough to permit the achievement of adequate standards
in all areas.
EARLY FERA WORK RELIEF
To clarify the following discuBBion of the early FERA work program,
a distinction must be drawn at the outset between the old "work test"
and the FERA conception of work relief. The work test was devised,
long before 1929, to suit economic conditions of the nineteenth century, when able-bodied persons seeking relief were considered pri,ma.
Jw to be malingerers. As a prerequisite to the granting of poor
relief, therefore, applicants during that era were often required to
perform a certain amount of disagreeable work, usually on a woodpile.
The amount of relief given had little to do with the amount of work
performed. The work test was essentially just what its name impliee-a test of the willingness of an individual to perform arduous
physical labor-a showing that the applicant was not work-shy.
Work relief has entirely different philosophical roots. It is base,f'
on the theory that needy workers may be jobless through no fault of.
their own; work relief is provided not primarily as a test of willingness l_)
to labor but rather as a means of conserving the skills, work habits,.,
and morale of the able-bodied unemployed. Work-relief projects,
unlike the old work tests, are not conceived of merely as a means of
frightening off applicants for relief. True work-relief undertakings,
therefore, cannot be selected in haphazard fashion; emphasis is placed,
H Appendix table 4 ahows the average relief benefits by month, January 1933
through December 1935. See also Baird and Brinton, op. cit.
Digitized by
Google
,.
28 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
rather, on securing projects which when completed will be of value to
the community.
Many work-relief projects had, of course, been organized and put
into operation by local and State governments during 1932 and early
1933. Well over 1 million persons were already employed on emergency work programs of one sort or another in the early summer of
1933 at which time the FERA began to urge the Nation-wide adoption
of certain minimum standards for work relief.
Prior to the FERA the work programs in many States and localities
had shown a curious mixture of work-test and work-relief principles. 11
In some localities good work programs were in operation. In other
areas, particularly where there was lack of funds and of experience, the
projects were more in the nature of work tests. In addition, both
total and hourly wage rates on these early local work projects were
often very low, and the amount of work required bore little relationship to the wages offered. Few attempts were made, moreover, to
provide jobs in line with the past experience of the relief workers.
White-collar workers and skilled workers were lumped with unskilled
labor and put to work on such old "reliables" as sprucing up parks
and repairing roads. Leck of funds or unwillingness to purchase
materials often went hand in hand with inefficient supervision, and
resulted in projects of limited value.
When the Federal relief agency assumed its task in 1933, it took
the position that every encouragement should be given to the continuation and expansion of good local work programs but that Federal
funds should not be supplied for the continuation of programs whose
value to the workers and their communities appeared to be slight.
Certain broad rules were therefore laid down by the FERA in the
summer of 1933 concerning work-relief wages, hours, types of projects,
and similar matters.
Actual progress toward better work programs was extremely slow
during the period from June through October 1933. At that point,
for various reasons, it was decided that the Federal Government itself
should undertake an experiment in providing work for the unemployed.
The following chapter deals with the Federal Civil Works Administration (CWA), which had an important influence upon all subsequent work programs. Chapter V deals with the work program that
was begun under the FERA in 1934 as the CWA drew to a ctose, and
also outlines the progress of the FERA toward its other major objective of diversification through special programs.
11 See Colcord, Joanna C., Koplovitz, William C., and Kurtz, Russell H.,
Emergency Work Relief, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1932.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Chapter IV
THE CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM
THE DECISION to inaugurate a large-6Ca.le Federal work program
during the winter of 1933-34 may be traced to several major factors.•
First, and perhaps most important, there was a growing fear in the
fall of 1933 that there might be a resumption of the deflationary trend
which had caused so much trouble in the period 1930-1932. Prompted
largely by a fear that NRA codes would result in higher prices, a
small boom had taken place in the early summer of 1933 with a consequent increase in employment. In the fall, however, production
declined sharply and unemployment figures began ro tum upward
again. Hope had existed that the construction program of the Public
Works Administration would be furnishing considerable direct and
indirect employment by the winter of 1933-34. Early in October,
however, it became apparent that the PWA, a newly created agency,
could not avoid being delayed by the many legal and other problems
inherent in placing in operation its non-Federal program of heavy
construction. t
The Civil Works Program was proposed as a combined recovery
and relief measure. It was expected ro stimulate further recovery
through the injection of purchasing power into the economic system
in a short period of time, and to alleviate the critical unemployment
relief situation of the winter of 1933-34.
The Civil Works Administration was created on November 9, 1933,
by Executive order I of the President under authority of the National
Industrial Recovery Act. • The Administrator of the FERA was, by
1 See Gill, Corrington, "The Civil Works Administration," The Municipal
Year Book, 1987, Chicago: The International City Managers' Association, 1937,
pp. 419-432.
1 See statement of Ickes, Harold L., Procudino• of tM General Meetino and
&ecutioe Meetino, Federal Civil Works Administration, Washington, D. C.,
November 15, 1933, pp. 27 ff. The PWA program is outlined in ch. VII.
1 No. 6420-B.
• Approved June 16, 1933 (o. 90, 48 Stat. 195).
t9
30 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
the same order, named to head the new work organization. The
next day State emergency relief administrators were instructed to
act as State civil works administrators. On November 16 the first
transfers of relief workers from the FERA work program to the Civil
Works Program were made.
The number of persons furnished employment under the Civil
Works Program grew by leaps and bounds during the first several
weeks of its operation. Civil Works employment stood at slightly
over 800,000 persons for the week ending November 23. Statistics
for the week ending December 7 show almost 2 million persons
employed. Nearly all of these workers were transferees from the
early FERA work-relief program. A week later more than 2,700,000
persons were on the CWA rolls. The peak of the program was
reached during the week ending January 18, 1934, at which time more
than 4,260,000 persons were at work. As had been planned at the
outset, about half of this total number was composed of employable
persons who had been transferred from State emergency relief rolls;
the remainder were drawn from the ranks of unemployed workers
who had not previously had to apply for relief.•
In line with original plans, the Civil Works Program was tapered
off rapidly as the spring of 1934 approached. For the week ending
March 1 employment stood at about 2,900,000; for the week ending
March 29 employment had been further cut by about 1 million. As
may be seen from an examination of table 2, only a few projects
(chiefly federally sponsored) were in operation in May and June, and
on July 14 the program was officially closed.
It will perhaps aid in an understanding of the Civil Works Program
if it be emphasized that the FERA and the CWA were separate organizations. This fact is sometimes overlooked because of the close
cooperation and dovetailing of activities during the simultaneous
operation of the two programs. Throughout the existence of the
CWA, the FERA continued to make grants to States to assist them
in conducting their direct-relief programs. The work-relief activities
of the State and local relief agencies (financed in part through FERA
grants) were greatly curtailed during the period of active operation
of the Civil Works Program, and a considerable portion of the personnel which had been operating these programs in the States was
transferred to the State and local Civil Works Administrations.
However, the Civil Works Administration and the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, although operating simultaneously, and
with much the same personnel, were legally quite distinct.
• In allocating jobs under the program to the Statea the CWA made use of a
rough formula weighted three-fourths according to State population and onefourth on the number of relief recipients in the State.
Digitized by
Google
OVIL WORKS PROGRAM • 31
T"le !.-Number of Persons Working and Amount of Eamlngs on All Projec:ts, Civil
Works Program, Continental United States, by WHk, November 23, 1933-July 14,
193-4
Week~
...
Number al Amount of
peraolll
•orklllc'
Total•••••••••••••••
S7411,6'2,4MI
Nonmber21.............
Nonmber 111.•..•••••••..
814,611
1,611, llll
7, IIOII, 136
14, 6111, 737
0-1>11'7 ••••••••••••••
0 - b l r l L .•••.••..•..
0 - b l r 21-·-········0-Ublr •... ·······---
1,07&,&26
2,nft,1&7
l,'18,O1
I, 1132, 120
24,808,671
34,844,802
48, IIOII, 1174
47, 2U0,'82
l,848,047
4,0IM, 758
4, 3113, SM
4, lM,177
64, 117,'82
l'ebraary 16••••••••••••••
I, 1115, 406
I, 875,279
I, 787, 1186
41,174,0IIO
'6,:1111,337
44, 0'°, 1I06
l,dl, 712
18,eo&, 308
Mum!.•••••••••••••••••
Marchi••••••••••••••••••
1,002,287
1,666,307
18,581,066
13,630, lM
JIM
1--,-4••••••••••••••••
1Ul'IJlll'J' 11••••••••••••••.
1Ul'IJlll'J' 18•••••••••••••••
1UIDU'J' •- ••••••••••••••
l'ebruarJ' 1•••••••••••••••
l'ebruarJ' 8 •••••••••••••••
l'ebnlarJ' 11.. •............
Week endlnc-
eunlup•
&1,813,7111
M, 18G,IIOB
47, H7, 119
Number al Amount al
peraolll
W'CJl'kiDcl
lllGH-ConUnaed
eaminpl
March 11•••••••••••••••••
March n.. ...••.••••..•...
March ••••••••••••••••••
1,432.5"
2,149,406
1,IMK,CMO
11,1182,0DO
April 6 •••••••••••••••••••
April 12•••••••••••••••••.
April 111 ••••••••••••••••••
April 311 ••••••••••••••••••
1,179,146
lOf, 6111
72,863
1111,831
12,11113, 210
1,9114,67&
1,442,182
1,221, 7&1
MaJ' 8.•••••••••••••••••••
MaJ' 10.••••••••••••••••••
May 17..•••••••••••••••••
MaJ' :K.. ••••••••••••••••••
May 11. .•••••••••••••••••
40,757
18,559
11, 1179
10,313
8, 1112
111118 7••••••••••••••••••••
111118 14•••••••••••••••••••
7,3V8
8,8'5
8,475
6,886
189, 2113
176, 1110
1&6, 01&
HB,"8
~~~
6,029
4,522
1,846
123,BM
114,935
June 21 .••••••••••••••••••
June 28...................
~2 ••....•••••••••••••
1a1,. 1a anc1 "·-········--
211, 172, 6111
'Zl,Ollll,m
e68,&81
330, '118
289,2'11
264,623
236,570
18,834
1 Ineludes 1 1 1 ~ and admlnlstra&lve (nolualve al c,ent;raJ office) penonnel.
• Inclades Wapll of operators and hire al teame, vacka, and eqalpment.
l!oan!e: BrownJ.. Pamela, .A.11111,,1, of CI..U Worb Pro,ra• Blotllliel, Worll:1 P ~ Admlnllltratlon,
Wllbblctoa, D, l.'., 1une 1111111, table■ 1 uid I, pp. 17 and 111.
The Civil Works Program has been of great interest, not only to
the economist and the sociologist, but to students of public administration and more particularly to those interested in Feder.al-Statelocal relationships.• A major point of distinction between the Civil
Works Program and the Federal-State-local program of the FERA
may be seen in the fact that the former was federally operated.
The "Federal" aspects of the CWA program have perhaps been
overemphasized. It is true that, in the last analysis, the CWA at
Washington exerted considerable control over the operation of the
Civil Works Program. This control was exercised primarily through
its subdivisions-the various State and local Civil Works Administrations. Considerable Federal control was possible because the
personnel of the CWA, both in its State and in its local offices, were
Federal employees.
On the other hand, States and localities played an important part
in the operation of the CWA program. Most of the work projects
• Until 1932 and the passage of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act,
no Federal-local contacts of great significance had been established. The old
line grant method, based on Federal-State contacts, had been consistently utilized.
The CW A constituted a major link in the new chain of Federal-local relationships.
Bee Betters, Paul V., Williams, J. Kerwin, and Reeder, Sherwood L., Recent
Federal-City lulationa, Washington, D. C.: The United States Conference of
Mayors, 1936.
Digitized by
Google
32 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
were planned and sponsored by localities or States; in a few instances
projects were sponsored by various Federal agencies. To the sponsor
went the important task of drawing up plans for a given undertaking
and presenting it for approval to the local and then to the State Civil
Works Administration. Final approval necessary to commencement
of work on projects proposed by local and State governments was
vested in the various State Civil Works Administrations.
Certain general principles and policies concerning work projects
were outlined at the outset by the Civil Works Administrator. All
· work was to be of social and economic value and to be performed on
public property. All projects were to be operated by force account
rather than by contract. Projects were not to be approved if they
involved performance of work normally done by States or localities
or if they might be financed through Public Works Administration
grants or loans. Many localities had become impoverished during
the depression, however, and were unable to carry on their normal
functions of repairing public buildings, schools, streets, sewers, water
mains, etc. The Civil Works Administration therefore accepted
these types of projects for operation where it was obvious that the
work was essential and could not be performed without assistance
from the Civil Works Administration.
The original 400 million dollars which was used to finance CWA
operations was made available to that agency through Executive
order, from funds appropriated under the National Industrial Recovery Act. Because of certain restrictions concerning the use of funds
appropriated under this act, the CWA was obliged to limit its activities
to construction or to such white-collar projects as the planning of
construction projects for subsequent operation. However, since
construction projects were not suitable for the large numbers of unemployed white-collar workers, a Civil Works Service Program was set up
in order to make possible the operation of nonconstruction projects.
Funds were provided to State relief organizations through grants by
the FERA. Both the CWA and the CWS programs were administered
by the State Civil Works Administrations.7 When new funds were
appropriated for the Civil Works Program the money was made available both for construction and nonconstruction purposes; 8 CWS projects then were transferred directly to the Civil Works Program.
7
The statistics presented here cover both CW A and CWS projects.
See Act approved February 15, 1934 (c. 93, 48 Stat. 351). Ultimately $337,000,000 under this act was made available to CW A by Executive order. Through
a transfer of FERA funds made available under the 1933 act, $88,960,000 was
furnished to the CW A. The total of sponsors' contributions came to nearly
91 million dollars and some FERA grants were also used by States to finance CWS
operations. See Burns, Arthur E., "Federal Financing of Emergency Relief,"
Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Febrt.JaT71 1 Tlwou,11.
February B9, 1936, Washington, D. C., 1936, pp. 1-9.
1
Digitized by
Google
CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM • 33
The Civil Works Program resulted in the expenditure of a total of
about $951,650,000. Of this total the Federal Government provided
$860,403,000, local governments provided about $84,638,000, and the
balance was contributed from State funds.•
The CWA rules on hourly wage rates, hours of labor, etc., announced
on November 15, 1933, stated specifically that the Civil Works Administration would observe certain labor provisions established by
the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works (PWA) for
its program. In accordance with this principle, Rules and Regulations No. 1 of the CWA io stated that all persons employed on the program (with the exception of those in executive, supervisory, or clerical
positions) were to work a maximum of 8 hours a day, 30 hours a week,
and 130 hours per month. 11
The PWA zone system was accepted with respect to hourly wage
rates. Under this system the 48 States were classified into 3 zones,
and minimum hourly wage rates for skilled and unskilled labor on
projects in each zone were set as follows: 11
Southern Zone Central Zone
BkfllecL .•.. _. ______ ____ ___ ___ _. ____ __ ___ _______ ____ __ ___
UnakWed ___ ___________ ______ ___ __ __ _____ ___ ___ ________ _
$1.00
. 40
$1.10
.46
Northern Zone
$1.30
.80
CWA rules provided that where prevailing rates exceeded these
zone rates the higher rate was to be paid. The hourly wage rates
fixed by the various State highway departments were adopted for
CWA road projects. Semiskilled workers received hourly wages
established in accordance with local prevailing wages for these occupations. A prevailing ''weekly wage" was set for clerical and whitecollar work with the provision that weekly rates were in no case to
be set below $18, $15, and $12, in the Northern, Central, and Southern
zones, respectively.
The wages paid to CWA workers were, of course, somewhat higher
than the earnings of the relief workers on the preceding FERA program. On the other hand it should be remembered that the $1.20
• Appendix table 5 gives the totals expended in each State, by source of funds.
11 For the complete text of this rule, see Carothers, Doris, Chrono'logy of The
Federal Emergency Relief Adminiatration, Research Monograph VI, Division of
Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937, p. 29.
11 Certain modifications were permitted in remote areas where such a schedule
was not feasible. See Bums, Arthur E., "Work Relief Wage Policies, 19301936," Monthly Report of tA6 Federal Emergency Relief Adminiatration, June 1
Through June SO, 19S6, Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 23-29.
11 This original wage scale was dropped on March 2, 1934, chiefly because the zone
minimum rates were found sometimes to be in excess of prevailing rates in the
locality. The new policy provided for the payment of prevailing rates but set a
minimum of 30 cents per hour.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
34 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
top per hour and the earnings of a few highly skilled workers were
exceptional; the average hourly CWA rates and earnings were far
below these isolated examples. For the week ending January 11, 1934,
for example, only 4.2 percent of all CWA workers were earning $1.20
or more per hour. Almost 80 percent were earning less than 55 cents
per hour. Because of limited hours worked, average weekly eamings
per worker on the program for this sample week were $15.
By order of January 18, 1934, because of a shortage of funds, maximum hours were sharply reduced to 24 ho\11'8 per week in cities of
2,500 population or over and to 15 hours per week in smaller places.
As a result, average weekly earnings dropped to $11.32 for the week
ending January 25. By this time it had become necessary for many
CWA workers responsible for the support of large families to apply for
supplementary relief to bring their incomes up to a minimum budgetary standard. u
As has been indicated, the great majority of projects operated under
the Civil Works Program were sponsored by cities, towns, and villages
and were designed to meet existing community needs. By far the
largest group of projects, accounting for about one-third of all expenditures, involved work on highways, roads, and streets. Approximately 255,000 miles of highways, roads, and streets were repaired or
built; of this total, 160,000 miles were of the farm-to-market type.
Road work varied from such routine repair work as filling in holes and
leveling shoulders to new construction and paving.
Repair and construction of public buildings constituted the next
largest group of projects operated under the Civil Works Program.
These projects and the road projects together represented almost
one-half of all project costs. Approximately 60,000 public buildings
were repaired or constructed; of this total more than half were buildings devoted to educational purposes. School buildings were rehabilitated throughout the country in urban and rural areas. In some
instances where repair was impossible new buildings were erected.
School grounds were graded, planted, and made attractive. Athletic
fields, stadiums, and swimming pools were built, parks were improved
and developed, and other recreational facilities expanded.
A wide variety of administrative, professional, and clerical projects
was instituted. These included such projects as providing clerks and
machine operators in Weather Bureau stations, surveying and relocating boundary lines, plotting streets, and drafting charts, maps, and
diagrams.
The Federal projects, under the supervision of Federal departments
and bureaus, provided the greatest number of positions for the
11 For a discuesion of CWA statistics, see Brown, Pamela, Analyn, ti/ Oiclil
Worh Program Statiat~s, Division of St.atistica, Works Progress Administration,
Washington, D. C., June 1939.
Digitized by
Google
CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM• 35
nonmanual and professional workers. An outstanding example was
the Real Property Inventory sponsored by the Department of
Commerce. This project gave work to about 11,000 men and women
and furnished basic data for 60 cities concerning the financial phases
of real property, the extent of use, vacancy, overcrowding, etc. Other
Federal projects provided work on experiment stations of the Department of Agriculture, in Army and Navy posts and stations, in Government fish hatcheries, and on projects of the Tennessee Valley Authority,
and the Soil Erosion Service.
A fair appraisal of the Civil Works Program must take into consideration the emergency conditions under which it was operated.
In 2 months the program reached its employment peak of over
4,200,000 persons, and it was practically terminated at the end of 4¼
months. A major difficulty encountered was the planning of projects.
In those localities where advance planning for public construction was
in effect, the program operated with a large measure of success. In
other areas where planning was nonexistent and imagination and
initiative were lacking, poorly conceived projects were undertaken.
The inauguration of the program during the winter months likewise
made extremely difficult the prosecution of many of the construction
projects. On the whole, however, the completed projects were of
definite value to the communities. Moreover, the experience gained
on the program was valuable for the development of later programs.
As a means of providing aid to the unemployed, the Civil Works
Program was highly effective. 14 Finally, although exact statistical
proof cannot be adduced, the purchasing power released by the program appears to have been a distinct boon to business generally.
14
See Gill, op. cil., pp. 419 ff.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Digitized by
Goos Ie
Chapter V
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF
PRO GR AM, 1934-1935
PREPARATORY TO the liquidation of the Civil Works Program,
the FERA began to issue instructions early in March 1934 concerning
the initiation of a new work-relief program to be operated jointly by
the FERA and the States. 1 This new program, known as the Emergency Work Relief Program, was placed in operation in April as the
CWA drew to a close. Work was provided for about 1,100,000 persons
in April; employment totals advanced slowly thereafter month by
month, reaching a peak of nearly 2,500,000 persons in January 1935.
By December 1935, when the new work program of the WPA (see
chapter VII) was well under way and the FERA was making its last
general grants, the program had dwindled to 60,000.
The Emergency Work Relief Program, like the work-relief program
of the FERA prior to the Civil Works Program, was operated under
the grant technique. Thus, as indicated in chapter III, the FERA
made grants of funds to State emergency relief administrations for
the operation of both direct- and work-relief programs. These funds
became State funds when receipted for by the State Governor. In
general, the FERA encouraged States, whenever possible, to provide
work rather than direct relief for employables. Further utilizing its
powers as a dispenser of relief funds, the FERA, through its Work
Division, laid down broad rules 2 concerning the types of projects
1 In order to effect the transition between the CWA and the Emergency Work
Relief Program with as little hardship as possible, the liquidation of the Civil
Works Program was begun as early as February in some sections of the country.
In general, the reductions in Civil Works employment through March were
accomplished primarily by discharging members of families with other workers
employed or with other resources.
1 See WD-1, issued March 6, 1934.
For an account of this rule, see Carothers,
Doris, Chronowgy of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Research
Monograph VI, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration,
Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 49-50.
37
□ig,1,zed by Google
38 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
which might be operated 88 well 88 regulations concerning hoUl'B of
labor and working conditions.
While the FERA could to some extent channel or guide the broad
course of the Emergency Work Relief Program in the various States,
actual administration and primary control over the work program
were in State and local hands. 1 This fact of primary control by State,
and more particularly local, relief administrations is obvious in view
of the role played by them with respect to employment of workers
and the initiation of projects.
How did destitute employable individuals or families with an
employable member secure work relief? The focal point of intake
for all relief programs, work or direct, was the social service division
of the local relief administration. It was this division which determined the eligibility of all applicants for relief.' It investigated
need, determined the budgetary deficiency of the family, certified an
employable member (if there was one) to the local work division,
administered direct relief, and made periodic reinvestigations of needboth of families receiving direct relief and those on work relief. In
short, it was the local social service division which in effect determined whether an individual was eligible for work relief and which,
on the basis of the budgetary deficiency, in effect set the total wages
which each relief worker was to receive.
The operation of the work program was a joint Federal-State
venture. The task of administering it was entrusted to the Work
Division of the FERA and corresponding divisions of the various
State and local relief administrations. Projects, to be acceptable,
had to fall within one of the major categories declared eligible by the
FERA, and work on them had to be carried on in accordance with
certain broad principles laid down by the Federal relief agency.•
However, actual planning of projects, selection of projects for operation, and managing of activities necessary for the c.ompletion of
projerts were in State and local hands.
Each project had to have a "sponsor." The sponsor was usually
one of the regular agencies of the State or local government, such as
the board of county commissioners, the local city engineering department, the town council, or the State department of education or conservation. Occasionally the project was sponsored by the State or
local work division itself or by some other division of the relief agency.
Responsibility for the supervision of the project was entrusted to the
1
For a discussion of the advantages of the WPA method, eee ch. VII.
' The Jocal offices, of course, were under the general supervision of ~e aocial
service divisions of the respective SERA's; the State agencies in turn received
general guidance from the FERA.
6
For example, the Federal relief agency required that all project.a be carried
on by force account (day labor), that needy women be given equal conaideration
with needy men, etc.
0,9,1,zed by
Google
For Education.
5,000 schools, libraries, and other p 11 hlic buildings were eonst ruct,.d and well
over 30,000 were improved under the EmergcncyWork Relief Program.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Goog Ie
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF 1934-1935 • 39
public body sponsoring the project, although this duty was occasionally
vested in the work division.
When making an application in support of a given project the
sponsor was required to give full details concerning the engineering
specifications, etc., of the work to be done, the estimated cost, the
number of relief workers who would be given employment, and the
economic and social value of the project to the community or State.
If approved by the local ERA, the application was sent to the State
relief administration for final approval. Projects did not go to
Washington for approval, with the exception of certain statistical and
survey projects for which Federal approval was required in order to
avoid duplication and to make certain that comparable data were
being secured in the various States.
The types of projects carried on under the Emergency Work Relief
Program were substantially the same as those operated under the
CWA. Indeed, many of the unfinished CWA projects were completed
under the Emergency Work Relief Program. In all, about 240,000
projects, representing a total cost of nearly $1,300,000,000 were
carried on under the Emergency Work Relief Program.•
What public facilities were secured through the expenditure of this
large sum? Only a few major categories can be mentioned briefly
here. About 27 percent of all the funds made available to the program was spent on the construction or improvement of highways,
roads, and streets; 44,000 miles of new road were constructed and over
200,000 miles of road were repaired. As another example, public
buildings accounted for almost 200 million dollars, or 15 percent of all
funds expended; over 5,000 new public buildings were constructed
under the program, including such types as municipal garages, firehouses, hospitals, armories, and schools. Repair and improvement
work was performed on well over 30,000 public buildings.
As has been indicated, employment on the Emergency Work Relief
Program 7 reached a peak of nearly 2¼ million in January 1935.
(See appendix table 2.) Employment totals fell slowly during the
first half of 1935 to about 2 million in July. During the first half of
1935 approximately 45 percent of all relief cases received work-relief
benefits, while the remainder received direct relief. The program
was virtually brought to an end during the second half of 1935, when
FERA grants were terminated and Federal work activities were
• These totals do not include the amounts expended on FERA work-relief
projects prior to the CW A, nor do they include CWA or WP A work expendituree.
' For a very complete report of the activities conducted under the Emergency
Work Relief Program, eee "The Emergency Work Relief Program of the FERA,
April 1, 1934-July 1, 1935," mbmitted by the Work Division of the FERA to
the Administrator. The report ia bued on mat.erial obtained from report. of
Btat.e adminiakaton.
Digitized by
Google
40 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
carried forward through the program of the WPA and other emergency work programs.•
Since it was not always possible to secure relief workers with t-he
requisite skills to operate certain projects, limited numbers of persons
without relief status, but with the special skills nece.."IBary to the efficient conduct of the projects, were sometimes employed. The number
of such nonrelief workers on the Emerg~ncy Work Relief Program was
always low, however. It has been estimated that during the week
ending September 20, 1934, a typical week, they numbered less than
5 percent of all workers on the Emergency Work Relief Program.•
As has been indicated, earnings under the Emergency Work Relief
Program were limited to the budgetary deficiency of the family or
household. The problem of wages serves as an important point of
distinction between the Civil Works Program and the Emergency
Work Relief Program. While all employees under the CWA were
allowed to work the same number of hours during any given week, the
hours of work of relief workers under the Emergency Work Relief
Program were limited to the number required to earn their individual
budgetary allowances. During the period from April 1934 through the
middle of 1935 earnings for all workers averaged $28 per month. The
hourly wage policy in effect at the cloRe of the Civil Works Program
was, however, retained by the FERA for some time. This wage policy,
it will be recalled, 10 provided for the payment of the prevailing hourly
rate with a 30-cent minimum. The FERA maintained the prevailing
rate concept to the end of the Emergency Work Relief Program but
discontinued the 30-cent minimum clause on November 19, 1934.11
DIRECT RELIEF
Throughout this period of work-relief activities, first under the
FERA, then under the CWA, and again under the FERA, directrelief benefits were given to more than half the total cases on emergency relief rolls. Those receiving direct relief included many unemployable persons (although some States had removed unemployables
from the emergency relief rolls)u as well as many employables for
1
See ch. VII.
• This fact serves, in part, to distinguish the Emergency Work Relief Program
from the Civil Works Program. It will be recalled that at the peak of the Civil
Works Program about half of the workers did not have relief status.
11 See ch. IV.
11 See Burne, Arthur E., "Work Relief Wage Policies, 1930-1936," Monthl11
Report of tM Federal Emergency Relief Adminiatration, JuM 1 Through June tw,
1956, Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 23-29.
11 In the years 1933-1935 local governments in many areaa continued to extend
outdoor poor relief or categorical relief to unemployable cases independently of
the FERA. It is to these agencies that the unemployables removed from the
emergency relief rolla had to look for assistance.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF 193-4-1935 •
41
whom work relief could not be found. The expansion of work-relief
activities to care for the employable group was sometimes rendered
impracticable by such difficulties as possible competition with private
and regular public enterprise, shortage of funds, insufficient supervisory personnel, or lack of skilled relief labor. 18 Partly because of
these considerations, the State ERA's exercised considerable latitude
in determining the scope and size of their work-relief programs. As, a
result, the proportion of wprk-relief clients to the total number of
cases on the emergency relief rolls varied greatly from State to State.
Many relief clients on the work program during this period had their
work earnings supplemented by direct relief.1' For these and other
reasons the direct-relief program was an essential part of the FERA
program and was continued by the States and localities after the termination of FERA grants at the close of 1935.u
SPEOAL PROGRAMS
As indicated in chapter III, one of the major objectives of the
FERA was diversification of its program to fit the many different
types of need. Thus, in addition to the general relief program (work
and direct relief), the FERA developed certain special programs to
meet some of the problems peculiar to such special groups as farmers,
teachers, transient persons, and youth. (See appendix tables 2 and 3.)
Rural Rehabllltatlon Prosra111
The rural rehabilitation program, inaugurated in April 1934, was
one such undertaking. 18 Prior to that time relief had been given in
rural areas under the emergency relief program of work and direct
11 The budgetary deficiency principle adopted by the FERA was also a source
of difficulty in this connection. Many work projects cannot be successfully operated unless the eupervisor is assured a relatively stable labor supply. Since the
number of work hours was directly determined by the budgetary allowance, it was
frequently necessary to limit work assignments to those relief persons, who, because of their many dependents, had budgetary allowances sufficient in amount to
permit full-time or nearly full-time employment.
H Although the volume of supplementary relief depended in some measure on
seasonal variations in needs, there was a fairly steady increase in the relative
Importance of this type of aid. In March 1935 approximately 930,000 cases, representing over 39 percent of the work-relief force or 18 percent of the total general
relief case load, received direct relief in supplementation of work-relief earnings.
11 For an account of the general relief programs in the States and localities
eubeequent to the FERA, see ch. X.
11 For an account of this program see "The Rural Rehabilitation Program,"
Monthl11 Report of the Federal Emergency R~ie/ Adminutration, Augiut 1 Through
Augu,t llO, 1986, Washington, D. C., 1936, pp. 14-24. For an account of special
aid furnished by the FERA to farmers in drought areas, see Castle, H. H., "Summary of Drought Relief," Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Adminulndion, NOH'lnber 1 Through NOffffllHlr !JQ, 1986, Washington, D. C., 1936, pp.11-23.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
42 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
relief. The rural rehabilitation program was based primarily on the
proposition that a major distinction could be drawn between the rural
destitute and unemployed workers in urban areas. 17 It is clear that
the city worker is more or less completely dependent upon employment. He is often unable to save a substantial sum and when his
job is lost the need for public assistance may follow swiftly. On the
other hand, the farmer in need of public assistance can often be put
back on a self-eustaining basis through the extension of credit. In
short, if he is given credit for some equipment and stock, if his debts
are adjusted, or if he is placed on more fertile land, the farmer e.an
often be rehabilitated. This is precisely what the Rural Rehabilitation Division of the FERA 11 set out to do through its "rehabilitation
in place" activities. Destitute farmers were to be placed on a selfsustaining basis through extension of credit for working capital and
stock, such as cattle, horses, farm equipment, etc., and the adjustment of their debts. Direct assistance in the form of food, clothing,
fuel, medical care, and other necessities was also allowed under the
rural rehabilitation program in emergency eases. This latter type of
direct assistance was not repayable and did not differ in essence from
general relief.
The first advances to farmers for rehabilitation in place were made
in April 1934; during June 1935, the month preceding the transfer of
rural rehabilitation activities to the newly created Resettlement,
17 The reader desiring material on the background and causes of rural destitution, the eocial and economic characteristics of farm operators receiving aaristanoe
under the general relief and rural rehabilitation programs, etc., will find of special
interest the following monographs: Beck, P. 0. and Forster, M. C., S~ Rural
Probum Area,, Research Monograph I, Division of Reaearch, Statistics and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., 1985.
McCormick, Thomas C., Comparati~ Study of Rural Relief and No.Relwj HouaeAolda, Research Monograph II, 1935; Asch, Berta and Mangus, A. R., FtJNMJra
on Relief and Rehabilitation, Research Monograph VIII, 1987; Kifer, R. 8. and
Stewart, H. L., Farming Haaarda in Uae DroU(lht Area, Research Monograph XVI,
1938; Mangus, A. R., Changing Aapem of Rural Relwj, Research Monograph
XIV, 1938; and Zimmerman, Carle C. and Whetten, Nathan L., Rural Familia
on Relief, Research Monograph XVII, 1938, Division of Social Research, Works
Progress Administration. Lively, C. E. and Taeuber, Conrad, Rural Mi(lf'Gti,on
in Uae United Suitu, Research Monograph XIX, 1939; and Melvin, Bruoe L. and
Smith, Elna N., Youth in Agricultural Villagu, Research Monograph XXI, 194.0,
Division of Research, Works Progress Administration. Holley, William C.,
Winston, Ellen, and Woofter, T. J., Jr., TM Plantation South, 1984-19tJ1, Reaearch Monograph XXII, Division of Research, Work Projects Administration,
Federal Works Agency, 1940.
11 Actual administration of the program (subject, of course, to the general rules
laid down by the Rural Rehabilitation Division of the FERA) was a responsibility of the rural rehabilitation divisions which were organized within the State
emergency relief administrations. The State rehabilitation divisiona utilised
permanent legal entities (rural rehabilitation corporations) when purchasing,
selling, or leasing real property or engaging in other business activitie11.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF 19U-1935 • 43
Administration, about 200,000 families received loans. At the time
of this transfer 11 about 364,000 cases were "under care," i. e., they had
received loans for seed, livestock, etc., on which repayments had not
yet been completed.
Fecland 5-pla Relief COlpOfGllon
Another special activity, instituted both to improve the economic
condition of farmers and to improve standards of relief throughout the
country, was the program set up by the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation on October 4, 1933.311 The directors of the Corporation
included the Administrator of the FERA, the Federal Emergency
Administrator of Public Works, the Secretary of Agriculture, and
the Governor of the Farm Credit Administration.
The FSRC program was intended to be of immediate value both to
farmers and to those on relief rolls. Farmers would be assisted by
the removal of huge price-depressing surpluses in certain agricultural
commodities.11 Those on relief would gain by the distribution of
these surplus commodities through State relief organizations. In
order to make certain that relief standards would be raised by distribution of these surplus commodities and to avoid competition with
products for sale in private hands, the FERA ruled that all commodities
must be distributed on an "over-and-above basis," that is, as an
addition to the amount of relief figured on a budgetary-deficiency basis.
ADlong the surplus commodities distributed by the FSRC were .
beef and veal (fresh, boned, and canned), pork and sausage, mutton,
cereals of many sorts, and fruits. Many useful work projects were
instituted by the emergency work divisions of the various States in
connection with surplus commodities. Clothing, towels, bedding, etc.,
were made in women's workrooms from surplus cotton and cotton
textiles; project.a were likewise instituted for the canning of fruits
and vegetables.
·
• The work initiated under the rural rehabilitation program was carried forward
under the Resettlement Administration. Subsequently (January 1, 1937), the
Resettlement Administration was transferred to the Department of Agriculture,
and on September 1, 1937, by order of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Resettlement Administration was renamed the Farm Security Administration.
111 For a more detailed account of the activities of the FSRC, see "The Federal
Surplus Relief Corporation," Monthl11 Report of the Fe<kral Emn"(lenCfl Relief
Adminiatration, JvJ.11 1 Through JvJ.11 61, 1965, Washington, D. C., 1935, ·
pp. 17-30.
11 The FSRC had three main sources of farm commoditiee.
First, the AgricuJtural Adjustment Administration gave the FSRC great quantities of commodities purchased in connection with its crop and price adjustment program. The
Corporation itself, acting as agent for the States, purchased some surplus oommoditiee for distribution. Finally, some local crop-surplus purchases were made
by State relief administrations from funds granted to them by the FERA for
that purpoee.
Digitized by
Google
44 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
In November 1935 the Corporation was given a new name, Federal
Surplus Commodities Corporation, and executive direction (which had
been exercised by the FERA) was vested in the Department of Agriculture. Later, in accordance with the President'sReorganization
Plan No. III, the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation and the
Division of Marketing Agreements were merged into a single agency
known as the Surplus Marketing Administration. From the creation
of the FSRC in October 1933 through October 1935 the FSRC distributed to States commodities valued at about 265 million dollars.
The Surplus Marketing Administration still operates with the dual
objectives of the FSRC. Emphasis has tended to shift away from
relief distribution, however, to the commodity purchasing phase.11
Eaer,ency Education
Prosra•
An excellent example of FERA efforts to devise special programs
to fit the particular needs of those on relief rolls may be seen in the
emergency education program.• This program was organized in
October 1933 to give work to destitute unemployed teachers." At the
outset the FERA indicated that the program in a State might include
such broad categories as general adult education, literacy classes,
vocational education and rehabilitation, parent and worker education,
and nursery school work. Each State, however, was free to select
and emphasize those categories most useful to itself; each State
n In the spring of 1939 the so-called "food stamp plan" was introduced in a
number of cities on an experimental basis. In accordance with this plan the
direct distribution of surplUB commodities by the FSCC was discontinued in the
stamp-plan areas; instead, low-income families eligible for public assistance
received additional purchasing power in the form of stamps, redeemable by the
Government and acceptable in grocery stores in exchange for certain food products
officially designated as surplus commodities. This plan has proved so successful
that it has been greatly extended and by the fall of 1940 was in operation in
approximately 150 cities and urban counties. See also Surplus Marketing
Administration, Report of the Administrative Official in Charge of Surplua Removal
and Marketing Agreement Program3, 1940, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C., 1940.
• For a more complete analysis of this program, see "Emergency Education
Program," Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, June 1
Through June SO, 1935, Washington, D. C., 1935, pp. 16-19. See also A D~
acriptive Bulletin of the Various Activities Authorized a, Work Project& in Education,
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., April 1935.
14 Although the Administration avoided using Federal funds for the regular
public school system, expenditures were authorized in the spring of 1934 and again
in 1935 to pay the salaries of unemployed teachers in rural schools where local
and State funds were completely exhausted. This program was referred to as
the "rural school continuation program." During the school years 1933-34
and 1934-35 FERA grants for this program amounted to $21,805,651. See
Monthly Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, October 1 Through
October 61, 1935, Washington, D. C., 1936, table B, p. 23.
0,9,1,zed by
Google
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF 193~1935 •
45
department of education was responsible for drafting the program
for its State.
Federal re,gulations required that the persons given employment
on the program be duly qualified teachers drawn from relief rolls.
Employment reached a peak of more than 44,000 persons in March
1935. The emergency education program was gradually curtailed in
the latter part of 1935, at which time similar activities were undertaken by the Works Progress Administration.
Coll.,. Student Aid Pro,NIIII
The special needs of young persons were recognized by the establishment of a college student aid program 21 which was introduced
as an experiment in Minnesota in 1933 and subsequently extended
throughout the country beginning in February 1934. The program
was designed to provide part-time employment for college students
who otherwise would not be able to continue their studies. In selecting students for the program, therefore, the colleges were required to
place major stress upon need for assistance, although ability and
character were also to be taken into consideration. During the winter of 1934-35, an average of more than 100,000 students were aided. 111
Since September 1935 this program of student aid has been under
the direction of the National Youth Administration which has enlarged the concept to include high-school as well as college stud en ts. rr
Transient Pro9ra•
The need for a special program for transients had been apparent
for some time before the creation of the FERA, and Congress, in the
Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933, had specifically empowered
the Federal relief agency to make special grants for this purpose.•
It was not an easy task, however, to induce States to operate transient programs. The age-old dislike of many localities for transients
had become stronger during the period of depression following 1929. 28
Even prior to that time, of course, transients frequently had been
H See "The College Student Aid Program," Monthly Report of the Federal
Emergency Reluf Adminutration, July 1 Through July tl1, 19!15, Washington,
D. C., 1935, pp. 39--42.
,. The FERA provided that a State could receive $15 of Federal aid per month
for each student given employment under the program. Originally 10 percent,
and later 12 percent, of the total enrollment of college students within the State
could be placed on the program.
at See oh. VII.
• See aection • (o) of the Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933, approved
May 12, 1933 (c. 30, f8 Stat. 55, 57).
"See Williama, E. A., "Legal Settlement in the United States," Monthly Report
of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, August 1 Through August 15, 19!15,
Washington, D. C., 1936, pp. 25-40.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
46 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
viewed as unwelcome loafers or financial liabilities who should be
passed on to other States or sent back to their plaaea of origin. Depression merely added fuel to the flames, for transients who found
jobs were then accused of taking jobs belonging "properly" t.o local
residents.
The Transient Division of the FERA was established in July 1933.•
In order to encourage States and localities to foster transient programs
the FERA agreed to make grants covering the expenses of a transient
program in those States submitting approved plans for dealing with
the problem. Thus stimulated, 40 States had instituted transient
programs by January 1934, and the first midmonthly census, taken
as of February 15, 1934, revealed that 127,000 persons were under
care. An extensive network of centers and camps was set up to take
care of the bulk of the transients, and work-relief projects were established for able-bodied transients. An average of almost 300,000 persons received assistance under the transient program during the
winter of 1934-35. Mter the discontinuation of the FERA provision for transients was included in regular work-project activities of
the WPA.
NUMBER OF CASES RECEIVING EMERGENCY RWEF 0
The preceding pages have outlined the nature of the work-relief
and direct-relief activities as well as the major special programs eonducted under the FERA. A brief sketch of the numbers aided and
the sums spent will help to indicate the size and scope of the problems
involved. (See table 1, p. 24, and appendix table 1.)
In March 1933 unemployment was at an all-time peak. It is estimated that during that month 4,977,742 cases received public emergency relief in the form of work and direct relief and that in April a
'° Bee Webb, John N., "The Transient Unemployed," MonUil11 Report of tA,
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, January 1 ThroU(lh January tl1, 19tlll,
Washington, D. C., 1936, pp. 1-25.; and Webb, John N., The Tra"811Rl Unentployed, Research Monograph III, Division of Social Research, Work.II Program
Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935. For an account of the cha.racteristie11
and activities of the depression migrant families receiving relief under the transient program of the FERA, see Webb, John N. and Brown, Malcolm, Miqra"'
Familiea, Research Monograph XVIII, Division of Social Research, Work.II Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1938; and Webb, John N., TM MigratoryCasual Worker, Research Monograph VII, Division of Social Research, Works
Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937.
11 The data used in this section are based on table 1, p. 24, which presents the
number of resident and transient cases and persons receiving emergency public
relief during each month of the 3-year period, 1933 through 1935. The term
"emergency relief" includes direct and work relief under the FERA as well as
relief under the several special programs inaugurated under the FERA after
September 1933. Emergency relief does not include the relatively small volume
of "poor relief" extended in localities independently of the FERA.
Digitized by
Google
.
Ffd
-- :-.::...
_
·• -10t'11cy .
For the Tmnsie11t.
buring the winter of I 934-35 an awrai,;e of a.Im o.st 300.000 perfons received
assistance under the fra11sient program.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF 193'4-1935 • 47
high mark of 5,070,866 cases was reached. This total represented
20,387,292 persons, or 16.2 percent of the total population of the
country. The rise in relief rolls was checked late in April, and an
uninterrupted decline continued throughout the late spring and summer of 1933. In September 1933 only 3,428,074 cases were on the
relief rolls, a drop of over 32 percent from the April peak. A general
improvement in employment conditions played a large part in this
decline, although the reduction in seasonal needs was undoubtedly of
considero.ble importance. The trend of emergency relief turned upward again in the fall. This was partly the result of the growing
winter needs, but rising unemployment and steady depletion of individual resources were more fundamental causes of this increase.
The rise in the emergency relief rolls was checked with the inauguration of the CWA work program. Following the large-scale transfer of
emergency relief recipients to CWA projects only 2,991,539 cases
remained on the relief rolls in January 1934. Curtailment of CW A
activities in the late winter of 1934 was almost immediately followed
by an expansion in the volume of emergency relief. With the virtual
liquidation of the CW A by the end of April 1934, the number of cases
on relief rolls rose to 4,455,071.
Thereafter the relief rolls fluctuated within a relatively narrow range.
The second half of 1934, however, was marked by a continuous rise
in the volume of relief, due in part to the severe drought which affected
a large part of the country in the summer of 1934.81 Winter requirements also contributed to a new peak in the volume of emergency
relief in the first quarter of 1935. After 1935 a general revival in
industry and economic recovery in drought areas combined to cause a
perceptible drop in relief rolls.
With the inauguration of the WPA and other Federal work activities
in the latter part of 1935 the FERA entered a stage of gradual liquidation. The number of cases receiving emergency relief dropped from
4,392,108 in July 1935 to 2,617,372 in December 1935, a decline of
about 40 percent. By the close of 1935 the Federal Government had
discontinued grants-in-aid for emergency relief.
COST OF EMERGENCY RELIEF, SOURCES OF FUNDS
The total cost of relief programs under the FERA in the 3 years
amounted to $4,119,004,631. Of this total sum 71 percent came from
Federal funds, 13 percent from State funds and 16 percent from local
funds. For a detailed summary of FERA obligations incurred, see
appendix tables 1 and 3.
a The drought of 1934, the severest on record, spread over the entire areas of
15 States and over sections of 10 additional States in the midwestem and western
parts of the country.
Digitized by
Google
48 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
SUMMARY
In brief, the FERA represented the first major step of the Federal
Government in the field of relief .11 Under this program substantial
Federal responsibility for relief was assumed in contrast to the pre1929 policy. It may be said that the Federal relief agency encouraged
the extensive development of relief facilities so that, at the peak of its
program, virtually all counties in the country were equipped with
emergency relief agencies. Further, as has been outlined in previous
pages, the FERA sought to improve relief standards, to differentiate
the relief programs, and to support the work-relief movement whenever possible. In general, the FERA marked an abrupt change in
Federal policy and established the basis for continued Federal action
in the field of unemployment relief .14
11 See William8, Edward Ainsworth, Federal Aid.fur Reluf, New York: Columbia
University Press, 1939, ch. I.
14 See Burll8, Arthur E., "The Federal Emergency Relief Administration,"
Municipal Year Book, 1937, Chicago: International City Managers' Association,
1937, p. 395.
____,
Digitized by
Google
Chapter VI
CHANGING RELIEF POLICY, 1935
SIGNIFICANT IN the history of relief in this conntry is the year 1935,
a year when far-reaching changes were made in Federal relief policies
and programs. During the summer and fall of 1935 the grant program of the FERA was gradually liquidated. In that same year a
new Federal work program was instituted and the Social Security
Act was passed. These major developments represent an attempt to
differentiate the problem of dependence and to establish the basis for
a more permanent program.
That major changes in Federal relief policies and activities would
take place within a year or two after the active entrance of the Federal
Government into the field of relief was inevitable. A brief glance at
the earlier steps in the history of relief will help to make this point
clear. When Congress had met early in 1933 to determine the role
to be played by the Federal Government in meeting the relief crisis
then prevailing throughout the Nation, the all important point was
that substantial Federal aid be made available quickly to the overburdened States and localities. The choice of the traditional grant
method to accomplish this purpose, rather than a more direct form of
Federal action, was a natural one in the light of previous relief history.
As has been indicated in previous chapters, relief had traditionally
been considered a local problem. It was assumed that Federal aid
would be purely temporary and that Federal grants could he dropped
within a short period. Further, there were many State and local relief
organizations in existence in 1933 which had sprung up during 1931
and 1932; it was thought that the simplest method would be to set
up a grant agency to funnel required Federal funds for a period into
these established organizations.
The need for Federal aid for relief did not, however, disappear
during 1934 and 1935. On the contrary, it came to be rather generally
-49
Digitized by
Google
50 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
recognized that the relief problem was a many-sided and lasting one,
and that the Federal Government must work out a more permanent
program in cooperation with the States and localities.
The contribution of the FERA toward the eventual working out of
such a program can scarcely be overestimated. First, the year 1933
can be described, in a sense, as one of crisis government. Funds for
relief had to be pumped quickly to the hard-pressed States and localities. This the FERA accomplished, and in so doing gave time to
plan ahead. Next, the FERA experimented along a great many lines
during the period 1933-1935. The present program of the WPA is
undoubtedly more effective as a result of the experience in work relief
gained during the period of the FERA. The present programs of the
National Youth Administration and certain activities of the Farm
Security Administration and the new Surplus Marketing Administration likewise owe much to the earlier programs along these lines conducted by the FERA.
In order to understand the highly significant changes made in
Federal relief programs and policies in 1935, some attention should
be given to FERA relief rolls as they stood during the latter part of
1934. In November 1934 there were approximately 5 million cases
(families and single persons) on emergency relief rolls. These 5 million
cases may be divided into 2 general categories, those in whose families
there was no employable person and those in which 1 or more members
were capable of self-sustaining effort. FERA grants were used to
take care of both employables and unemployables on the emergency
relief rolls, with the Federal Government bearing approximately 70
percent of total emergency relief costs during the period.
In redrafting Federal relief policy and programs in 1935, the President and the Congress operated on the assumption that the unemployable relief group should, in the future, be primarily a State and local
responsibility in accordance with traditional practice in this country.
In other words, the attempt was made in 1935 to redefine Federal,
State, and local responsibility with respect to unemployables, and to
secure wider State and local participation in meeting this aspect of the
relief problem. The Federal Government was not to decline all
further responsibility for the care of unemployables; provision for
Federal participation was made under the Social Security Act. 1
Federal aid, however, was to be limited to certain types orcategories of
unemployables; unemployables not falling within those categories
were left entirely in the care of States and localities. Under the
Social Security Act the Federal Government was to institute a system
of regular Federal grants to match State expenditures for certain relief
1
Approved August 14, 1935 (c. 531, 49 Stat. 620).
Digitized by
Google
CHANGING RELIEF POLICY •
51
categories.' These Federal grants were to be available to States
setting up approved pension systems for the needy aged, for mothers
with dependent children, and for the blind. Federal grants for these
categories, however, were to be on a matching basis; the matching
proviso was obviously intended to encourage States to set up permanent programs for these groups and to stimulate a greater volume of
State and local funds than had been forthcoming for these purposes
under the FERA program.•
As pointed out by the President early in 1935, the second major
group of needy persons, the jobless employables, involved entirely
different concepts.' Unemployment is a national problem and both
logic and financial necessity make it imperative that the Federal
Government assume primary responsibility for meeting the destitution which comes in its train.
The method advocated and developed by the FERA for helping the
destitute workers had been to provide work on projects of economic
and social value to the communities wherein the jobless resided.
Those who formulated the Federal relief policy in 1935 accepted the
proposition that work, not direct relief, should be the keystone of the
Federal relief policy for destitute employables. At the same time,
however, it was thought that the work principle could be made to
produce still better results if the FERA, utilizing the technique of
grants to States, were replaced by a new agency primarily utilizing
Federal-local contacts. It was also believed that a much better work
program could be operated if the budgetary-deficiency-wage concept
were abandoned. The advantages to be derived from these a.nd other
shifts are described in the following chapter which outlines WPA
work activities since 1935. Subsequent chapters outline the other
major changes in Federal relief and security policies introduced under
the Socia.I Security Act.
1 The aet also oontained insurance features to guard against certain future
problems of destitution. Thus there was provision made for a contributory oldage insurance or annuity system under which superannuated workers would
receive benefits. In the ordinary course of events many of these persons would
otherwise have had to apply for public assistance when their working years were
over. To tide jobless workers over for short periods between jobe, and thus to
give more stability to the economic structure, the aet also provided for the encouragement of State systems of unemployment compensation. See ch. VIII.
1 For a more complete discUS8ion of categorical assistance under the Social
Security Act, see ch. VIII.
• See the annual message from the President to the Congress, with recommendation for a new program of emergency public employment (H. Doc. 1), January
1935. See also Wood, Katherine D. and Palmer, Gladys L., Urban Workers on
Relwj, Research Monograph IV, Part I and Part II, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1936; and Hauser, Philip N.,
Worura on Relief in Che United Staua in March 1956, Vol. I, Division of Social
Research, Works Progreee Administration, Washington, D. C., 1938.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
D,g1tized by
Goog Ie ·
For Transportation.
F rom July 1935- Dccember 1940 the WPA built o r i111pro H•cl 56;°i,456 miles of roncls.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
For Rer:reation.
One (lf l,:iOO swi111lll ing an d wadi11 ~ pouls b uilt by the \VPA from July 1935Dec,;rn l>l·r 1940.
Digitized by
Google
Chapter VII
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED
THE WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION
AFTER
MANY months of discussion and study plans for a new
Federal work program were put into effect with the passage of the
Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 in April of that year.
Acting under authority of this a.ct the President, by Executive order,1
created the Works Progress Administra.tion. 2 Designed primarily
to give direct employment on locally sponsored work projects to
employable persons in need of public assistance, the WPA was also
given the broad task of coordinating the work of other Federal agencies
receiving emergency Federal funds for construction.• Joining with
No. 7034, May 6, 1935.
Known as the Work Projects Administration since July 1939, at which time
this Federal agency was made a part of the newly created Federal Works Agency.
For an account of the early activities of the Works Progress Administration, see
Ross, Emerson, "Works Progress Administration," Municipal Year Book, 1931,
Chicago: International City Managers Association, 1937, pp. 433 ff. See also
Gill, Corrington, Waated Manpower, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Ino.
1939, ch. IX. For a detailed account of WP A administration in one area, see
Millett, John D., The Work, Progreu Administration in N61D York City, Chicago:
Public Administration Service, 1938.
• Thus the term "Works Program" as used in 1935 referred to the .activities
of a group of agencies. When Congress later began to make separate appropriations for these unite, the WP A dropped its functions of ooordinating and
reporting the work of the other agencies. For an account, from the administrative point of view, of the development of the various work programs during
1935 and ensuing years see Macmahon, Arthur W., Millett, John D., and Ogden,
Gladys, The Administration of Federal Work Reliq, Chicago: Social Scienoe
Research Council, 1941. See also Report on Progru, of the Work, Program,
issued monthly by the Works Progress Administration from March through
August 1936 and thereafter in October and December 1936 and March, June,
and December, 1937; and Report on Pro,reu of the WPA Program, June 30,
1938, June 30, 1939, and June 30, 1940, Work Projects Administration, Washington, D. C.
1
1
53
Digitized by
GoogIe
54 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
the WPA in 1935 in the task of providing work for the destitute
unemployed were more than 40 Government agencies; the more
important were the Resettlement Administration (now the Farm
Security Administration), the Civilian Conservation Corps, the
Public Works Administration, and the Rura.l Electrification Administration.
From the outset of the program in 1935 the WPA has played a
major role in Federal emergency work activities. (See table 3.) This
agency has consistently provided more than half the employment
thus furnished; at various times it has supplied between 70 and
80 percent of the total. The first pa.rt of the present chapter explains
the purposes of the WPA and the manner in which it functions.
Later in the chapter the work of other Federa.l agencies furnishing
emergency employment is outlined.
In planning the new WPA setup, Federal relief officials utilized the
experience gained under the grant system of the FERA in operating
Taf,fe 3.-Average Number of Persons Employed on WPA Projech,1 by Month, United
States and Territories, August 1935-0ecember 19-40
Average
Year and month
number of
persons
Year and m011th
employed
employed
11138-Contlnued
1936
August -----------------------------September
___________________________ _
October. _____________________ .., _______ _
November ___________________________ _
December ____________________________ _
1936
Ianuary ______________________________
_
February ___ -------------------------March __ ------------------------------
~;ii.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June__________________________________
__ ------------------ -- --------- __ _
_
July
A u~v•t _______________ - ____ -- __ - - _____ _
s,•,ncmber ___________________________ _
Orto her ______________________________ _
Novernbe-r ___________________________ _
Derember ____________________________ _
1937
Ianuary _.. _______ --------------------February __ --------------------------March __ ----------------------------- _
~:t;'-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Iune ____ -----------------------------July. _______ ----------------------- ___ _
August.------------------------------_
September
___________________________ _
October ______________________________ _
November ___________________________ _
December _____ ---- ______ ---- _________ _
220,163
374, 3W
705, 169
1,814,958
2,667, 190
2,879, 733
3,019,098
2,000,315
2, f>26, 367
2,396, 719
2, 28.5, fl22
2. 245, 32!!
2,332,380
2,453, fl02
2, .5.52, 574
2,551,042
2,247. 461
2,131,079
2. 149, 309
2,129,475
2,078,221
2,021,579
1,878,008
1, f\31, 204
1,510,894
1,455,977
1,462,605
1,503, 720
1,596,676
!l.'ovrmber
____
-----------------------Decemher -·_____________
-------· ____ _
2,640,464
2,640,246
2,743,026
2,999,021
3,125,214
3,213,609
3,286.611
3,334,594
3,161,080
11139
January ______________________________
_
Frhruary ____________________________ _
March _____________ -----------··---- __
3,021, MM
2,996,554
3,009,110
~'.t:1-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June ____________________ ----- - -------July
- -- -------------------------.\ ugust--_. -_________
--- ______ ----- -- ___ - S1•pt l'mber __________________________ -Orto her ____________________________ _
tr::
1
_::::: :::: :::::::::: :::::::::: :: : :_
June _________________________________
2,792,362
2.645,.550
2, .578, 041
July. ___ -----------------------------August __ ___________________________
----------------------------_
8eptl'mber
Octohl'r ______________________________ _
November ___________________________ _
December ____________________________ _
2,282.00
1,803,102
2,003, 840
2,321,541
1, 1170, 688
1, 7lll. 996
1,877,439
1, 116(), 518
2,123,431
1940
January_--•·- ___________ ----·---···--~'ebruary. __ -------------------------March ____ ----------------------------
2,216,314
2,309,218
2,310,539
2, 14-4, 040
1, gin, 6611
June ____ ----·------------------------July _. _________________ ---- ---- --- ----.\ u~u•t . ______________________________ _
1, 7.55, 532
l.flM.479
1,701,512
1,692.641
1,766,489
1, 7119,382
l,~.694
~:~-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rrptrmber
__ --------------------------_
Octohrr _____________________________
1938
Ianunry
----------------------------_
February_______________________________
March _______________________________ _
Average
number of
per.;ons
November____________________________
__ ---·----------------------_
December
1 Inclurlcs employment on projects operated by other Federal agencies and llnBnced by allocatl011 al
WPA!wida.
Source: Division of Stat~tlce, Work Projects Administration, Washington, D, O.
Digitized by
Google
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED• 55
a. work program. While the grant system has worked well in other
fields in the pa.st, 4 FERA experience showed that the grant method
was not particularly effective in connection with a. problem so complex
and dynamic as the conduct of e. work program for the unemployed.
The new WPA setup we.s designed specifice.lly to operate a. work
program without the difficulties which he.d begun to crop up under
the FERA. A brief outline of some of the shortcomings of the grant
system for relief will serve to indicate both why the FERA grant
system we.s abandoned and how the WPA system functio:ns. 6
The essential feature of the grant system in the United States has
been the donation of funds raised by one level of government to be used
by another level of government, usue.lly under certain conditions and
regulations prescribed by the grantor of the funds. The FERA
followed this grant-in-aid pattern in me.king Federal funds available
to the States. As soon e.s the transfer of funds had been ma.de by the
FERA and receipted for by the State governor, title to the funds
passed to the State.
TJ,is brings us to the crux of the situation. Technically, Federal
funds became State funds when once receipted for by the Governor,
but the FERA we.s still obligated to see that the funds it had supplied
were spent honestly, that desirable relief standards were observed,
and that a sound and useful work program was carried forward in
the States.
It we.s, of course, possible for the FERA to exert considerable influence merely through the maintenance of amicable and cooperative
relationships with the State relief agencies. Mere suggestion we.s
often sufficient to improve standards of administration, of work
projects, etc. The FERA also had certain "control" devices. Thus,
it issued regulations from time to time and States accepting Federal
funds a.greed to abide by them. The Federal relief agency had
field representatives who reported to Washington concerning the
effectiveness with which these regulations were being enforced, and
the Division of Investigation within the FERA helped to ferret out
dishonest practices.
In the la.st analysis, however, the FERA had only one major
sanction for inducing unwilling States to improve work-relief standards
• For an excellent account of Federal grants-in-aid from the administrative
point of view, see Key, V. 0., Jr., TM Administration of Fed.Mal Grants to States,
Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1937.
• See Williams, Edward Ainsworth, Federal Aid/or Relief, New York: Columbia
University Preas, 1939, for a discussion of the relative advantages of the grant
system and the WPA in operating a work program. See also Williams, Edward A.
and J. Kerwin, "The WPA Method vs. Grants-in-Aid," Survey Midmonthly,
Vol. LXXVI, No. 3, March 1940, pp. 91-93; and Williams, J. Kerwin and Edward
A., "New Techniques in Federal Aid," American Political Scienu Revieu,,
Vol. XXXIV, No. 5, October 1940, pp. 947-954.
Digitized by
Google
56 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
and practices.• It could refuse to grant any further funds to a State
which failed to maintain certain standards. This power, however,
could not be used as effectively by the FERA as it had been used by
other Federal grant agencies, because of the grave suffering caused
the needy unemployed.
There were also other facts which emphasized the need for a new
type of Federal-State-local setup if the "work principle" were t,o be
effectively furthered. For example, in some States the Governor, or
the legislature, or both, were dominated by rural groups little interested in operating "costly" work programs for the unemployed in
the cities. The obvious remedy was t.o establish direct Federalmunicipal contacts in order to deal directly with city executives who
were anxiouR to operate useful work programs.
The difficulties faced by the FERA in securing a satisfactory work
program without direct Federal control were, therefore, responsible
for the decision that the WPA, like the earlier CWA, should be set
up as a "Federal" program. Adequate safeguarding of Federal
funds is achieved as follows: All WPA officials, from Washington
down through the State and district offices, are Federal officials. All
projects that are proposed throughout the country receive a final
review at the Washington office. A pool of desirable projects is
approved for each State and from this pool the WPA Administrator
in each State selects those projects which are to be placed in operation.
The maintenance of a reserve of approved projects is of considerable
importance, for it makes possible prompt inauguration of new and
varying types of projects as employment needs expand.
Unlike the FERA, the WPA does not use State governments as a
funnel through which funds are distributed and contacts made with
local project sponsors. Direct Federal-local contacts are established
under the WPA. weal governments suggest projects directly to
the WPA and Federal funds are earmarked for projects placed in
operation. The funds, however, do not actually pass into the possession of the project sponsor; the Federal Government, through regular
Treasury checks, disburses the funds directly to the project workers.
Further, such materials as the WPA may supply for a given project
are secured through Federal purchasing channels. 7
It is with the above Federal controls in mind that persons speak
of the WPA as a "Federal" program. Use of this term is probably
justified, and serves, when used to describe the contrast with the
• The FERA could, when all else failed, abandon the grant method completely
and "federalize" relief in the State. Since Congress had obviously intended
this power to be used only in rare cases, and since it would also have involved
loss of State and local contributions, "federalizing" was seldom used. Seep. 23.
7 An independent accounting of WPA expenditures is made by the U. S.
Treasury Department.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED• 57
FERA grant program, to indicate the greater degree of Federal control exerted over the WPA program. On the other hand, use of the
term "Federal" in connection with the WPA has tended to obscure
the essentially cooperative Federal-State-local nature of the program.
Localities play an important part in the administration and financing
of the program.
The joint Federal-State-local nature of the activities carried on
under the WPA may be seen in many aspects of the program. For
example, the determination of the need of families or individuals
for employment on the program is a local function. 8 That is, the
local relief agency, manned by local officials, receives the original
application for assistance made by the needy worker. This local
agency determines the relative need of each applicant and then, in line
with WPA rules on eligibility, refers eligible persons to the WPA. The
WPA accepts or rejects those referred; from the accepted group of
persons, the WPA Division of Employment selects workers with the
skills and experience needed to carry on the various local work projects.
Principally because of the limitations on available funds, the WPA
has never been able to give work to all certified workers; those who are
not assigned are left to the care of local relief agencies.
The planning and operation of projects again brings the localities
to the fore. Stta.te-sponsored projects are only a relatively small
part of the WPA program; projects sponsored by other Federal
agencies and financed through WPA funds are also only a relatively
small part of the total program.11 The vast majority of the projects
operated under the WPA program are local projects; that is, they are
planned and initiated by cities, counties, villages, and other local
political subdivisions to meet specific local needs. It is the duty of
the sponsor in this connection to draw up full plans (actual blueprints
in the case of construction projects) describing in detail the work to
be done, the amount and kinds of labor required, and the estimated
costs. Further, once a project is in operation, the local sponsor generally plays a part in directing the project. Finally, sponsors share in
the program by paying a part of the project cost. (See appendix tables
6 and 7.) During the calendar year 1940 sponsors' funds averaged
1 In a few States, usually because the State is unable or will not provide funds
for adequate investigation, the need of those applying for WP A work is ascertained
by the local WP A.
1 During December 1940 about 51,000 workers were being given employment on
projects operated by other Federal agencies and financed through WP A funds.
Outstanding among the Federal agencies operating projects with funds transferred
to them by the WP A for this purpose are bureaus of the Agriculture, Interior,
Navy, and War Departments.
Digitized by
Google
58 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
28.5 percent of the total project costs. 10 It is required by law
that in each State not lf.'SS than 25 percent of the total cost of nonFederal projects approved after January 1, 1940, be home by the
local sponsors. 11
PsoJec:11
The WPA has undertaken a wide variety of projects of which over
three-fourths (about 79 percent) of the cost· through December 1940
is accounted for by construction activities and the remaining portion
(about 21 percent) by nonconstruction activities.
About half of the construction work is new construction; the other
half involves repair work. Liskd in order of their percentages in
terms of funds expended from July 1935 through December 1940,
some of the major types of construction projects are highways, roads,
and streets, 39.2; public buildings, 10.4; publicly owned or operated
utilities, 10.1; recreational facilities, 8.6; conservation, 3.8; and airports and airways, 2.2.
Among the major nonconstruction activities (educational, professional, and clerical projects) are sewing, 6.6; research and surveys,
2.0; education, 2.0; recreation, 2.0; public records, 1.5; and library
projects, 1.0.
Practically every community in the United States has cooperated
with the Federal Government in instituting projects of the WPA
work program. Some idea of the amount and value of the work accomplished can be gained from a brief reference to some of the major
types of projects. (See appendix table 7 .)
Construction and improvement of highways, roads, and streets has
always accounted for a large proportion of WPA expenditures. Road
building is a type of work particularly well suited to the use of unskilled labor, and projects can be devised readily because local governments are familiar with this type of work. Another reason for
the large number of road projects is that the need for good roads is
universally recognized. Between July 1935 and December 1940 the
WPA built or repaired 565,000 miles of roads. Much of this work
was done on farm-to-market roads which are needed not only t,o facilitate transport of farm products to market centers but for mail
10 From the outset of the program through December 31, 1940, sponsors have
provided a total of about $2,079,800,000 toward WPA project costs. Sponsors'
contributions to the cost of project operations for the calendar years 1937 through
1940 are u follows: 1937, $330,000,000; 1938, $437,000,000; 1939, $498,000,000;
and 1940, $532,000,000.
11 The ERA Act, fiscal year 1941, in order to expedite defense work on the WPA
program, authorized the exemption of projects from the 25-percent clause if they
have been certified by either the War Department or the Navy Department. u
being important to the national defenae.
D1g1t1zed by
Google
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED • 59
delivery and school bus transportation as well. In addition, the miles
of curbing, road shoulders, culverts, gutters, guard rails, drainage
ditches, and highway landscaping have mounted into six figures.
Second in importance only to the highway, road, and street work
of the WPA is the construction and renovation of public buildings.
Through December 1940 WPA workers had completed over 28,000
new public buildings, repaired or improved an additional 72,000, and
built additions to more than 3,600. The types of public buildings
constructed or improved with WPA labor include schools, libraries,
hospitals, gymnasiums and other recreational buildings, firehouses,
courthouses, armories, etc. New school construction alone has accounted for a total of 4,800 WPA-built buildings, and 31,700 school
buildings have been repaired or improved by the WPA.
At least a part of WPA work in the related fields of recreation,
health, and sanitation should also be mentioned. WPA labor has
built approximately 2,750 athletic fields, 1,500 parks, and 44 fairgrounds. New playgrounds number 2,7Q0, while 9,000 playgrounds
have been improved. The WPA workers have also completed over
700 swimming pools and a total of about 15,500 new play areas such
as public golf courses, tennis and hand-ball courts, ski jumps, outdoor theaters, band shells, etc. Public health projects include 12,700
miles of water mains and distribution lines as well as hundreds of
sewage treatment plants, water purification plants and pumping
stations, and 19,800 miles of new storm sewers.
Many other types of WPA projects might also be cited. Flood
and erosion control work, for example, has included the construction
of 111 miles of jetties and breakwaters, 136 miles of bulkhead, and
4,200 miles of riverbank and shore improvements.
In still another broad field, projects of importance for the national
defense, the WPA has performed service of great value. A tabulation of defense projects covering the period from July 1935 through
December 1940 indicates, for example, the construction or improvement of many thousands of military and naval buildings.
Among the buildings newly constructed for the armed forces a.re
251 armories, 330 garages, 362 storage buildings, 67 administrative
buildings, 36 hospitals and infirmaries, 351 barracks and officers'
residences, and 431 dining halls, mess halls, and kitchens.
Work performed by the WPA in the highly important field of
aviation includes the construction of some 200 new landing fields,
57 additions to such fields, and the reconstruction or improvement of
340 others; the construction of 180 new hangars, and the reconstruction or improvement of 300. Ip addition, over 11,000 new airway
markers have been constructed and 3,050 have been reconstructed
or improved.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
60 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Since June 1940 increasing emphasis has been placed on defense
work and by the spring of 1941 about 500,000 WPA workers were
engaged in the construction of airports, armories, barracks, military
roads, etc. 11
Like the construction program briefly sketched in the preceding
pages, the nonconstruction activities of the WPA also cover a wide
field. These white-collar projects have accounted for a little less
than one-fourth of WPA expenditures, but they are an important
part of the program because they represent the chief source of employment for women and the able-bodied needy in clerical, professional, and service fields. The projects include, for example, adult
education classes, research projects, public health nursing, nursery
schools, the providing of hot lunches for needy school children, and
community sewing rooms making supplies for the needy. The art,
music, and writers' projects fall in this nonconstruction group also;
so did the now discontinued Federal theater project.
Some idea of the scope of the accomplishments of professional and
service workers may be had from the following statistics. During
October 1940 there were enrolled in WPA literacy and naturalization
classes about 245,000 men and women. During the 3 months ending
December 31, 1940, WPA workers served 70 million lunches to school
children in 18,677 schools. Through December 1940 they operated
or assisted in the operation of well over 10,000 libraries, and renovated
some 80 million school and library books. Many of these community
service projects, particularly those bolstering the health and morale
of the people, may be considered to be an important part of our
"home defense."
In addition to the regular projects outlined above are certain
emergency projects which have been instituted from time to time in
areas devastated suddenly by flood, storm, or other disasters. Excellent examples of these emergency undertakings may be seen in the
activities carried on by WPA workers following the New England
hurricane of September 1938 and the Mississippi and Ohio floods of
1937. In order to release workers for emergency duties, many
regular projects were immediately closed down, thus making thousands
of WPA workers available for rescue and rehabilitation work. In
the case of the New England disaster, approximately 100,000 WPA
workers were placed in emergency activities. Women workers
served as cooks and nurses; men on the program aided in the rescue
work, helped move families from dangerous areas, distributed food
and clothing, helped in the restoration of roads, repaired water
mains, and assisted in clearing away debris.
11
For other WPA defense work, through its worker-training program, seep. 64.
Digitized by
Google
l'. ,.. ,._.l r 111 y . li r
CorJJ ,i,
A Defense Need.
From July 1935- Dcccmber 1940 the \\' PA l,11 iJt. o r i111 p ro vcd ap proximately 600
landing fields and 1,900 airpo rt hlli ldi ngs.
Digitized by
Google
Fu/,r,11 ll'ort:s. lprnrv.
Sewing fur the Needy.
Throu1J;h December 31, 1940, the WPA sewing projects made millions of garments
for the needy.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED • 61
Wasa
The problem of wage payment for work relief has always been a
difficult one. 11 On the one hand, it has been recognized that if morale
is to be maintained (and this is one of the major objectives of work
relief) wages and working conditions must bear some reasonable
relationship to conditions in private industry. In short, if a worker
is placed on a leaf-raking job at 10 to 25 cents an hour until he earns
just enough to meet his "budgetary deficiency," he is under no
illusion that he has been given a job. On the other hand, it is argued
that those on work projects must have a definite incentive to return
to private industry, and that this incentive may be lost if total wages
too closely approximate those paid in private industry for comparable
work. The past and present wage schedules of the WPA can best
be understood when it is realized that they reflect an attempt to give
due weight to both of these points of view.
When the WPA began operations in 1935 it rejected at the outset
the major tenet of FERA wage policy, the budgetary deficiency
principle. As has been indicated in previous chapters, under this
system workers could work only the number of hours necessary to
earn wages t.o cover their budgetary deficiency. Since the t.otal
amount which each relief worker was permitted t.o earn was low, and
since the amount of each worker's budgetary deficiency varied, it
was impossible for them t.o work a uniform number of hours. The
numerous work shifts thus made necessary interfered seriously with
the efficient conduct of work projects. More important still, the
budgetary deficiency principle required that the worker be subject t.o
frequent investigation to determine whether he had any income which
might be deducted from his ~udget, whether his work-relief earnings
were being budgeted wisely, etc. One of the major advantages of
the WPA wage setup is that it is no longer neeessary to subject the
project worker and his family t.o frequent and minute investigation.
In general, WPA wages, as compared with those paid under the
budgetary deficiency system of the FERA, are higher and more closely
adjusted t.o the type of service rendered. WPA wages have been
based on what is known as a monthly "security wage" policy. The
monthly wage given WPA workers at the outset of the program varied
in terms of major occupational groups, broad geographical regions,
and urban-rural areas. The original payment schedule ranged from
$19 per month for unskilled labor in the rural South t.o $94 per month
for technical and profeRBional people in the urban areas of the North
11 See Burns, Arthur Edward and Kerr, Peyton, "Survey of Work-Relief Wage
Policies," American Economic Review, Vol. XXVII, No. 4, December 1937,
pp. 712-724.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
62 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
and West. In July 1938 the lowest wage for unskilled workers in the
South was raised to $26. Under the schedule put into effect in September 1939 the lowest wage, $31.20 per month, is given to unskilled
labor in rural areas of Southern States and the highest wage is given
to professional and technical workers in the North and West, who
may receive up to $94.90 per month. 14 The average monthly wage
received by WPA workers in 1940, in the country as a whole, was
a.bout $55.
When the WPA program was first placed in operation all relief
workers were required to work a fixed number of hours each month.
Maximum hours in this connection were set at 8 per day, 40 per week,
and 140 per month. There grew up, however, the custom of paying
a prevailing hourly rate and Congress wrote the prevailing wage concept into law in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1936.
For the most part, labor groups had backed this step strongly on the
ground that payment of less than the prevailing rates on projects
would tend to exert a. depressing influence on the private wage-rate
structure. Payment of prevailing hourly wages, however, made difficult the operation of projects at maximum efficiency. The payment
of prevailing hourly wages meant, of course, that the number of hours
worked for each employee per month became a. derived figure, obtained
by dividing the employee's monthly wage by the hourly rate prevailing
for the work at which he was employed. This led to frequent shifts
of workers, particularly skilled workers receiving high hourly rates,
and caused difficulties in project operation similar to those arising
under the budgetary deficiency system of the FERA. Therefore, in
the ERA Act of 1939 Congress dropped the prevailing wage concept,
section 15 (a) of the act requiring that the hours of work for all project
workers, with certain minor exceptions of a. permissive nature, be set
at 130 hours per month. The ERA Act, fiscal year 1941, however,
contains the important provision that projects certified by either the
War or Navy Departments as being of direct value to national defense
may be exempted from the above requirements on hours and wages.
Under this provision hours of labor have been increased considerably
" The September 1939 schedule, while still utilizing variations based on skills,
regions, and urban-rural areas, was drafted in conformity with section 15 (a) of
the ERA Act of 1939 which states that "such monthly earning schedule shall not
be varied for workers of the same type in different geographical areas to any
greater extent than may be justified by differences in the cost of living." See
Worlr Relief and Relief for Fiscal Year 1941, Hearings Before the Subcommittee
of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 76th Cong.,
3d sess., April 4, 1940, p. 431. See also Stecker, Margaret Loomis, Intercity
Differences in Costs of Living in March 1985, 59 Cities, Research Monograph XII,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
1937.
Digitized by
Google
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED •
63
(with coITesponding increases in total wages) for workers on certain
defense projects in order to hasten work to early completion.
Employment Polley
As a rule, workers are not given jobs on WPA projects until their
need for employment has been certified either by a local public relief
agency or by the WPA. A small proportion of nonrelief workers with
special skills or training needed for the successful operation of a project
may be employed, however, if qualified relief workers are not available.
WPA regulations require that at least 95 percent of all project workers
must be certified as in need. During the period January• 1939December 1940 the proportion of certified needy workers was nearly
97 percent. Only one member of a family may be given employment
on the WPA work program. The worker employed is usually the
family head; in· cases where the father is unable to work, the mother
or a grown son or daughter may be regarded as the economic head of
the family .16
Certain classes of needy employable persons are baITed from WPA
employment. These exclusions are made in conformity with provisions of the various emergency relief appropriation acts and WPA
administrative rulings. The 1940 act specifically states that aliens,
Communists, and members of any Nazi Bund organization are not
eligible for employment on the work program. Further, section
15 (b) of this act calls for the removal from employment of all
relief project workers, with the exception of veterans, who have
been continuously employed on such projects for more than 18
months. 10 Workers so removed are not eligible for reemployment on
WPA projects until the passage of 30 days and recertification of need.
As in previous acts, it is provided in the 1940 act that no relief worker
shall be given employment on a WPA project if he has refused to
accept work on any other Federal or non-Federal project granting
comparable or higher wages for similar work. Further, those persons
in need who refuse bona fide offers of positions in private employment
·which they are capable of performing (under reasonable working
conditions and at prevailing wages for such work in the community)
are disqualified for WPA employment. All WPA workers are required
to register at State employment offices, which attempt to secure jobs
for them in private industry. As in previous ERA Acts, it is provided
11 Employment of the head of the family on a WPA project, however, does not
preclude younger members of the family from assistance uncl.er the NY A or the
CCC.
11 See Workers Dropped from WPA in Accordance with the 18-Montha Provision
in the 1939 Relief Act, Mimeographed Release, Division of Research, Work
Projects Administration, Federal Works Agency, January 1940.
Digitized by
Google
64 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
that those WPA workers who take private employment, and subsequently lose this employment through no fa.ult of their own, a.re to be
entitled to immediate resumption of their previous employment status
with the WPA. 17
The high rate of turnover of workers on WPA rolls, that is, the
continuous movement of workers to and from the WPA program, is a
fa.ct often overlooked. (See table 4.) Thousands of people leave
WPA projects every week for private employment; 11 and, each week,
other needy workers who have lost jobs in private industry apply
for WPA jobs. Nature.Uy the movement from the WPA is accentuated during periods of increasing business activity; the movement
toward WPA predominates, on the other hand, in periods of business
recession. In short, WPA employment totals do not represent a more
or less static group of destitute workers who have been employed
continuously on the WPA program.
The movement of WPA workers to jobs in private industry has
been affected in recent months by the WPA defense vocatione.l training program operating in every State by the fe.11 of 1940. This program, which was initiated by the WPA e.s an a.id to the N e.tion's
defense preparations, has as its object the training of workers for
certain me.nue.l occupations. The program is designed to help in
a.voiding possible shortages of skilled and semiskilled labor required
by defense industries. Training projects, consisting of refresher and
single-skill training courses, a.re jointly sponsored by the Office of
Production Management and the United States Office of Education.
The WPA cooperates by referring trainees from eligible persons on
its rolls and by providing them with subsistence wages during the
period of training. During the fiscal year 1941 a.bout 118,000 WPA
workers received training under the program as auto mechanics and
machinists, welders, a.ircra.ft workers, sheet-metal workers, etc. Of
this total, 84,000 completed training during the fisce.l year. Fortyeight thousand of these trainees secured jobs in private industry
within a short period of time after completing training.
17 This privilege is subject to the provision that the person seeking reinstatement on a WPA project must first have drawn all unemployment compensation
payments that have accrued to him as a result of his term in private employment.
18 During the period from June through November 1938, for example, 200,000
certified workers on the average left WP A projects each month. See testimony
of Col. Harrington, Additional Appropriation for Work Relief and Relief, Fiscal
Year 1989, Hearings Before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 76th Cong., 1st sess., January 6, 1939, p. 12.
See also Roberts, Verl E., Survey of Worker8 Separated from WPA Employment
in Mine Area8, 1987, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration,
Washington, D. C., 1938; and Bevis, Joseph C. and Payne, Stanley L., Former
Relief Ca8u in Private Employment, Division of Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1939.
Digitized by
Goo~ le
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED • 65
Tol,le 4.-AHignmenh to and Separations From Employment on WPA Projects,• Continental United States, by Month, January 1939-December 1940
Allldgnmentl
SeparatloD
rate'
Separations
Total
Initial
assignments
Rea&signments
Total
Volnntary I
18month
prov!slon •
Total
11189
January.
------ 110,301 IG,664 73,637 216,876 103,322 112,664
February-________
239, 7114 119,066 120,688 180,183 94,707 85,476
March ........... 177,477 70, 1131 106,946 246,314 133,527 112, 787
tf.rll
__ ---------ay ............
Jnne .•••••••••••
July _____________
August __________
September. _____
October _________
November _______
December.......
114,938 29,489 85,449 340,427
130,692 31,630 98,962 275,424
139,574 31,775 107, 799 225,904
131,1179 25,509 106,470 485,825
29'l, 897 85,577 207,320 784,633
404,188 105,901 2118, 287 230,946
349, 1114 M,230 294,924 243,~1
329,439 61,498 267,941 197,473
303,348 68,265 235,083 185,945
11140
Jannary _________ 331,857
February
•••••••. 259, 789
March. _________
tf.rll ____________
ay _____________
............
Jnne
July _____________
August __________
September •...••.
October .•..•....
November ••.••••
December ....•••
Assignmen
Volrate' Total UD•
Dll!chargea and la:,olts
Year and month
205,803
166, 743
165,119
107,027
252,684
194,679
229,688
241,139
204,310
233,204
85,155
67,937
49,076
29, 1139
24,667
12,347
29,426
36,987
33,077
38,523
34,599
43,662
246,702 213,808
191,852
166, 727
136,804
130,452
94,680
223,258
167,692
196,511
202,616
169, 711
189,542
:104, 837
292,734
338,620
304,674
377,928
176, 753
207,973
186,780
191,818
166,406
164,501
123,582
115,748
103,169
148,394
104,205
108,069
113,834
79,284
64,400
216,845
159,676
122, 735
337,431 171,074
680,428 611 733
122,877 86: 364
129,987 63,820
118, 189 55,1125
121, 1145 50,726
79,078
74,999
94,963
104,358
96,878
81,857
74,605
80,061
89,019
105,987
86,087
84, 7113
134,730
129,838
197, 771
49,602
48,220
43,817
39,021
17,180
8,601
9,617
25,223
17,671
10,495
11,813
12,236
234,262
207.696
296,071
102,148
127,912
97,761
85,831
80,319
79,748
tar7
Other
112,664
85,476
112, 787
216,845
159,676
122, 735
166,357
68,695
36,513
66,167
62,264
70,819
6.1
4.0
5.0
5.6
5.4
14.6
23.0
20.5
18. 2
16. 7
7.3
6.3
8.5
11.9
10. 5
9.1
19. 8
39.2
13.1
14.3
10. 9
9.6
85,128
81,618
1113, 954
195,241
190,516
287,470
92, 1131
102,689
80,000
75,336
68,506
67,512
16.6
11. 5
8.9
7.6
7.6
5.6
15. 9
11.6
13. 7
14.0
11. 6
13.0
10.0
9.1
12. 7
15. 5
14.9
19.8
11. 1
12.4
11. 2
11.1
9.5
9.1
3. 7
8.4
8.6
a.a
4..11
4.a
4.4
4.2
6.0
6.2
6.1
6. 7
4.4
3.3
3.7
3.3
4.1
4.8
4. 7
4.3
4. 7
4.8
6. 3
6.1
4.9
.. 7
1 Prior to January 19f0, data do not Include nonrellef employment.
I Includes separations for such reasons as private employment, active military ~oe. new sources of
Income, illness, death, etc.
• Separated In accordance with section 16 (b) of the ERA Act of 1939 and section 16 Cb) of the ERA Ao&,
llacal year 1941, requiring sepsratlon after 18 months of contlnuoua WPA employmant.
• Percent of total employment at beginning of month.
Nou.-Revtsed through Mar. 10, 1941.
Bouroe: Dlv181on of Statistics, Work Project, Administration, Washington, D. 0.
OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR EMPLOY ABLES
In addition to the work program of the WPA, the Federal Government has instituted several forms of aid
certain classes of ablebodied needy persons, such as youth (both in and out of school) and
destitute farmers. To give direct employment to jobless construction workers and to stimulate indirect employment in other related
trades, the Federal Government has operated a Federal heavyconstruction program and also helped to finance State and local public
works. Among the important agencies established to assist these
various groups a.re the National Youth Administration, the Civilian
Conservation Corps, the Fa.rm Security Administration, and the
Public Works Administration.
for
Digitized by
Goog Ie
66 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Nallonal YCMIIII AclnilnWtalloll
An early attempt to give some special form of aid to the youth of
America was the college student aid program of the FERA. 18 This
work was expanded under the National Youth Administration, an
agency created as a part of the WPA by Executive order of June 26,
1935. A Presidential order issued under the authority of the Reorganization Act of 1939 placed the NYA under the newly organized
Federal Security Agency.
The efforts of the NYA in behalf of youth have been along two
main fronts. First, part-time employment is provided for needy
students from 16 to 24 years old inclusive. This policy has made
it possible for many students to continue their education, and has
postponed the entrance of these young people into an already overcrowded labor market.
The program operated by the NYA has extended the previous
student aid program of the FERA by making high-school students
and graduate students in universities, in addition to college students,
eligible for aid. During the academic year 1935-36 part-time work
was given to an average of 310,000 students each month. Monthly
averages of about 400,000, 300,000, and 365,000 students aided were
recorded for the school years of 1936-37, 1937-38, and 1938-39,
respectively. During the school year 1939-40, the average number
of students aided was 438,000 per month. In December l~0,
448,000 students were receiving assistance under the program.
The aid furnished to students is not given in the form of scholarships or loans. A student desiring NYA work applies to the authorities of the school which he wishes to attend. He is accepted on the
basis of scholarship and need; 211 payment is in the fonn of wages for
part-time work on projects planned by the school authorities and
approved by the NYA. Wages (during the year ending June 1940)
ranged from $3 to $6 per month for high-school students, from $10
to $20 per month for college students, and from $10 to $30 for graduate students. The type of work perfonned covers a wide range of
18 8ee ch. V.
Students interested in the problem of rural youth will find of
interest the following publications: Melvin, Bruce L., Rural Youth on Relief, Research Monograph XJ, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administra,tion, Washington, D. C., 1937; Melvin, Bruce L., and Smith, Elna N., Rural
Youth: Their Situation and Prospect&, Research Monograph XV, Division of
Social Research, Works Progress Administ,ration, Washington, D. C., 1938; and
Melvin, Bruce L., and Smith, Elna N., Youth in Agricultural Village,, Research
Monograph XXI, Division of Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1940.
• Students aided come from families with low annual incomes; the average
family income of students given work under the program during the school year
1939-40 was about $645, with over 70 percent receiving less than $1,000 a year.
Digitized by
Goo~ le
Frdn a/ ll ·1 r l:& ~·l(JOH· u I ll "i/ ,<tflll L
For }' mah.
In December 1940 approxi malt-l_v 4-IS .000 s fi1 d .. ,it ~ were "·orki11g their way
t hro ugh school w it h nssistance u nder t he NYA p r11g ram.
Digitized by
Google
For th,· Forr.~ts <f 1/w
F11/111"1•.
Froru I fl33- 1!J4 I 1hi' CCC plan11•tl s1•\·cr:ll m illion t rees.
Digitized by
Goog
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED • 6 7
activities including research, statistical studies, clerical work, library
service, construction of small buildings, and ground and building
maintenance.
Second, the NYA operates a widely diversified program of production, construction, and white-collar projects for young persons 18
through 24 years of age who are not in school. 21 The projects carried
on under this program are cosponsored by local public agencies and
are designed to meet local needs. Since the summer of 1940 increasing effort has been made to place work projects in operation that will
give young people experience in fodustrial types of work vital to the
national defense. The local cosponsors provide most of the materials,
supplies, and equipment, and furnish a considerable share of the
supervision required for carrying out the work. Hours of work range
from a. minimum of 40 per month to a maximum of 100 per month.
The young people a.re pa.id by the NYA in the form of cash wages
which vary by regions. NYA out-of-school project workers earned
an average of $15.80 per month during the year ending June 30,
1940.22 The youth on these projects a.re required to be registered
with local offices of the State Employment Service and to accept any
bona fide offer of private employment. During December 1940
about 326,000 persons were receiving employment under this phase
of the NYA programs.
(MIian ConMl'VCltlon Corp1
The chief purpose of the CCC, an agency now functioning under
the Federal Security Agency, is to furnish work and training to young
men and war veterans who are "unemployed and in need of employment," and to carry out a Nation-wide conservation program for the
protection and development of the country's natural resources. The
work done by CCC enrollees includes the improvement of the Nation's
forests and parks and their protection against fire and the ravages
of insects and disease; the control of soil erosion on valuable agricultural and timberland; the development of recreational areas; the
prosecution of flood-control operations; and the conservation of wild
life. 11
An impressive record of physical accomplishments has been built
up by the Corps during the first 8 years of its existence (from April
1933 to April 1941). A partial listing of conservation projects
completed by the CQrps includes the planting of several million trees,
11
It has been eetimated, based on the unemployment census of 1937, that this
age group constitutes nearly one-third of all unemployed workers.
u See National Youth Administration, Annual Report Jor the Year Ending
June 30, 194(), Washington, D. C., 1940, p. 26.
• See annual reports of the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corpe, fiscal
year ended June 30, 1939, and fiscal year ended June 30, 1940, Washington, D. C.
D1g1tized by
Google
68 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
the construction of 118,400 miles of truck trails and minor roads,
the erection of 85,000 miles of telephone lines, the building of 45,000
bridges, and the construction of over 6,800 large impounding and
diversion dams.
Since it began functioning in April 1933, the Corps has given useful
work to an average of about 300,000 men each year. Through June
1940, 2½ million men had received CCC training. The importance
of this training, both for the men involved and with respect to conservation of the Nation's resources, has long been recognized. Only
in recent years has the "national •defense" value of the training
received in the Corps come to be fully recognized. The physical
hardihood and morale of the men have been greatly improved.
Under the authority of recent legislation, enrollees are being given
special instruction in a great many noncombatant subjects essential
to the operation of the military and navel establishments. Also, as
the annual report of the Director of the Corps for the fiscal year 1940
points out:
Not by design but it is a fact that at least 75 percent of the field jobs in the
general run of CCC camps are the same types of work which engineer troops are
called on to do, either in peace or wat. Construction of roads and trails, bridges,
dams, breakwaters, water and waste disposal systems, telephone lines, fences,
lookout towers, garages, storehouses, and shelters, felling, skidding, and sawing
of timber and logs, running and maintenance of trucks, tractors, jackhammers,
road ma.chines, and pile-drive~these are merely some of the many jobs the
CCC youths perform.
The CCC program is administered by a director who controls all
CCC operations and coordinates the activities of several government
agencies, each of which plays a part in the program. Selection of junior enrollees is carried forward in each State by State selecting agencies,
usually the established State public welfare agencies. These State
selecting agencies are authorized by the director to delegate responsibility for making individual selections to their local welfare offices.
The Veterans Administration cooperates by choosing veterans for
enrollment. The War Department receives the selected youth, gives
them a physical examination, enrolls those qualified and is responsible
for running the CCC camps. The projects on which Corps members
work are planned by the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture in cooperation with State and local conservation
agencies. 24 Trained conservationists of the various bureaus of the
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior hq.ve technical supervision of the projects. Technical advice on educational activities in
the camps is provided by the United States Office of Education,
Federal Security Agency.
"Since the beginning of the fl.seal year 1941, a number of camps have been
assigned to national defense work projects on military reservations.
Digitized by
Goo~ le
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED • 69
FCIIIII Security Adminltlratlon
Long before 1933 the problem of destitution in rural areas had been
slowly forcing its way to public attention. 26 A high point of distress
was reached in 1933, however, when more than a million farm families
were forced to apply for relief. During 1933 and 1934 various
measures designed to meet the problem were instituted by a number
of Federal bureaus and agencies. On April 30, 1935, the Resettlement
Administration was created to combine and coordinate these efforts.
To this agency were transferred the activities of four governmental
agencies which had previously been dealing with various aspects of
the rural relief problem-the Rural Rehabilitation Division of the
FERA,• the Land Policy Section of the Agricultural Adjustment
Administration, the Subsistence Homesteads Division of the Department of the Interior, and the Farm Debt Adjustment Section of the
Farm Credit Administration. The Resettlement Administration was
transferred to the Department of Agriculture in January 1937 and
in September of that year was renamed the Farm Security Administration.
In broad outline, the steps taken to relieve the rural needy have
remained much the same during these organizational shifts. The
main activities may be classified as rural rehabilitation, rural and
suburban resettlement, and land utilization. Summed up briefly, the
Farm Security Administration carries on a progam of rehabilitation
loans to farmers, makes direct relief grants to certain farmers, and
carries on certain rural homestead and suburban community projects
initiated by the Resettlement Administration.
A major phase of rehabilitation work has been the making of loans
to low-income farm families whose land is of fair or good quality.
Through the extension of credit for livestock, farm equipment, repairs,
feed, and seed, and the furnishing of technical direction, farmers are
placed on a self-supporting basis instead of being forced to apply for
relief. From the inception of the program in 1935 through June 30,
1940, rehabilitation loans had been ma.de to about 856,000 farm families, of whom about 120,000 had repaid their loans in full. 27 As an
aid to rehabilitation, the Farm Security Administration also makes
loans for the joint purchase, by a number of low-income families, of
various kinds of services or heavy machinery. For example, a group
H See Woofter, T. J., Jr. and Winston, Ellen, Seven Lean Years, Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1939. See also Asch, Berta and Mangus,
A. R., Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation, Research Monograph VIII, Division
of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937.
• See ch. V.
If See the Report of the Administrator of the Farm Security Administration, 1940,
U. 8 .. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1940, pp. 8, 9.
Digitized by
Google
70 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
may combine to secure a loan for a purebred sire or some expensive
piece of machinery usable by all.
The first step ordinarily taken by the FSA in connection with rehabilitation is to examine the debts already owed by the farmer and to
determine whether or not these can be repaid within a reasonable
time. If repayment appears impossible, the FSA attempts to bring
farmers and credit.ors together and, through mutual agreement, to
secure the scaling down of the total debt to a point where the farmer
can C'-Ontinue operating. Foreclosures can often be averted by time
extensions, interest rate reductions, and reductions in the original
debt figures. Where such debt adjustments can be effected, the
farmer may no longer need a rehabilitation loan.
Generally speaking, it has been the policy of the FSA to stress rehabilitation activities whenever possible, and to minimize the program
of direct grants to destitute farm families. Sometimes, however,
particularly in areas affected by flood or drought, it has been essential
to make direct grants to farm families to avoid starvation. Grants
recently have averaged about $20 per month, with the total number of
families aided varying considerably from month to month in accordance with seasonal employment opportunities.•
The FSA is now completing the rural homestead and "greenbelt"
projects begun under the Resettlement Administration. These
projects were instituted to demonstrate, through efficient land and
community planning, the feasibility of providing low-income families
with low-rental homes in healthful country surroundings. The rural
homestead projects are of three main types-scattered-farm projects,
farm-community projects, and subsistence-homestead projects. The
three greenbelt towns, designed to demonstrate the possib "Hties of
improved community planning, are located in suburban areas of
Washington, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee.
Public Wodcs Adnilnllllatlon
Under Title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 a
Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works was created for the
dual purpose of giving employment and making possible the resumption of necessary State and local public construction which had been
severely cut during the early depression years. Between June 1933
and June 1940, in addition to making grants and loans totaling about
$2,318,000,000 to State and local governments for more than 16,600
public works projects, 29 the PWA also allotted a total of about
During June 1940 grants were made to 60,000 cases.
• The total cost of these non-Federal projects, including sponaon funda, is
estimated to be about $4,211,160,000.
18
Dig1t1zed by
Google
Farm -'-fcuritv .·l rlministration (.JunV).
Rchabilitat<'d.
Through .June 30. ]!)40, th e FSA mad(• s:,t. .000 loans to farc 1- fa111ili, ·~: l:?0.000
had rt•paid their ]onns in full.
D1g1t1zed by
oog le
1\1::llly p,l\\-rr-~enera ti11~. and ll ood-co 11trol dams were built wit.h the aid of PW A
f11nds.
Digitized by
Goos
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED • 71
$1,776,000,000 in grants to various Federal bureaus and agencies for
about 17,820 Federal construction undertakings.
The most important pa.rt of PWA activities, therefore, has been
the "non-Federal" program of financial a.id for State and local public
works. This program has been conducted on the grant-in-aid principle. Unlike other grant-in-aid agencies, however, the PWA has
made its funds available directly to local governments without using
State governments as intermediaries. 80
Under the act of 1933 the maximum grant supplied by the PWA
for any State or local project was 30 percent of the cost of labor and
materials. In 1935 the Federal share was raised to 45 percent of the
total cost of a project. Sponsors of the projects have supplied the
remainder of the funds, sometimes through floating 4-percent bond
issues which were purchased by the PWA but more of ten through
private borrowing. A large part of the local bonds purchased by the
PWA have been sold to the Reconstruction Fina.nee Corporation,
often at a premium, and resold by that agency to private buyers.
The method by which the PWA has made its grants and loans can
be summed up briefly. A State or local government desirous of
sponsoring a public works project made application to the Federal
agency. Examining divisions at Washington, D. C., analyzed each
project proposal as to its engineering, legal, and financial soundness.
The fresident made the final decision as to whether an allotment
should be made.
The sponsors themselves let the bids and awarded the contracts.81
To receive the PWA funds, project sponsors had to agree to see to it
that contractors abided by certain federally prescribed labor and
construction regulations. The PWA disbursed its funds to each
project sponsor at intervals during the progress of the project, provided
the Federal supervisors approved the construction and were assured
of the enforcement of PWA labor standards.
The hours, wages, etc., which applied on PWA projects were
designed to make.the expenditures accomplish the greatest amount of
employment possible and to increase consumer purchasing power.
The 130-hour month and "prevailing" hourly wage rates are observed
on PWA projects. Except for a short period, the PWA has been
regarded primarily as an employment-giving agency rather than a
relief agency. Contractors must, however, give preference in hiring
to any union members on relief rolls. Of those at work on the PWA
program early in 1940, about one-tenth had relief status. As a. matter
See Williams, J. Kerwin, Grant3-In-Aid Under the Public Works Administration, New York: Columbia University Press, 1939.
11 In contrast to the WP A, which has u·tilized the force account method, PWA
work has in most cases been let out to private contractors.
80
Digitized by
Goog Ie
72 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
of fact, the large percentage of specialized and skilled workers needed
for the PWA heavy construction work would make it impossible for
many persons from relief rolls to qualify.
The relatively large expenditures which must be ma.de for materials
on the PWA type of projects has meant that, for the total spent by
the agency, direct employment figures a.re not high.12 More important
than the number of jobs at the project site, however, has been the
indirect employment afforded by PWA expenditures. This is usua.lly
estimated at 2.5 jobs in mining, manufacturing, transportation, and
a.llied industries for every worker employed on a PWA project.
THE FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY
The tenn "Federal Work Program" gradually ceased to be used
after 1936, when Congress began to make separate appropriations for
the various agencies described in the preceding pages. In 1939 the
passage of the Reorganization Act (Public No. 19, 76th Cong.),
giving the President broad powers of combining and coordinating
Federal agencies and bureaus dealing with the same or related problems, paved the way for coordination of the public works agencies of
the Federal Government.
The change was made as part of Reorganization Plan No. 1, sent to
Congress by the President on April 25, 1939. Under this plan, which
went into effect on July 1, 1939, the Works Progress Administration
(renamed Work Projects Administration) was placed in the newly
created Federal Works Agency. Grouped with the WPA, according
to Plan No. 1, were" those agencies of the Federal Government dee.ling
with public works not incidental to the nonnal work of other departments, and which administer Federal grants or loans to State and
loca.l governments or other agencies for the purpose of construction."
The agencies thus grouped were the Work Projects Administration,
the Public Works Administration, the United States Housing Authority, the Bureau of Public Roads, the Public Buildings Branch of the
Procurement Division of the Treasury Department, and the Branch of
Building Management of the National Park Service (so far as it was
concerned with public buildings operated for other departments or
agencies). 33 The two la.st-named agencies were combined into one
unit, called the Public Buildings Administration.
a During the first hall of 1939 employment on PWA projects averaged about
200,000 per month. No new appropriations were made to the PWA in 1939 or
1940. As projects financed under the PWA Appropriation Act of 1938 are completed, employment on the program is gradually tapering off, having fallen to
about 20,000 by December 1940.
11 According to another section of Reorganization Plan No. 1 some of the
agencies formerly most closely associated with the WPA were placed in the
newly created Federal Security Agency. In placing the WPA in the Federal
Works Agency, the President chose to emphasize the construction and job aspect.a,
rather than the relief aspects, of the WPA.
Digitized by
Google
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED • 73
Each of the units in the Federal Works Agency is headed by a commissioner serving under the general direction of the FWA Administrator.
The functions of the WPA and the PWA were outlined earlier in
this chapter; the work of the other agencies newly associated with
them may be briefly outlined here. It should be pointed out that
these agencies were not established to meet the problem of unemployment, but were incorporated into the FWA with work agencies
(WPA and PWA) designed for this purpose.
The United States Housing Authority, prior to reorganization, was
a part of the Department of the Interior. The USHA was established
in 1937 to take over and carry forward all the functions of the Public
Works Administration concerning housing and slum clearance. 34
While the PWA conducted its low-rent housing program by direct
Federal construction of "demonstration" housing projects, the
USHA has no con,struction functions. It provides financial and
technical assistance to those local governments that wish to supply
adequate housing for those in the low-income group. An incidental
purpose of the Authority is to give employment in construction and
allied trades.
For approved projects sponsored by local housing authorities, the
USHA makes 60-year loans in an a.mount up to 90 percent of the total
cost of the undertaking, and also makes a limited contribution to each
project. Planning, construction, and management are left in local
hands, subject to certain Federal requirements. The chief stipulations are that the locality make an annual contribution (which is
usually done through tax exemption) equal to at least one-fifth of the
Federal contribution, that prevailing wages be pa.id in constructing
the project, that economy in construction be practiced, and .that an
equal number of slum dwellings be destroyed unless an acute housing
shortage exists in the community.
Another major unit of the Federal Works Agency is the Public
Roads Administration. While a. part of the Department of Agriculture, this unit was known as the Bureau of Public Roads. The
bureau was established under the original and basic Federal Aid
Highway Act of 1916 to take charge of administering the regular
annual matching grants to the States for the building of a connecting
system of highways. This function, as well as the construction of
roads in national forests and the administration of certain" emergency"
highway appropriations granted to the States in recent years,
continues to be handled by the Public Roads Administration. The
" The USHA is not to be confused with the Home Owners' Loan Corporation,
created in 1933 to save homeowners from foreclosure, or with the Federal HoUBing Administration which encourages private building by insuring mortgages.
Digitized by
Google
74 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
agency operates on a highly decentralized ha.sis, with regional officials
ma.king the contacts with State highway departments and settling in
the field all except major policy questions.
The work of the Public Roads Administration is quite distinct from
the road-building projects of the WPA. Except for forest roads, the
Public Roads Administration does not itself perform any construction
work. Furthermore, its grants are used solely for large connecting
national highways. State highway departments submit programs of
road projects which are examined by representatives of the Federal
agency; upon receiving funds from the Public Roads Administration,
the States let contracts for construction of the highways. Since 1933,
when providing employment first became an important factor in the
highway-building program, the Federal public roads agency has
prescribed wage, hour, and labor standards for sponsors of its road
projects essentially similar to those of the PWA.
The Public Buildings Administration of the Federal Works Agency
is a combination of two former units, and carries on the former functions of those agencies in connection with the construction and care of
Federal public buildings. From the Public Buildings Branch of
Procurement (Treasury Department), the new Public Buildings
Administration has inherited the functions of constructing and making
major repairs on regular Federal public buildings, and of performing
routine management and custodial duties in connection with Treasury
buildings in places other than Washington. The supplementary work
of managing and caring for all other executive buildings (except
post offices) both in the District of Columbia and in the field is also
handled by the Public Buildings Administration. This work had
previously been done by the Branch of Building Management of the
National Park Service (Department of the Interior).
CONCLUSION
Providing public work to the unemployed has thus come to be the
most important method of meeting the unemployment problem..
Since 1935 the total number given employment on various public
work programs has ranged from a low of 2.3 million to a high of 4.6
million. Large as these figures are, at the peak they represented
less than half of the number estimated as unemployed. Indeed,
throughout this period these programs have averaged only between
one-quarter and one-third of the estimated unemployed, and have
not been large enough to provide jobs for all those who in terms of
need were eligible for them.
As pointed out in chapter I, the 1930's were characterized by chronic
depression, low levels of normal investment, and high levels of unemployment. The work activities of the Federal Government have been
an attempt at remedying this situation, although the extent of these
Digitized by
Google
WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED • 75
activities has fallen far short of utilizing as fully as possible the idle
economic resources at hand. It is important, however, that programs
have been set up to employ idle labor in order to create capital assets
and useful services; by doing so the decline in normal investment and
employment has been counterbalanced in part.
The extensive public work programs of the 1930's, most of which
were operated as joint Federal-State-local undertakings, would not
have been possible but for the very substantial Federal financial
assistance that was granted. The funds used for this purpose were
borrowed; consequently, these work activities constituted a net increase ih total productive activity anq employment.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Chapter VIII
THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM
As HAS BEEN indicated, 1935 was notable in the history of relief
for two major developments. First, a new Federal work program
1
was placed in operation. This program has been discussed at some
length in Chapter VII. Second, a social security program was instituted under which Federal assistance was to be available for certain
special categories (the aged, mothers with dependent children, and
the blind), and two extremely important insurance programs were set
in motion for the short-term unemployed and the aged. The most
important parts of the whole Social Security Program are those which
concern the unemployed and the aged; and the following discussion
is devoted in the main to unemployment compensation, old-age insurance, and old-age assistance.'
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
For some years prior to 1935 unemployment compensation had been
urged as a means of mitigating the hardships of unemployment.
It was not until the passage of the Social Security Act in that year,
however, that the Federal Government took steps to encourage the
passage of State laws giving this protection to temporarily jobless
workers. Before 1935 only one State, Wisconsin, had passed an
unemployment compensation law. Several more States passed laws
early in 1935 in anticipation of Federal action, and by July 1937 all
States had such legislation. Payments to the unemployed began in
Wisconsin in 1936, and in the remainder of the States during 1938
and 1939. (See appendix table 9.)
Title III of the Social Security Act authorized the Social Security
Board to make grants to States with approved unemployment
See ch. VI.
' The chapter which follows deals with the special old-age retirement and
unemployment insurance systems set up for railroad workers.
1
77
Digitized by
Google
78 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
compensation plans in order to meet the costs of administering these
plans. To receive Federal approval, State unemployment compensation laws had to provide for satisfactory administrative methods,
the payment of benefits solely through public employment offices or
other public agencies approved by the Board, and the transfer of State
unemployment compensation tax funds to the Unemployment Trust
Fund in the Treasury.
The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (formerly Title IX of the Social
Security Act) provided the stimulus to the enactment of State unemployment compensation laws through the following tax device.
Most businesses which employ eight persons or more during at least
20 weeks of the year have levied on them a Federal excise tax of 3
percent 3 on the first $3,000 of every employee's yearly wages or
salaries. Against this Federal pay-roll tax, however, an employer is
entitled to credit, up to 90 percent of the tax, the contributions or tax
he pays to the State unemployment compensation program. This
means that the employer in a State with an approved system pays
only one-tenth of the 3 percent Federal pay-roll tax, or 0.3 percent;
the remaining 2.7 percent is offset by the taxes paid to the State
agency. In order that employers may credit the maximum amount
possible, all States but one have fixed the employer tax rate at 2.7
percent of pay rolls.
All employment is not subject to the Federal pay-roll tax. In
addition to businesses hiring less than eight workers, or employing
them during less than 20 weeks ' in a year, the law exempts such
employment as: maritime labor; service in nonprofit religious, charitable, and educational organizations; domestic service in private
homes; agricultural labor; service for Federal, State, local, and foreign
governments; railroad workers; certain types of family employment;
and service by insurance agents. These exclusions are followed in
general by the State laws with some modifications.
The tax funds collected by the States are deposited in the Unemployment Trust Fund in the United States Treasury. Separate accounts are maintained for each State. Funds are transferred back
to the States for benefit payments as needed. 6 The remainder is
kept in the trust fund and invested in interest-bearing obligations of
the United States. This fund aggregated more than 1.8 billion
1 The rate of the tax was 1 percent for 1936, 2 percent for 1937, and 3 percent
for 1938 and thereafter.
• One day of work each week for 20 weeks is sufficient to satisfy this provision
of the act.
• Under the act these funds can be 118ed only for benefit payments; administrative expenses of the State systems are paid from the grants made to the Sta*
under title III.
Digitized by
Google
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM • 79
dollars at the end of December 1940 after benefits of 1.3 billion dollars
had been paid.
Provbions of State U1W1 I
Although the Social Security Act permitted wide latitude, the State
unemployment compensation laws are similar in many important
respects. Differenca• between States are found in the types of employment eligible for coverage, in the tax provisions, in the types of
fund established, and in the computation, amounts, and duration of
benefits paid.
A basic provision in all the State laws relates to the coverage of
workers under the systems. Twenty-five States follow the Federal
law by not including workers in firms employing fewer than eight
persons. Nearly all of these States, however, permit small firms to
come under the law voluntarily. In the remaining States unemployment compensation laws specifically cover smaller employers,
seven of the States having laws applying specifically to employers of
one worker or more. In eight States the size of the pay roll is the
determining factor, or, in some cases, an alternative factor. The
majority of States specify that the period of employment be at least
20 days, each of the 20 days being in a different week. The major
types of employment excluded by the Social Security Act are likewise
excluded, with minor variations, in nearly every State. These excluded services, however, may be covered in 47 States if the employer
wishes to pay the State tax and comply with the other requirements
of the program.
Contributions or taxes paid by employers to the State systems are
levied on the basis of wages in covered employment, and unless
reduced under an "experience-rating" system, the rates are 2.7
percent under 50 systems and 3 percent in Michigan. Twenty-nine
States consider gratuities as a part of wages and, therefore, subject
to the tax. In five States employee contributions, usually 1 percent,
are required in addition to employer tax payments. Under the other
laws the employer is the sole contributor, except in the District of
Columbia where a Government contribution of $100,000 was made
in 1936, and $125,000 in 1937. No subsequent appropriations have
been made.
Two major types of funds adopted by States under the broad
provisions of the Social Security Act are the State pooled fund and
the employer reserve. In some States the pooled fund includes
merit-rating or experience-rating provisions. Some States have a
combination employer-reserve and pooled fund. The pooled-fund
plan endeavors to afford the maximum of security to unemployed
• Information as of October 1, 1940, unless otherwise indicated.
D1g1tized by
Google
80 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
workers by combining all contributions; in this way the risk is widely
distributed. The employer-reserve plan is based on the premise that
employers can stabilize employment and will do so when they find it
financially worth while. Experience-rating plans attempt to combine
these two basically different concepts of the purpose of unemployment compensation.
Forty-four States use the pooled fund, from which benefits are paid
to jobless workers entitled to them, without reference to the amount of
contributions made by the eligible claimants' former employers. Of
the States having this type of fund, 32 try to encourage stability of
employment by use of merit-rating or experience-rating provisions,
varying the rate of contributions made by employers in accordance
with the employment experience or benefit payment records.
The employer-reserve system is employed by three States-Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Nebraska. Unlike the pooled fund, the
employer-reserve system requires that each individual employer's
contributions to the State fund be credited to his separate account
and be used only for payment of benefits to his former employees who
are jobless. Under such a system in its strictest form, benefits would
be paid only to the extent that they could be charged to the account of
the claimant's former employer and benefits would no longer be payable if the employer's account were exhausted.
Four other States have employer-reserve systems with supplementary pooled funds into which a proportion, 20 percent, for example,
of the contributions is paid in order to provide benefits for a claimant
after his former employer's reserve becomes exhausted. This arrangement provides greater assurance of benefit payments. However, unless other provisions are made, it is possible for a claimant
to be denied benefits because both his former employer's account and
the pooled fund are exhausted. This can occur even though other
employers' accounts are sufficient to pay benefits to their former
employees.
One effect of experience rating will be to reduce the total funds
available for unemployment compensation because employers with
stable employment records will be taxed at lower rates. In order
that the reduced tax rates will not impair the financial ability of the
State systems, Federal law in effect requires 3 years' experience before
contribution rate reductions can be put into practice. Rate reductions
under experience-rating provisions were in operation in only one State
(Wisconsin) during 1938. Three additional experience-rating plans
(one employer-reserve and two partial-pool, employer-reserve plans)
became effective in 1940. This number is expected to increase sharply
in the next year or two.
State unemployment compensation laws show a good deal of variation in the amounts of benefits, the methods of calculation, and the
Digitized by
Goog Ie
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM • 81
duration of benefits. Benefits for total unemployment amounting to
approximately 50 percent of the norm.al, full-time weekly wage are
payable in nearly every State. Methods of computing the wage for
purposes of determining benefits are found to vary considerably
among States. Only one jurisdiction, the District of Columbia,
provides dependents' allowances in addition to the basic benefit based
on the worker's usual earnings. All States set upper limits to the
amount of weekly benefits. Maximum benefits are limited to $15 per
week in 41 States, to $16 in 5 States, and to $18 in the remaining 5.
Minimum benefits are provided for in all but 1 State; in 44 States the
law provides a fiat minimum ranging from $1.50 in North Carolina to
$10 in California, with the largest number of States-18 in numberhaving a $5 minimum. Six States have a flexible minimum, such as $5,
or three-fourths of the full-time weekly wage, whichever is less.
All States set a maximum for benefits paid to the individual worker
in any year; this same limit applies whether the worker is totally or
partially unemployed. Nearly every State limits the total benefits
payable to a certain multiple of the weekly benefit amount. Generally the maximum amount payable is equivalent to 16 weekly
payments; in some States the amount is as low as 12, in others as high
as 20 weekly payments. In addition, many States limit total benefits
to a certain proportion (frequently one-third) of earnings of the worker
in a previous four-quarter period.
Benefits for partial unemployment are payable in all except four
States (New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Montana), but
these States cover approximately one-third of the total workers protected under unemployment compensation laws. Ne&!lY all States
define partial unemployment as a week of less than full-time work in
which the worker's earnings have fallen below a specified amount.
In 33 States this amount is the same as the worker's weekly benefit
for total unemployment. The majority of States fix the benefit
amount so that part-time earnings plus the "partial benefit" will be
equal to the total unemployment benefit amount plus a certain additional amount commonly fixed at $2 or $3; most of the remaining
States pay benefits which are equal to the total unemployment benefit amount plus either one-fifth or one-sixth of the claimant's earnings.
Either method of determining the benefit amount offers financial
encouragement to the individual to accept part-time employment.
In order to be eligible for benefits, claimants must meet certain
requirements designed to limit unemployment compensation to employable workers normally attached to the labor market and who
were actually employed before the filing of a claim for benefits. Fortynine systems require that to qualify for benefits the claimant must
have earned at least a certain amount in wages during a specified
Digitized by
Goog Ie
82 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
period; two systems regard as eligible those who have worked for a
certain time in covered employment. A general requisite is that the
claimant must be able and ready to work and be registered for work
at a public employment agency. After registration he must complete a waiting period during which the employment office attempts
to get him placed in a new job. This waiting period serves the dual
purpose of eliminating payments in the case of unemployment for
brief periods and allowing time in which to handle the claim. Thirtysix States require a single waiting period of 2 or 3 weeks in the benefit
year. Seven States stipulate a 2-week period within 13 weeks preceding the week for which benefits are claimed; the other States have
varying provisions. The waiting period provisions for partial benefits
are the same as those for full benefits in many States.
Nearly every law provides for disqualification of workers for various
reasons: voluntary leaving, discharge for misconduct, refusal of suitable work, receipt of other remuneration above a prescribed minimum,
and unemployment due to stoppage of work because of a labor dispute (unless neither the individual nor workers of his class are paz-ticipating in the strike).
Under the State laws, the main features of which have just been
summarized, benefit payments for total and partial unemployment
through December 1940 were 1.3 billion dollars. Of this amount 2.3
million dollars was paid before 1938 by the W:i5consin program; 396.4
million dollars was paid during 1938 when 31 of the programs were in
operation; 429.8 million dollars during 1939 with all programs paying
benefits by the end of the year; and over 520 million dollars by the end
of 1940. About 4 percent of the total in 1938, and 5 percent in 1939,
were for partial unemployment benefits. During the fourth quarter
of 1940, 4 percent of the weekly benefits for total unemployment were
in amounts less than $5, 30 percent ranged between $10 and $15, and
28 percent were at least $15 weekly. The numbers receiving benefits
vary, of course; in June 1939 some 802,000 jobless workers received
weekly benefits, a year later this number approximated 1.3 million,
and during December 1940 the number dropped to 667,000. (See
appendix tables 8 e.nd 9.)
As mentioned above, the funds used for the payment of these benefits are drawn from the Unemployment Trust Fund in the Federal
Treasury, which serves as a depository for the pay-roll tax funds of
the States. The size of the Unemployment Trust Fund at e.ny given
time depends upon tax collections, plus interest, less disbursements
in the form of benefits. The bale.nee available for benefits aggregated
1.8 billion dollars at the close of December 1940. Total tax collections through December 1940 were 3.1 billion dollars. Tax collections,
cumulative through 1937, were 658 million dollars; during 1938,
778 million dollars were collected; during 1939, 825 million dollars; and
Digitized by
Goog Ie
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM • 83
during 1940, 854 million dolla.rs. Total benefit payments as of
December 31, 1940, amounted to 1.3 billion dolla.rs.
The funds available for benefit payments in the 23 States which
paid benefits in January 1938, shown in millions of dollars, have been
as follows:
December 31, 1937
June 30, 1938 _ _
December 31, 1938
June 30, 1939 _ _
December 31, 1939
June 30, 1940 - December 31, 1940
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
____________________
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - ____ - ___
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - __
450
481
577
661
802
885
947
Tax revenues considerably exceeded the amount of benefits paid
by this group of States. Tax revenues, however, have not exceeded
benefits in a.11 States. During the first 6 months of 1938, for example,
benefit payments greatly exceeded contributions in some of this group
of 23 benefit-paying States, notably Maine, Rhode Island, Utah, and
West Virginia. By the end of the period the available funds of these
four States had been reduced to between 65 and 75 percent of the
accumulated reserves. In the group of 23 States benefit payments
declined in the latter months of this period owing to the exhaustion of
wage credits and to reemployment in industry. Meanwhile the reserve
of the entire group increased, as the above tabulation shows.
Experience with unemployment compensation programs has not
been sufficient to demonstrate the degree to which they can reduce
economic instability. This type of program is expected to exert a
stabilizing influence by building up reserves in periods when unemployment declines and paying out these reserves when unemployment
increases. Unemployment compensation does provide a quick means
of paying funds to unemployed workers, but whether or not it is a
significant factor in stabilizing income depends upon the size of the
total payments and the maintenance of payments during a period of
unemployment. During 1938 and 1939 payments to the jobless were
restricted by the limited wage credits of many of the recently unemployed workers and the reserves were not reduced. In any event,
economic stability is of secondary importance during a period of
chronic unemployment, and it probably cannot be attained by unemployment compensation alone.
Similarly, it is still too early to state with precision the role which
unemployment compensation programs can play in reducing the
need for relief and work programs for the unemployed. In this
connection it must be remembered that many millions of workers
are not covered under the compensation programs. Furthermore,
benefits are paid only for a limited period of weeks; unemployment
compensation is specifica.lly designed to help tide workers over short
Digitized by
Goog Ie
84 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
periods of unemployment. The need for relief or work-program
employment for destitute workers whose unemployment stretches on
for 6 months or longer rema.ins. 7 Also, the weekly unemployment
benefits are often small, requiring supplementation by relief. Thus it
may be said that the unemployment compensation programs, as now
constituted, reduce the need for unemployment relief somewhat, but
they have not been a major factor in the situation.•
THE PROVISIONS FOR OLD-AGE SECURITY
The prolonged depression following 1929 seriously a.ffected the
security of the aged population. No old-age security system that
was adequate to meet a problem of such magnitude as developed in
the early 1930's existed in any pa.rt of the country. In some States
old-age pension plans had been set up for the needy aged. Local poor
relief and private charitable organizations ca.red for a portion of the
destitute aged. These measures, however, became wholly inadequate
when widespread unemployment intensified the problem of insecurity
in old age. Large numbers of older workers lost their jobs, and
younger jobless workers were unable to help their aged dependents.
In many families long-term unemployment depleted resources that
had been accumulated for old age; in other families it prevented the
making of such provision for the future.
In 1933 and 1934 large numbers of old persons were supported
by emergency relief. It was recognized that even with a return
to high levels of prosperity the situation of many of the aged would
remain desperate. Accordingly the Committee on Economic Security,
created by the President in 1934, recommended the establishment of
a dual program of old-age security. One pa.rt of this was to provide
for the needs of the destitute aged through Federal grants to the
States for this purpose, while the other was to provide a measure of
old-age security for superannuated workers through a Federal program
of contributory social insurance.
Consequently two different programs of old-age security a.re provided for under Titles I and II of the Socia.I Security Act. These two
types of programs, the old-age assistance program and the old-age
insurance system, must be carefully distinguished. They cliffer in
many essential respects, particularly with regard to the basis of
eligibility for benefits, computation of benefits, methods of financing,
coverage, and administration of the activities. The insurance
'Surveys indicate that many WPA workers have been without regular private
employment for 2 years or more, and that the average duration of unemployment
for the non-WPA unemployed is around 9 months.
1 See Creamer, Daniel and Wellman, Arthur C., "Adequacy of Unemployment
Benefits in the Detroit Area During the 1938 Reoesaion," Social Becurilr, Bull&i11,
Vol. 3, No. 11, November 1940, pp. 3-11.
Digitized by
Google
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM • 85
system will be treated here first because, like the unemployment
compensation program just described, it applies the insurance principle to a problem of insecurity.
The Old-Ase ln1unmcc Sy1tc111
The old-age insurance system, created in 1935 under Title II of
the Social Security Act, was originally designed to begin monthly
retirement benefits in 1942. In the amendments to the Social
Security Act passed by Congress in 1939, the payment of monthly
benefits was advanced to 1940, the types of benefits were expanded
to include payments to dependents and survivors, the basis of computing benefits was changed, the financial structure of the 1935
program was altered, and other far-reaching modifications were
adopted.
As a result of the 1939 amendments the emphasis given to the
original old-age insurance program has shifted. This change in
emphasis is pointed out in the Social Security Bulletin of September
1939.9
. . . The original provisions offered primarily a plan for systematic savings for
old age . . . .
The report of the President's Committee on Economic Security in 1935 recognized the need for covering a wide range of risks, including those arising from oldage, invalidity, and death, and recommended provisions for both compulsory and
voluntary insurance. The plan proposed by the Committee related benefits to
average wages, in an attempt to provide retirement benefits bearing some relation
to customary wages in covered employment. These recommendations of the
Committee were not, however, enacted into the 1935 Social Security Act. The
pressure for a self-sustaining system induced Congress to discard the idea of
insurance against a wide range of social risks in favor of a banking or money-back
system of retirement annuities. The net result of the change w&S to hold down
benefit payments during the early years and to provide for the accumulation of a
large reserve fund. . . .
. . . Since workers were to contribute on the basis of their wages in covered
employment and their employers were taxed a like percentage of pay rolls, benefits
were related by imputation to contributions or taxes . . . This system was in
large part a contributory-savings plan, in that payments were to be made during
the working life of employees to provide a means of support during later
years . . .
The old-age benefits plan enacted in 1935 failed, however, to give direct protection to the wives and other dependents of insured workers. Moreover, it
was so designed that it was slow in getting under way. Since benefits were based
on accumulated wages, reasonably large benefits were not possible for most
workers until the system bad been in operation many years. . . .
In recommending earlier payments, [i.e., payments to begin in 1940 instead of
1942) larger payments in the early years, and larger payments to beneficiaries
with dependents or to the survivors of covered workers, the Social Security
Advisory Council and the Social Security Board placed more emphasis on the
• Bchmitter, Lyle L. and Goldwasser, Betti C., "The Reviaed Benefit Schedule
Under Federal Old-Age Insurance," Vol. 2, No. 9, pp. 3--6.
Digitized by
Google
86 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
insurance features of the act and correspondingly less on the Mvinp or "moneyback" approach. As a result of the shift, the present emphasis is to establish a
system of social security which will partially compensate qualified workers or their
families for the continuing losa of income occasioned by death or retirement.
As far as possible the attempt has been made to measure thill losa by the level of
wages for some time before the 1088 took place. The change in emphasis from
savings to Insurance has resulted in a shift from total wages to fJfleTQfe wages as a
measure of benefits.
With the acceptance of these modifications, the system was broadened in scope and objective. Beginning as an old-age annuity program
with many features of a savings programt it has developed into a
comprehensive old-age and survivors insurance system.
eo_..,. •• a,,,.,u,, u-- ,,._ s,.,,..
The old-age and survivors insurance program is a contributory
system under which benefits are paid to those covered by the program;
the payments are made as a matter of right and not on the basis of
need. The program covers most of the forms of employment for
which wages and salaries are paid. Under the a.ct the term "employment" is defined as service by an employee for an employer, except
certain types of service specifically excluded. 10 W bile the exclusions
are numerous and were extended somewhat by the 1939 amendments,
more than 40 million wage and salary workers, comprising most of
the persons in the wage and salary worker category, have wage credits.
Many workers who are normally engaged in exempted work shift
into covered employments for part of the yeart and thereby may build
up benefit rights. For example, some agricultural workers find seasonal work in industries covered by the act. In this way the number
of workers wholly excluded from the system is not as large as might
be supposed from the exemption provisions of the a.ct.
Under the 1939 amendments the eligibility requirements outlined
in the 1935 act were changed materially. The original plan had been
to require that a beneficiary be at least 65 and retired, have total
earnings of at least $2,000 in covered employment, and have worked
at least l day in each of 5 calendar years after December 31, 1936t
and before reaching 65 years of age.
The 1939 amendments advanced the start of monthly benefit payments from 1942 to 1940 and prescribed new eligibility requirements.
18 The most important exclusions are: agricultural labor; domestic service in
homes and college clubs; casual labor; certain cases of family employment; public
service; service in a wide variety of cooperative, welfare, and nonprofit organisations and &BBociations. Other categories of service are also excluded. Moreover,
the amendmenui to the act exclude some part-time service that formerly would
have been included. Since employment is defined as servioe performed for an
employer, the act excludes all seir-employed persons, such as farm operators,
nonsalaried businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and other professional penona engaged
in independent practice.
Dig1t1zed by
Google
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM • 87
To attain the status of a "fully insured individual," a worker must
either (1) have received at least $50 a quarter from covered employment for half the number of calendar quarters elapsing after 1936, or
after he attained the age of 21 (if that occurs later) and before he becomes 65 or dies, and he must have had at least 6 quarters of coverage;
or (2) have had at least 40 quarters of coverage. A worker who has
fulfilled requirements during 40 quarters is entitled to permanent
coverage. Those workers who find steady employment will be able
to attain this status in l 0 years. Persons who .attain the status of
"fully insured individuals" are eligible to receive primary benefits as
soon as they become 65 and retire from covered employment; the
wives of such workers are entitled to a supplementary benefit equal to
half the primary benefit when they reach age 65.
A "currently insured individual," under the act as amended in
1939, is a person who has received at least $50 a quarter for 6 of the
12 quarters preceding his death. The widow and dependent children
of a currently insured worker receive monthly benefits under specified
conditions.
BenelH Po,-,,,.
In the 1939 amendments provision is made for six different types
of monthly benefits, in contrast to one type in the 1935 act. Moreover, the amendments change the method of computing the basic
benefit, now termed the "primary insurance benefit." 11
In the revised act the monthly benefit (primary insurance benefit)
is calculated from average earnings rather than total earnings. This
calculation is as follows: 40 percent of the average monthly wage up
to $50 plus 10 percent of the wage in excess of $50 but not above $250.
If, for example, the average wage is $150 monthly, the sum of these
percentages gives a benefit of $30 a month. This amount is then
increased by 1 percent for each year in which the worker has earned
as much as $200 in covered employment. If the wage earner worked
for 40 years with an average monthly wage of $150, his benefit would
be $42 monthly. This is the primary benefit payable to fully insured
individuals once they become eligible, and is the basis from which all
other benefits are computed. Both the primary benefit and other
benefits based on it, however, are subject to deductions for months
in which the primary beneficiary earns as much as $15 from covered
employment. The revised act retains the $10 monthly minimum.
found in the 1935 law.
If the wife of a primary annuitant is aged 65 or over, a supplementary
amount of one-half the primary benefit is provided. In the example
11 The original act computed monthly benefits 88 percentages of total earnings.
These were 88 follows: one-half of 1 percent of the first $3,000, one-twelfth of 1
percent on the next $42,000, and one twenty-fourth of 1 peroent on the remainder.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
88 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
given above, the primary benefit is $42 monthly; the "wife's insurance
benefit" would be $21 monthly, and the combined benefit to both
$63 monthly. 12 The widow of an individual who died fully insured is
paid monthly three-quarters of her husband's primary benefit if she
has attained 65 years of age, has not remarried, and is not entitled in
her own right to a primary benefit equal to or greater than threefourths her husband's benefit. This is the "widow's insurance benefit." If she is entitled to a smaller primary benefit in her own right
the amount given her for the combined benefits is not to exceed
three-fourths of her late husband's primary benefit.
A second type of benefit is paid to the widow (under 65) of a fully
or currently insured individual provided she is caring for a child (entitled to a child's insurance benefit described below) of the deceased
and has not remarried. The benefit paid to a widow with children
under 18 years of age is equal to three-fourths of the primary benefit
of her deceased husband. It is called "widow's current insurance
benefit." The "child's insurance benefit," equal to half the amount
of the primary benefit of the deceased parent, is paid to a dependent
child of a primary annuitant or of a fully or currently insured individual who has died. The benefit is paid to a dependent child under 18
years of age, but it may be withheld from children over 16 who fail to
attend school.
The benefits that may be paid to a widow and dependent children
may be illustrated as follows: When an insured worker dies, the
widow will receive a widow's current insurance benefit equal to threefourths of the husband's primary benefit and ea.ch child will receive
one-half this primary benefit. Maximum limits for combined benefits, however, are imposed by the act. They cannot exceed an amount
twice the primary benefit, or 80 percent of the average monthly wage
of the deceased worker, or $85 a month, whichever of these three is
least. The minimum limit for combined family benefits is $20.
Benefits equal to one-half the primary benefit of the deceased are
provided for parents of individuals who die fully insured and leaving
no widow or dependent children. In such circumstances a "parent's
insurance benefit" is paid if the parent is 65 or over, wholly dependent upon the individual who died, has not married since the individual's death, and is not entitled to receive a primary benefit which
exceeds one-half the amount of the deceased's primary benefit.
The a.ct as amended also provides for a lump-sum death payment
when no survivor benefits are payable. The lump-sum provision of
11 Should the wife be entitled to a primary benefit which ia equal to or exoeeds
one-half the husband's benefit, no supplementary benefit ia paid. Should her primary benefit be less than one-half her husband's benefit, her supplementary benefit ia reduced so that the combined primary and supplementary benefit provided
for the wife ia no greater than one-half the husband's benefit.
Digitized by
Google
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM • 89
the original act 11 was drastically changed in 1939, because it was
believed that the survivor benefit payments rendered the original
lump-sum payments unnecessary. Moreover, the saving involved in
discarding the original lump-sum payments was expected to offset the
increased outlays occasioned by the adoption of survivor benefits.
The amended act provides for the payment to specified relatives or
heirs of a smell "lump-sum death payment" equal to six times the
primary insurance benefit of a currently or fully insured individual
who died leaving no widow, child, or parent entitled to survivor
benefits for the month in which death occurred. If none of the
specified relatives or heirs is living, the lump-sum is given to the
person who paid the burial expenses.
In summary, then, the main features of the present old-age insurance system are these. A primary insurance benefit is paid to the
retired worker from the time he has been certified as eligible until
his death. A supplementary insurance benefit for his wife is paid
from the time she attains 65 until her husband's death. After that
she receives a widow's insurance benefit until her death or remarriage. If, however, the annuitant dies before his wife attains 65, and
they have no children under 18, the widow obtains a lump-sum payment, and, then, upon reaching age 65 (unless remarried), she gets
the widow's insurance benefit until her death. If the annuitant dies
leaving a widow under 65 and dependent children, the widow receives the widow's current insurance benefit and each child receives
a child's insurance benefit until the age of 18 (or 16 if the child is
no longer in school). The widow's current benefit ceases when the
child's benefit stops; when the widow reaches the a.ge of 65 and has
not remarried, she then becomes entitled to a widow's benefit. The
parents of an annuitant who dies leaving no widow or dependent
children are entitled to a parents' insurance benefit if they are 65
and dependent. If they are under 65 or are not dependent, they
may be entitled to the lump-sum payment.
Under this system, as has been pointed out, monthly benefits range
from $10 to $85 monthly. The $10 monthly minimum applies to the
primary benefit. If the wife of an annuitant is entitled to a supplementary benefit, the minimum combined benefit is $15 per month.
The minimim monthly benefit paid to a widow with a dependent child
is $20, and the maximum under ell circumstances is $85. The number
11 In the 1935 act a lump-sum payment equal to 3.5 percent of credited earnings was paid to persons reaching age 65 who did not satisfy the other requirements of eligibility for a monthly benefit. In a sense, this lump-sum payment
reflected the savings feature of the system. For the worker who paid contributions but received no monthly benefits, the lump-sum was a repayment to him
or to his estate of his contributions; and to the estate of a decea.,ed beneficiary
it was a repayment of the excess of contributions over benefit,,
Digitized by
Goog Ie
90 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
of beneficiaries and a.mount of insurance payments for old-age and
survivors insurance are shown for calendar years 1937-1940, and by
months from January 1939 through December 1940, in appendix
table 10.
Claims for benefits, under the 1939 amendments relating to old-age
and survivors insurance, first became payable in January 1940, and by
December a total of nearly 225,000 claims for monthly benefits had
been allowed. More than half, or 52 percent, of the claims were for
primary benefits; 14 percent were wife's benefits; 23 percent were
child's benefits; and the remainder were for widows and parents of
deceased workers. During the same period, more than 75,000 lumpsum death payments became payable.
The number and types of benefit claims allowed and the monthly
or lump-sum amounts payable during 1940 were as follows:"
Type or benefit
Number
Mo~~.~t;;,neftts __ ••••••·•·•··•·••••••••·• •••... ··- .....••.•.... ·••·.··· .... .
26',084
Chilcl's ...•.•••••••.....•...........................•.... _.. _....... - ... .
Widow's.-······················-·······································
Widow's
PRt"f'nt'tt. current .••.••••••••••••.•.•.•.•.•.•.••••..•••.•.•.•.•.••••••...
50,382
4,600
28,260
LumJH!Um death payments ..•.•.•.•.•.....•.....•.........•..••.• -•-·······
76, Oll6
+.
_____________________________________________________________ _
132,335
34,555
Amount
M,710,281
8, 00,5, OM
852
419,IIM
'nl.M8
93,674
'55,787
II, 153
II, 138, O'l5
The net result of the changes in the original old-age benefit program
planned in 1935 has been a significant liberalization of the program
so far as most of the people covered are concerned. It should also be
noted, however, that some persons who undoubtedly would have received benefits under the 1935 act are now excluded. These are the
persons who work less than half the quarters in covered employment,
or who receive less than $50 quarterly. 16
14 Operations relating to claims and benefit payments under the amended
provisions during the initial period will not be representative of the program during
ensuing months, both because of administrative factors and because persons who
reached the age of 65 prior to 1937 did not have sufficient quarters of coverage
to qualify for benefits until after April 1940. Amounts shown represent claims
allowed without adjustments required by sec. 203 or sec. 907 of the Social Security
Act Amendments of 1939.
11 "Twenty-two percent of all persons who paid old-age insurance taxes had
taxable earnings of less than $200 ($50 per quarter) in 1937. These are mainly
people who were unemployed part of the year, or who were part-time workers,
or people who worked in covered employments only pa.rt of the year, being employed in uncovered employments for the rest of the year. A considerable number
of these people will be able to attain the stat118 of fully insured individuals later
on, but offsetting these are many others who will not continue to have sufficient
earnings in covered employments to entitle them to benefits when they reach
retirement age.
"One of the great merits of the 1935 law was its unheralded broad coverage.
Under that law coverage was on individual basis, although only employment in
Digitized by
Google
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM • 91
The number who will fail to qualify for these reasons can only be
determined as the program continues. It is true, of course, that those
who fail to qualify and a.re in need may apply for aid under the old-age
assistance programs.
flaudar tN Old-A.. 1--..ce ,,.._
Funds to support this system are obtained from an income tax on
employees and an excise tax on pay rolls. The number of employees
and amount of reported taxable wages for 1938 are shown by States
in appendix table 11. As originally provided, the tax began at 1 per~ t on both employers and employees, and was scheduled to increase
by one-half of 1 percent every 3 years until it reached 3 percent in
1949. The 1939 amendments, however, held the tax at 1 percent for
1940-1942, but affirmed the 2 percent rate for 1943-1945, the 2.5
percent rate for 1946-1948, and the maximum rate of 3 percent beginning in 1949. These taxes are levied on the first $3,000 of yearly
wages and salaries of each person in employment covered by the act.
Under the 1935 plan Congress annually appropriated funds to the
Old-Age Reserve Account, while the tax receipts obtained from the
1 percent income and excise taxes were covered into the general fund
of the Treasury. Since monthly benefits were not expected to be
payable until 1942, and then were to be relatively small for many
years thereafter, the appropriations made by Congress were far in
excess of the expenditures under the plan (for lump-sum payments).
Accordingly a reserve was built up in the Old-Age Reserve Account
which approximated 1.4 billion dollars by the end of 1939. The sum
was invested in 3-percent Government bonds with the interest adding
to the reserve. It was expected that in future years the interest on
this reserve would provide a substantial pa.rt of the funds for benefit
payments, supplementing the receipts derived from future Social
Security taxes. 11
covered industries was taxed. Whenever a person secured employment in a
covered industry, even for a single day, he developed rights within the old age
insurance system. Rights once acquired were never lost and everybody who paid
any taxes could look forward to either lump-eum or retirement benefits, even if
be or she subsequently dropped out of covered employments." Witte, Edwin E.,
"Social Security-1940 Model," The American Labor Legialatum RevunD,
Vol XXIX, No. 3, September 1939, pp. 105-106.
1t In principle, the reserve plan was designed to cover all costs-the current, or
maturing costs, and the costs which will accrue in the future. Contrasted with
this is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" plan of making provision only for the current
costs, i. e., raising funds each year just sufficient to cover the costs of each year.
As the original old-age benefit system developed, it was expected to approximate
the fully financed reserve plan. Undoubtedly it would not have been wholly
self-financing, but the creation of a huge reserve would have provided a substantial
part of the annual income for benefit-paying purposes in the future. On the
problem of 8nancing see Witte, op. cil.
D1g1t1zed by
Google
92 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
The amendments in 1939 changed this financial arrangement. In
the first place, the amended act created a trust fund known as the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund to which were
transferred the securities and money of the Old-Age Reserve Account.
To this fund, in 1941 and succeeding years, is to be added an amount
equivalent to the total taxes collected under the Federal Insurance
Contributions Act.
Administration of the fund was placed in the hands of a Board of
Trustees of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, composed of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and
the Chairman of the Socia.I Security Board. The duty of the Board
of Trustees is to (1) hold the trust fund; (2) report to Congress each
year on the status of the fund, its operations during the fiscal year,
and its probable status and operations during the succeeding 5 fiscal
years; and (3) report to Congress whenever the Board believes that
the trust fund in the succeeding 5 years will exceed three times the
highest annual expenditure during that period. It is also to report
when it believes the trust fund is unduly small. In its report the
Board of Trustees is to show the actual assets and disbursements of
the fund and estimate future income and outgo in each of the ensuing
5 years. The Board is also to give a statement of the actuarial status
of the trust fund. The Secretary of the Treasury, as Managing
Trustee, must invest in Government securities or securities guaranteed
by the Government that part of the trust fund not needed for immediate payment of benefits. Special securities bearing a rate of interest
equal to the average for the public debt may be issued for this purpose.
While the present system is not on a strict pay-as-you-go basis, it
differs markedly from the original reserve basis. It is a "contingency
reserve" plan with a reserve which is presumably to be limited to a
maximum of three times the highest annual outlay during the ensuing 5 years. Although this limited reserve is not mandatory, indications point directly to a small reserve. Partly because payment of
benefits has been advanced from 1942 to 1940, and partly because
the average size of benefits in the early years has been increased and
the number of benefits has also become larger, total outlays will be
much larger during the 1940's than had been anticipated under the
original plan. Accretions to the fund in the form of tax receipts will
be less, owing to the fact that the originally scheduled increase in tax
rates from 1 to 1.5 percent will not occur, and the rate of interest on
the reserve will be less than that required under the old plan. Thus,
although income will be in excess of outgo for some time, the margin
has been narrowed and the reserve will grow much less rapidly than
under the original plan.
The adoption of these far-reaching financial changes grew out of a
determination that the original benefit provisions were inadequate,
Digitized
byGoog e
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM • 93
in that benefits were scheduled to begin too late, were too small, and
failed to cover survivors and dependents. The liberalization and
broadening of benefits has had the unavoidable effect of altering the
financial structure of the program. A further reason for the changes
was the resistance to the scheduled tax increase in 1940; recognition
of this led to freezing the initial tax rate. Moreover, the opposition
in some quarters to the growth of the old-age reserve, on the ground
that it exerted a deflationary influence on business activity 17 had
its influence also. It was pointed out that from 1937 through 1939
old-age taxes (drawn largely from consumers' incomes) averaged some
500 million dollars annually. On the other hand, only relatively small
amounts were put back into the income stream by lump-sum payments under this program. The difference represented the increase
in the old-age reserve. By increasing benefit payments and freezing
the tax rate, the reserve is held at low levels and the deflationary
influence reduced. 18
It was also brought out in the hearings on the 1939 amendments
that the need for a large reserve was lessened because the number of
persons covered by the program was greater than had been expected
when the 1935 act was drawn up. The Secretary of the Treasury
stated that, if necessary, supplemental funds from general tax revenue
could be substituted for the earnings of the reserve without substantial inequity. Therefore, it was argued, the large reserve is simply
unnecessary as a means of obtaining funds in the future for benefit
payment purposes.
The Old-Age Alllllance
Prosra•
The old-age assistance program is a cooperative Federal-State
venture designed to aid needy aged persons, and must thus be distinguished from the old-age and survivors insurance program. During
1940 an average of nearly 2 million needy aged persons received
old-age assistance payments which totaled approximately 476 million
dollars. (See appendix tables 12 and 13.) This program was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 (title I) for the purpose of
giving aid to the large number of needy aged, many of whom had up to
that time been receiving emergency relief under the FERA program or
old-age pensions under State plans. Upon the recommendation of the
Committee on Economic Security, Congress provided in 1935 for a
system of Federal grants to States for the purpose of encouraging
11 See Hansen, Alvin, Full Recovery or Stagnation?, New York: W. W. Norton
& Company, Inc., 1938, ch. 9.
1• The deflationary effects of the plan, however, are not necessarily connected
with the "reserve" but only with the excess of tax receipts over payments. An
old-age reserve, however, need not be created in this way; annual appropriations could accomplish the same purpose without deflation resulting.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
94 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
additional States to adopt old-age pension plans and of raising the
adequacy and effectiveness of those plans.
The main features of the old-age assistance program may be summarized 88 follows:
1. The program is b88ically a State program, in contrast to the
old-age and survivors insurance plan which is wholly Federal. Oldage assistance programs are created and administered by the States
which, subject to general Federal provisions, determine the age,
residence, and other requirements for recipients and the amount of aid
to be given. To receive Federal grants the States must establish
programs conforming to the general requirements of the Social Security
Act and approved by the Social Security Board.
2. The program is noncontributory. The recipients of old-age
assistance funds are determined by investigation to be in need of
public aid and otherwise eligible under the State law. Payments are
made only 88 long 88 the aged person remains in need of assistance.
Recipients are not required, as in the old-age insurance plan, to contribute, or to have contributed, to any special fund for purposes of
this plan. Funds for the needy aged are derived from the general
revenues of the Federal Treasury and from the general or special
revenues of the State treasuries.
3. In making grants to eligible States, the Federal Government
matches State funds dollar-for-dollar but in no case is the Federal
share permitted to exceed $20 a month to any recipient. The Federal
Government further provides a grant, amounting to 5 percent of the
old-age grant, to be used for administering the State old-age assistance
program.
According to the Social Security Act, a State plan must meet the
following requirements in order to gain Federal approval and thus
make the State eligible to receive the Federal grants-in-aid for the
needy aged:
1. State plans must be mandatory on all subdivisions within the
State. The "county option" provisions found previously in many
State laws are thus ruled out.
2. The State governments must participate in the financing of the
plan. This provision W88 adopted because of the unsatisfactory
practice of some States before 1935 in contributing no State funds
at all but requiring local governments to assume full financial
responsibility.
3. There must be either a central State administrative agency for
the old-age assistance plan, or State supervision of local administration.
4. The age limit for eligibility must not exceed 65 years.
5. The State cannot require that residence in the State exceed 5
years during the 9 years preceding application for old-age assistance.
Digitized by
Google
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM • 95
In this way the former restrictive residence requirements (in at least
one State 35 years' residence was required) were liberalized.
6. State laws must provide means _of hearing the appeals of those
whose application for old-age assistance has been denied.
Other requirements relate to reports to the Board, personnel standards, safcguards restricting the use of information concerning applicants and recipients, and the income and resources of old-age assistance recipients.
State laws in general fix a maximum amount that a recipient of
old-age assistance may obtain each month. In most cases this
maximum has been $30 although several States have a maximum of
$40 or $45 and in others no limit is set. While the maximum figures
establish the upper limit, the actual amount received by an aged person will depend upon the availability of funds, and the amount of
his need as determined by investigation. In December 1940 the
average payment was $20.26, ranging from an average of $7 .87
in Arkansas to an average of $37 .87 in California. (See appendix
table 14.)
The prevalence of the $30 maximum limit is explained by the
provision in the 1935 Social Security Act granting Federal funds on a
one-to-one matching basis up to a maximum of $15. In 1939 Congress amended the act to permit the Federal share to increase to $20
a month. This enables the States to provide a $40 payment without
paying more than half the cost out of non-Federal funds. A number
of States have already adopted this higher maximum limit.
The percentage of persons 65 years of age and over receiving oldage assistance varies considerably among States. In December 1940
the average for the country was about 26 percent, ranging from
8 percent in the District of Columbia to 63 percent in Oklahoma.
The following tabulation gives summary figures on recipients and
total and average benefits since 1936.
Old-Age Assistance in States With Plans Approved by the Social Security Board,
February 1936-0ecember 1940
Year
1113111 -- _-------------------- ··-··-------··---------- _. -11137. -- __ -- • _. -- _. _-••••••• -- -·- - • - - -- - - - -- • - - - - - -- - • - - ••
11138_ -- ··- - - - - - - - • - •• - • -- -· -- - - - - •• -- - - - - - -- • - - -- -- • -- - • 111311.. _______ • --·. -·· -····-. - • - - --- - -- • -- - - - - - - ------- - - llMQ _____ •• ·-·-- __ --· -··· _·- - - - __ -· - •• - - - - - - - - - • _- - - - - - - -
Number or
ta!
Average pay.
recipients De- To payments ment per reclploember or each to recipients ent Deoember
or each year
year
for year
1, 104,M7
1,679,363
1,ffi,292
1,911,683
2, Offll, 704
$136,969,424
310, 394, 106
390,402,054
431, 139, 902
476, 762, 218
$18. 77
19.4e
19. 55
19. 30
21.20
• 11 montba onl7. Program started February 1930.
It is important to distinguish between the two old-age programs
and to appraise their respective roles. Although an increasing number
Digitized by
Google
96 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
of aged persons will qualify for annuities under the old-age and
survivors insurance program as time goes on, the need for old-age
assistance seems beyond question. At the present time, of course, it
cares for most of the aged in need of assistance. In future years there
will undoubtedly continue to be large numbers in need of assistance.
In the discussion of the old-age insurance program it was shown that
statutory exemptions exclude many workers from the benefits of that
program. Moreover, many workers in covered employment will fail
to qualify because of low wages or because they were unable to work
the requisite number of quarters. Undoubtedly, too, some will need
old-age assistance to supplement their monthly insurance benefits.
In short, old-age assistance provides an element of flexibility. As the
insurance program is now organized, old-age assistance is essential as a
complementary program of old-age security.
OTHER PUBLIC-ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
In addition to the grants for the needy aged sketched above, publicassistance activities instituted under the Social Security Act also
provide for the making of grants to States for programs of aid to
dependent children and the needy blind. These grants, like grants for
the aged, are available only after approval by the Social Security
Board of State programs for assistance to these categories. Major
prerequisites for approval (as with grants for the aged) are that the
program be State-wide, that the State participate in the financing,
and that there be some provision for administration or supervision
of the program by the State itself.
The Federal contribution for the needy blind amounts to one-half
of the monthly amount given to each person until the total reaches
$40 per month. In other words, the Federal share cannot be more
than $20 per person. A State, however, may contribute more than
this if it so desires. For dependent children, the Federal Government contributes an amount equal to the State contribution, up to a
combined total of $18 per month for one child and $12 per month for
each additional child aided in the same household. Here, too, a State
may pay more if it wishes. At the end of 1940, 43 jurisdictions (41
States, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii) were operating approved
programs of assistance for the needy blind and 43 jurisdictions (41
States, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii) were giving aid to
dependent children under programs approved by the Social Security
Board. 111
In addition to the three major public-assistance programs just ou~
lined (aged, dependent children, and blind) the Social Security Act
11 See appendix tables 12 and 13 for figures on the programs to aid dependent
children and the blind.
Digitized by
Google
For the Aged.
In DC'ccmhcr 1940 old-age asRista.ncc was recei\'e<l h.v 2,0<i!>,70-t }><' r8""" 1111dcr
the Federal Security Age ncy .
0 g1t1zea by
GoogIe
F or tfi ,, /:ti 11 d.
111 l),,c,•111l u•r l!illl !l Jl l'l'"~i111 at< •lv .J!l .OtlO 1u•1•d_v l,li11d p,:rso11s w,•rr Tl'<'<'iYing
p a,\ 111v1i1-: 111 .. !,·r 1ol:11 1s ll i'l"'"\1•d li~- tlit· Ho<·ial ~, ·e urity Huard .
Digitized by
Goog Ie
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM • 97
provided for certain other grants of relatively small fiscal significance.
Grants were made available under the act for the purpose of extending
the services of the United States Public Health Service and Federal
vocational rehabilitation services. Federal grants to States for the
development of programs providing for maternal and child-health
services, services for crippled children, and child-welfare services
administered by the Children's Bureau were also ma.de possible under
the act.
THE FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY
As a part of Reorganization Plan No. 1, which went into effect on
July 1, 1939,20 the President created the Federal Security Agency, the
purpose being to group together "those agencies of the Government,
the major purposes of which are to promote social and economic
security, educational opportunity, and the health of the citizens of the
nation." Placed in the Federal Security Agency along with the
Social Security Board were the United States Employment Service,
formerly in the Department of Labor and now made a part of the
Board; the Office of Education, previously in the Department of the
Interior; the Public Health Service, formerly in the Treasury Department; the National Youth Administration, which had been under the
WPA; and the Civilian Conservation Corps, hitherto an independent
agency. Certain other agencies were transferred to the Federal
Security Agency under subsequent reorganization plans.
CONCLUSION
The programs created by the Social Security Act undoubtedly will
be modified and perfected as future experience points to the need for
amendment. The importance of the act, and what has already been
accomplished under the program, can scarcely be overestimated.
There can no longer be any question of the basic need for the program;
equally clear is the fact that the program is already offering il'eater
security to a large segment of the population than ever before. In
the words of the Chairman of the Social Security Board, testifying
before a Congressional Committee in 1939:
The purpose of the Social Security Act is to utilize the machinery of govemment--Federal, State, and local-to provide for the individual citizen a measure
of security against the major economic hazards of life which have become so
widespread and overwhelming to the individual . . . .
There is no longer any question as to whether this kind of social security will
work. It is working. Unemployment compensation, operating through State
laws, provides a regular weekly income for insured wage earners when they are
temporarily out of work. More than 27,500,000 workers are covered by such
laws in all the States. . . . Some 2,500,000 of those now in need-the aged, the
111 The creation of the Federal Works Agency under Plan No. 1 is described
in ch. VII.
o,g,tized by
Google
98 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
blind, and dependent chiJdrm--are receiving regular cub assistance from combined Federal-State funds. Social insurance against future old-age dependency
bas been established on a Nation-wide basis in our Federal old-age insurance
program, and more than 42,500,000 workers have already applied for accounts
under this system. Through it these millions of J,Den and women have an opportunity-most of them for the first time in their liv-to build up an income for
self-support when their working days are over.11
11 Social Security, Hearings Relative to the Social Security Act Amendmente of
1939 Before the Committee on Waye and Means, 76tb Cong., let eeee., Vol. I,
February 1939, p. 46.
Dig1t1zed by
Google
Chapter IX
SOCIAL INSURANCE FOR RAILROAD
WORKERS
A SEPARATE social insurance system administered by the Railroad
Retirement Boa.rd has been established by Congress to provide retirement annuities and unemployment insurance for employees of the
railroad industry. An estimated 2½ million individuals have worked
in employment covered by this system at some time during the period
from January 1, 1937, through December 1940. Through December
1940, a.bout 370 million dollars were pa.id out to aged workers or their
dependents and nearly 22 million dollars in benefits were pa.id to those
eligible to receive railroad unemployment insure.nee.
THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT SYSTEM
The broad scope of the railroad retirement program has been summarized by the Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Boa.rd as follows:
Under the Railroad Retirement Acts of 1935 and 1937 the Board makes five
types of payments to railroad workers or their dependents: (1) employee annuities,
both disability and old age, paid to eligible individuals after retirement;
(2) survivor annuities, paid under joint and survivor elections to the surviving
spouse of a deceased annuitant; (3) death benefit annuities, paid only under the 1935
Act to the surviving spouse or dependent next of kin of a deceased annuitant or
employee entitled to an annuity under that Act; (4) lump-sum death benefits
payable only under the 1937 Act with respect to the death of any employee who
earned compensation under the Act after December 31, 1936, to a designated
beneficiary or to the deceased employee's legal representative; and (5) pensions
to individuals who were on the pension or gratuity rolls of employers under the
Act . . . . 1
Prior to enactment of legislation setting up the railroad retirement
system pensions were provided under private pension plans operated
1 See Latimer, Murray W., "The Security Programs for Railroad Workers,"
Social Securit11 in the United State,, New York: American Association for Social
Security, Inc., 1939, pp. 51--61.
99
Digitized by
Google
100 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
by the railroads. These plans, some of which had been placed in
operation as early as 1900, covered over 80 percent of the railroad and
express company employees by 1933.
Private pension plans, however, were not wholly satisfactory.
There were no legal safeguards protecting the employees' right.a to
pensions and no guarantee that pensions would not be reduced during
financial crises; coverage was limited by technical difficulties as workers
changed employers; separate pension plans varied greatly with respect
to eligibility requirements, benefit payments, and liberality in granting
pensions; and some important carriers never adopted retirement
systems, leaving their workers without the benefits accorded other
employees.
The first step ta.ken by the Federal Government to meet the need
of railroad workers for a. more adequate retirement program was the
enactment of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934. This a.ct established a. unified Federal system for the payment of retirement annuities
to all railroad and related employees to be financed by contributions
from employers and employees. The railroads- contested this a.ct
and it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in May
1935. 2
New legislation was enacted in 1935 under the spending and taxing
powers of Congress. The taxing a.ct was declared unconstitutional
by a. district court in 1936. Prior to appeal by the Government from
this decision the Railway Labor Executives' Association and the
Association. of American Railroads a.greed on a substitute railroad
pension system acceptable to both labor and management. The most
important features of the agreement were the promise of the railroads
to drop their lawsuits, the abatement of taxes owed under the 1935
a.ct, and the assumption by the Government of the pensions being pa.id
by the railroads under the existing private pension plans. The new
proposal expanded coverage somewhat and provided for a. tax rate to
begin at 2¾ percent ea.ch on employers and employees and to increase
gradually in 12 yea.rs to 3¾ percent.
This agreement led to the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 and to
the Carriers Taxing Act of 1937. 1 Major provisions of the first a.ct
a.re as follows:
The a.ct covers employees of railroads and sleeping-car and express
companies subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, companies owned
or controlled by these carriers which a.re engaged in performing service in connection with railroad transportation, employees of railroad
1
Railroad Retirement Board v. AUon Railroad Co., 55 Supreme Court, 758 (295
u. s. 330).
1 Benefits under the first act became payable on the date of enactment, June 24,
1937; taxes under the second act were payable on compensation earned after
December 31, 1936.
Digitized by
Google
INSURANCE FOR RAILROAD WORKERS • 101
associations, employees of national railway labor organizations, and
employee representatives.
Employees with creditable service under the act are eligible to
receive annuities if they are: 65 years of age or over, 4 or 60 years of
age and have completed 30 years of service, or 60 years of age and
permanently disabled, or permanently disabled and have completed
30 years of service.
Several classes of benefits are payable under this system. 6 Employment annuities, both for disability and for old age, are payable
to eligible employees after retirement. The amount of the monthly
annuity is determined by multiplying years of service by percentages
of monthly compensation up to $300, according to the following
schedule: 6
2 percent on the first $50
1½ percent on the next $100
1 percent on the last $150
The Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 also provides benefits for
survivors. These survivor annuities are payable to the surviving
spouse of a deceased employee annuitant provided a reduced annuity
had been elected by the annuitant during his life. The survivor annuity may be equal to, 75 percent of, or 50 percent of the reduced
annuity. A lump-sum death benefit is also payable under the act to
a designated beneficiary. This benefit is 4 percent of wages up to
$300 monthly earned since December 31, 1936, less the amount of
any annuity paid.
' Service after age 65 is not credited toward an annuity but the compensation
earned for such service may be included if it serves to increase the annuity.
• In addition to the benefits shown under the 1937 act, employee annuities continued to be payable under the 1935 act to employees who relinquished their
rights to return to service before June 24, 1937, and were otherwise eligible under
the 1935 act. Death benefits, equal to one-half the annuity, are payable to
dependents or a deceased annuitant or employee entitled to an annuity under
the 1935 act, for a period of 1 year.
• The minimum annuity or individuals aged 65 with 20 years of service is $40
if their average monthly compensation is $50 or more. If the average monthly
compensation is less than $50, the minimum annuity is 80 percent of this average, but not Jess than $20. Compensation on which the annuity is based is the
average monthly compensation for months of service under the act, except that
for any months of service before January 1, 1937, the average monthly compensation is the average for the 8-year period 1924-31. Annuities based on service
prior to January 1, 1937, are limited to a maximum of $120 a month since no
more than 30 years of service may be counted. For annuities based entirely on
eervice after December 31, 1936, there is no limit to the number of years of service that may be counted. If an employee retires at age 60 (instead of 65) after
30 years of service or because of disability the annuity is reduced 1/180 for each
month by which the employee's age falls below 65.
Digitized by
Google
102 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
The railroad retirement system also pays pensions equal to those
formerly received under private pension systems but not exceeding
$120 monthly. The distinction between annuities and pensions under
the system has been made in the following terms:
An annuity is the amount paid to any eligible railroad employee in accordance
with his years of service and specified wage periods. A pension ill the amount
paid . . . to railroad employees who were formerly the beneficiaries of a railroad
pension system, having, generally speaking, been retired before the Retirement
Act was passed.7
Over 48,000 pensioners were taken over by the Railroad Retirement
Board, not counting some 6,000 other individuals who had been certified as eligible for employee annuities. Many of the pensions had
been reduced during the early depression period. The Board readjusted these pensions, in accordance with the provisions of the act,
raising the monthly average from $50 to $55.
Cov-1• and Benefits
Through December 1940 approximately 2.5 million employees had
established credited service upon which benefits will some time be
payable under the railroad retirement system. 8 It is estimated that 97
percent of these workers are employees of railroad carriers, and the
remaining coverage represents employees of carrier affiliates, carrier
associations, and railway labor organizations. From July 1936
through December 1940 total benefit payments amounting to 368
million dollars were made by the Board. During the latter month
there were more than 150,000 annuitants or pensioners. (See appendix table 15.) Of these, 113,000 were employee annuitants, 33,000
were pensioners, and about 4,000 were survivor and death-benefit annuitants or recipients of lump-sum death payments.
financing the 5yslenl
Appropriations for benefit payments and for establishing a reserve
under the Railroad Retirement Act are made by Congress annually.
Separate annual appropriations are made for administrative expenses.
Although the Railroad Retirement Act does not specify that appropriations to the railroad retirement account and for administrative
expenses should equal in amount the revenue received under the Carriers Taxing Act, that practice has, in fact, been followed.
The Carriers Taxing Act of 1937 levies two taxes, an income tax on
employees and an excise tax on pay rolls. The income tax is levied
on the first $300 of monthly compensation of each employee covered
Latimer, op. cit.
This number includes about 93,000 individuals to whom employee annuities
had been certified by June 1940, and about 27,000 individuals with respect to
whose death lump-sum death payments had been certified by that date.
1
8
D191t12ed by
Google
INSURANCE FOR RAILROAD WORKERS • 103
under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 according to the following
schedule:
2¾ percent from 1937 to 1939
3 percent from 1940 to 1942
3¼ percent from 1943 to 1945
3½ percent from 1946 to 1948
3¾ percent after 1948
The excise tax on employers likewise is on the first $300 monthly
compensation paid to any employee and at the same rates. All these
taxes are collected quarterly by the Bureau of Internal Revenue and
go into the general fund of the Treasury.
Funds not currently needed for the payment of benefits are invested
by the Board in existing or special obligations of the Federal Government which yield 3 percent interest. It was expected that tax collections at the rate set in the Carriers Taxing Act would be sufficiently
in excess of current needs during early years of operation of the system
to provide a reserve, the interest from which would be drawn upon
for benefit payments in later years when current benefit requirements
would be in excess of current tax yields. Because the number of retirements have been greater than expected, while tax collections have
been less than originally estimated, the reserve has not accumulated
at the rate anticipated. As of June 30, 1940, there was a balance of
approximately 72 million dollars in the railroad retirement account.11
Railroad Retirement Co111parecl With Social Security Old-Age IMUrance
The railroad worker now contributes 3 percent of his monthly
income, compared with a contribution of 1 percent by the wage
earner under the old-age benefit system of the Social Security Act;
these rates will increase respectively under present legislation to an
eventual 3¾ percent and 3 percent. Accompanying the higher tax
rate under the railroad retirement system are certain features not
present in the old-age benefit system. For example, a railroad worker
having 30 years' service may retire at 60 instead of 65, 10 and he is
entitled to a maximum monthly annuity of $120 instead of $85. 11
• This total does not include either accrued obligations not yet certified for
payment, or taxes accrued on the pay rolls of the quarter April-June 1940. On
the basis of total accrued taxes and accrued obligations, the balance in the retirement system as of June 30, 1940, was about 93 million dollars.
10 Retirements before age 65 must be at reduced amounts unless the annuitant
is permanently and totally disabled and has had 30 years of service.
11 The maximum monthly annuity of $120 applies only where service prior to
1937 is included in the years of service. For annuities based solely on service
after 1936 there is no limit on the number of years of service which may be included
in the computation of the annuity. Thus annuities in ex.ceee of $120 a month
will be possible after 1966.
Digitized by
Google
104 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Moreover, maximum railroad annuities of $120 are payable now but
there can be no full benefit under the old-age benefit system for many
years to come. In addition, once the railroad worker acquires benefit
rights under the act, these benefits are not lost as a result of transfer
out of the industry or termination of covered employment. Under
the present Social Security Act loss of all benefit rights is possible.·
On the other hand, the social security system offers certain features
not found in the railroad retirement system. These include supplementary monthly benefits for aged wives and dependent children,
survivor annuities without requiring the insured person to accept a
reduced annuity, and the right to accumulate wage credits after
age 65.
Together these old-age programs provide a comprehensive system
of contributory old-age benefits, under which most of the wage and
salary workers in this country will derive payments during old age.
While many questions remain, including differences in benefits and
the effects of the tax provisions, these programs represent highly
significant steps in the social policy of government.
THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SYSTEM
As early as 1933 the Railway Labor Executives' Association
recommended special legislation to stabilize employment and to provide for the payment of benefits to the temporarily unemployed in
the railroad industry. In its report to the President in 1935 the
Committee on Economic Security proposed "the establishment of a
separate nationally administered system of unemployment compensation for railroad employees and maritime workers." Finally, early
in 1938 a bill satisfactory to both railroad labor and management
was introduced and passed by Congress without a dissenting vote.
The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act establishes a national
pooled-fund system of unemployment insurance for railroad workers
under the administration of the Railroad Retirement Board. Before
the passage of this act railroad workers were covered by the State
unemployment compensation systems. At the present time these
workers are covered only by the Railroad Unemployment Insurance
Act, which became effective for both contributions and benefits on
July 1, 1939.
It should be noted, as indicated in the following quotation, that:
The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act is the first unemployment insurance system in this country to be set up on a national basis. Jt differs in this
and other respects from the unemployment compensation systems established
under the Social Security Act and the state unemployment compensation laws.
Even though limited to a single industry, it may be of more general significance
in pointing the way toward a simplified system of unemployment insurance. . . . 11
11
Latimer, op cit.
Digitized by
Google
Semritv.
l i:trl
Thro1111:h Dec-ember 1940 approxima 1d~· 2'.,~ milli on rnilronrl c-111pl11~·,,,,~
C"Rt.alilishe<l c•r<"ditc-d scr\'ir<" , 11p1>11 w hid1 lw11di t s will ~11111di1111 • J., , pa_,:11 ,1,,.
D1g1tized by
Goog Ie
D,g1t1zed by
Goog Ie
INSURANCE FOR RAILROAD WORKERS • 105
The workers covered by this program are substantially the same
as those covered by the Railroad Retirement Act and the Carriers
Taxing Act. In order to receive benefits, employees must earn at
least $150 from covered employment during the base year. 18
The minimum period of time for which a benefit claim is submitted
is 14 consecutive days, beginning with a day of unemployment.
Benefits in the first registration period in a benefit year are paid
only for each day of unemployment in excess of 7 and in the succeeding
registration periods, for each day of unemployment in excess of 4 in
the 14-day period. 14 The difference between 7 and 4 noncompensable
days embodies the only waiting-period requirement provided under
the act as amended in 1940. 16 · This benefit formula differs from those
in State unemployment compensation systems, most of which provide
benefits for consecutive 7-day periods or calendar weeks of unemploy.ment. In most States there are also partial unemployment benefits,
which, combined with the earnings for the week, give the worker an
income equal to or slightly larger than his weekly benefit for total
unemployment.
The amount of the daily benefit under the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act varies from $1.75 to $4, depending upon the wages
received during the base year. As in the State systems, a maximum
limit is established. Under the railroad system the maximum total
amount of benefits payable during the benefit year is 100 times the
employee's daily benefit amount. 10 The benefit rates and maximum
benefits applicable to the several base-year wage classes as provided
under the 1940 amendments are shown below. 17
Compellll&tlon Crom covered employment durln1 ba8e year
SU!O to $1119.99•.•••••••••••••••.•••••••.••.•••••••.•.••••••••••••
$200 to $4,74.911.. ••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••.••••.•.•••••.•.••..
$4.76 to S74U.91L •.••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••••.•••.•••••••••••.•.
$750 to $999.1111.. ..••••••••••••••••.•.•••.•.•.•.•••••••.••.••.....
Sl,000 to Sl,21111.119.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•..
U·:l ~ ~;,:i·w~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
0
be
8JlYratene•
Maximum
amount In a
14-day period
$1. 76
$17. 60
2. 00
2. 26
2. 50
3.00
20.00
22. 50
26.00
30.00
36.00
40.00
3.60
4.00
Maximum
~°':~:tf
year
St76
200
226
2llO
300
350
400
11 The base year is the calendar year preceding the benefit year, which is a
12-month period beginning in July and ending the following June.
u Before the October amendment benefits were payable for each day of unemployment in excess of 7 in a period of l 5 consecutive days. The change, therefore,
increased the number of compensable days from a maximum of 8 in 15 days to a
maximum of 10 in 14 days.
11 In the.period from July 1939 through October 1940 before the 1940 amendments became effective, a waiting period was required consisting of 15 consecutive
days comprising at least 8 days of unemployment.
11 This was increased from 80 by the 1940 amendments.
11 Daily benefit rates above $2.50 are the increased rates provided in the 1940
amendments.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
106 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Employees may be disqualified for benefits under certain conditions,
such as the voluntary leaving of suitable employment without good
cause or the submission of a fraudulent claim for benefit. A railroad
worker is also disqualified under this system for the period during
which he receives annuities, pensions, or old-age benefits under the
Railroad Retirement Act or any other act of Congress, or unemployment benefits under any other unemployment compensation system.
Benefits are not paid if unemployment follows stoppage of work
because of an unauthorized strike, or a strike in violation of the
Railway Labor Act, unless the employee is not participating or does
not belong to a class of workers participating in the dispute. A restriction is imposed on benefits for workers paid on a mileage basis; these
workers, operating under collective agreements which limit their
maximum employment in a month, often complete their monthly
work quota in 10 or 15 days. 11 This disqualification a.ffects only
those workers in the higher wage classes.
The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act was amended in 1940
to shorten the waiting period, to increase the number of compensable
days in a registration period and the maximum number of compensable days in a benefit year, and to increase the daily benefit rates for
employees with base-year wages of $1,000 or more. These changes
were made in order to provide railroad workers with benefits which
would compare favorably with those paid to other workers under the
more liberal of the State plans. 19 The increase in benefits, estimated
by the Board to amount on the average to 75 percent, went into
effect in November 1940.
Through December 1940 the Railroad Retirement Board po.id out
21.7 million dollars under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act
to unemployed railroad workers (appendix table 16). The number
and amount of benefit payments certified by State of residence of
beneficiary for the last quarter of 1940 are shown in appendix table 17.
During a part of that period the individual benefit, which was determined according to the number of days of unemployment in excess of
7 during the 15 consecutive days' period and the rate of benefit,
could vary from $1.75 to $24. Beginning in November 1940, individual benefits became payable for days of unemployment in excess of
4 during the 14 consecutive days' period, and the rate of benefit may
vary from $1.75 to $40.
11 A mileage worker is not eligible for benefits if, during a registration period,
he earned 20 times his daily benefit amount, or if the registration period is the
second half of a period of 28 days during which he earned 40 times his daily benefit
amount.
1• "Amendments to Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act," The Monthly
Rwiew of the Railroad Retirement Board, Vol. I, No. 5, September 1940, pp. 3-10.
Digitized by
Google
INSURANCE FOR RAILROAD WORKERS • 107
The system is fine.need by taxes on employers, at the rate of 3
percent of the compensation payable to the employee, up to $300
monthly. The act established the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account, maintained by the Secretary of the Treasury in the
Social Security Unemployment Trust Fund. This account is credited
with 90 percent of the collections. Sums credited to this account
are continuously available to the Railroad Retirement Boa.rd for the
payment of benefits. 20
The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Administration Fund, set
up in the Treasury, receives 10 percent of the funds collected under
the taxing provisions of this act. This fund was also credited with
certain unexpended funds collected by the Treasury under Title IX
of the Social Security Act. These sums are available to meet the
expenses of administering the act.
The Railroad Retirement Board, in administering the act, collects
contributions, prescribes regulations concerning claims for benefits,
and may establish its own employment offices as well as secure the
assistance of employers, labor organizations, and State unemployment compensation and employment service agencies. The Board
may enter into arrangements with State agencies to provide joint
benefits for workers employed both by railroad and nonrailroad
employers. States were required to exempt railroad employment
from their unemployment compensation programs beginning
July 1, 1939.
Cotllpari10111 With Slate Unemploy•ent Cotllpematlon Sysl.-
A number of points may be mentioned in a comparison of these two
systems. First, the railroad unemployment insurance system is
limited to one major industrial group, while the State systems cover
a wide range of industrial classes. Approximately 2 million workers
are covered by the railroad system, while some 28 million a.re under
the State systems. The limitation to one industry and Federal
administration of the system lead to more uniformity and simplicity
than are found in the 51 State programs covering a larger number of
workers in a great variety of industries.
Comparisons of benefits paid under these systems are made difficult
by the fact that the railroad benefits a.re payable for each day of
• The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account also received somewhat
over 100 million dollars from the State reserves held in the Unemployment Trust.
Fund. These transfers were made because the State systems taxed railroad
employment until June 30, 1939, but had no obligation to pay benefits after that
date. Therefore, some reserves were accumulated by the States as a result of
the contributions paid by railroad employers. The act directed the Social
Security Board, the Railroad Retirement Board, and the respective States to
agree upon the amount to be transferred to the Railroad Unemployment Trust
Fund.
Digitized by
Google
108 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
unemployment in excess of 4 within 14 consecutive days; or approximately 10 days out of 2 weeks' unemployment; while State unemployment compensation benefits are on a weekly basis, and are paid for
consecutive weeks of unemployment. Full-time railroad benefits
for a 14-day period of joblessness range from $17.50 to $40; most of
the State unemployment compensation benefits range from $5 to $15
weekly. The railroad system follows a simplified method of computing benefits. Instead of the complicated earnings requirements
found in many of the State systems, the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act merely requires that the employee earn $150 during
the preceding year. Daily benefit rates begin at $1.75, and increase
in 25- and 50-cent intervals, based on salaries ranging from $150 to
$1,600. Instead of a benefit period determined by the length of
employment or the amount of wages earned, the duration of benefit
payments is a flat period of 100 days. A further basic difference
found in the railroad a.ct is the absence of the experience-rating or
plant-reserve principles. The railroad insurance system is a national
pooled-fund system into which all employers pay the same rate of
contribution.
Digitized by
Google
Chapter X
GENERAL RELIEF SINCE 1936
THE PROBLEM OF GENERAL RELIEF SINCE THE DISCONTINUATION OF
FERA GRANTS
THE INAUGURATION and development of Federal work activities and of the public-assistance program under the Social Security
Act have marked an important advance toward meeting the problem
of need arising from unemployment and destitution. With the discontinuation of the FERA program at the close of 1935, the Federal
Government withdrew financial support for emergency relief. 1 Those
not receiving work or Social Security benefits were left to the care
of the States and localities. In this group were needy families with
one employable member or more not aided by the WPA,' or other
Federal agencies giving emergency employment. Other members of
the so-called general relief 8 group were needy unemployables who did
not qualify for the special types of assistance under provisions of the
Social Security Act (old-age assistance, aid to dependent children,
and aid to the blind).' The third group in need of general relief
consisted of persons with some income from relief or nonrelief sources
who required supplementary relief to raise their income sufficiently
to meet their basic budgetary needs. Problems of this type have
arisen in families suffering from underemployment and inadequate
earnings, or in families whose earnings or benefits under work relief,
assistance, or security programs have proved inadequate because of
the size of family, extraseasonal requirements, or illness.
1 See chs. V and VI.
See also Whiting, T. E., Final Statistical Report of the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Division of Statistics, Work Projects
Administration, Federal Works Agency, Washington, D. C., 1941.
1 Principally because of budgetary limitationB, this program has provided for
only a portion of the employable families in need.
1 The term "general relief" as used in this chapter is restricted to outdoor
relief (non-institutional) and includes local poor relief.
• Assistance to these categories has been restricted by residence, citizenBhip,
and property qualificationB; no provision exists under the Social Security Act for
the relief of totally disabled persoOB in need.
109
Digitized by
Google
110 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
This problem of residual or general relief has been met by the several
States in a great variety of ways. In a majority of instances, State
grants-in-aid have been made to local units which met the conditions
pre-SCribed for State aid.
The division of the cost of general relief between State and local
governments in the different States has varied considerably. While a
few States have assumed virtually complete financial responsibility
for general relief, 6 a number of State governments have regarded the
financing of this type of aid as a purely local problem. 8 In many
instances this responsibility has been delegated to local authorities
designated by law to provide "pauper relief."
The cessation of Federal supervision over general relief at the end
of 1935 has meant major changes in the administrative organization
of State relief agencies. While some emergency relief administrations
ban continued since 1935 with little change in functions, the administration or supervision of general relief in most States has been
transferred to existing or newly created regular departments, most of
which have other public welfare functions as well. In States where the
entire responsibility for general relief has been relegated to local governments, the existing State emergency relief agencies were usually
either liquidated or else limited in their operation to certain services.7
Since the discontinuation of the FERA, the differences among
States in eligibility requirements and relief standards have greatly
increased. In States and localities where applicants have been accepted on the basis of their need, with no other restriction, coverage
seems to be good, particularly if State funds have been made available.
But where eligibility requirements have been made rigid because of
the lack of sufficient funds, a considerable volume of need has been
left unmet. The same observation applies to the adequacy of relief
allowances. The unmet need appears to be most pronounced in
States in which general relief to employable cases has been given
sporadically or has been greatly restricted or totally denied. 8 Relief
1 Included are Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania.
These
States, since some time in 1936, have financed practically the entire cost of general
relief from State funds.
1 Since some time in 1936 general relief has been financed exclusively by local
funds in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, MiSBissippi, North Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, and Vermont. In subsequent years the States of Nebraska, New
Hampshire, and Tennessee joined the group.
' Such services include the distribution of Federal surplus commodities or
commodities produced on work projects; certification of persons eligible for employment on WP A projects or for the CCC, etc.
1 Roughly a dozen States fell in this category in the early part of 1940.
□ig,1,zed by Google
GENERAL RELIEF SINCE 1936 • 111
policies have been least liberal in States where general relief has reverted to "poor relief." Because of the low relief standards prevalent
in these areas, Federal surplus commodities given to State welfare
agencies by the Surplus Marketing Administration,' and commodities
produced on work projects, have frequently become the major, if
not the only, source of public aid to those in need of relief.
From a national point of view, the decentralization of general relief
led to a substantial reduction in relief standards. 10 The decline in
standards has automatically cut off a considerable number of needy
families from the general relief rolls. With the liquidation of the
FERA, work relief sharply decreased; in many areas only direct relief
was provided.
Although State administrative and fiscal policies have frequently
lacked uniformity and stability, certain characteristic trends and tendencies since 1936 can be discerned. Most significant, perhaps, has
been the growing recognition that local governments alone do not
have the financial resources to cope with the problem of general relief.
The result has been a resumption of financial participation by some
of the States which earlier withdrew support, 11 or the provision of aid
by certain States which had not participated before. 11 Also, the
existing level of State grants-in-aid has been raised by a number of
States. The trend toward more liberal State participation was interrupted by the sharp industrial recession during the fall and winter
of 1937-38. 11 The resources of State relief agencies were greatly
strained because most State budgets for 1938 had been prepared in
1937 and did not allow for the rapidly rising relief costs. Pl-Qmpt
corrective action by State legislatures was made difficult by the drastic
• The Surplus Marketing Administration, although designed primarily to deal
with the problem of farm surpluses, has played a considerable role in the relief
situation-making available large quantities of food to persons in need of public
assistance, both through direct distribution and through its stamp plan. During
the fiscal year 1940, for example, through direct distribution alone it provided
approximately 1,800,000,000 pounds of commodities to State welfare agencies.
These products were distributed to a monthly average of 11 million persons.
In June 1940, under its relatively new and expanding stamp plan, surplus food
stamps exceeding 3 million dollars in value were issued. For a discussion of the
background of these programs, see oh. V and Report on Progrua of ,,a. WP A
Program, June SO, 194(), Work Projects Administration, Federal Works Agency,
Washington, D. C.
10 General relief standards declined most drastically in the South after 1936.
As a rule, smaller cities and towns suffered greater cuts than large urban centers,
while rural areas were affected more adversely than urban areas.
11 Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Montana.
u Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia.
11 This applies with particular force to the industrial Middle West, notably
Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio.
Digitized by
Google
112 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
decline in State revenues and sometimes by a sharp conflict between
rural and urban legislators. H The inability on the part of many
State agencies to provide quick and adequate assistance to localities
was further aggravated by existing statutory and constitutional ~
strictions on local debt limits and tax rates. Eventually, during 1938,
a number of State legislatures did pass deficiency appropriations but
wide differences as to the adequacy of these provisions were noted
among States.
The rising demands for economy in relief outlays resulted in a
definite turn toward retrenchment on the part of some State governments after 1938. State appropriations for general relief were in a
number of instances restricted or curtailed. To discourage migration and to reduce the existing number of cases on relief rolls, the
length of residence required in order to become eligible for general
relief has been greatly lengthened in some States. To render relief
"cheaper" and less "attractive," "work for relief" on State and local
projects has been made compulsory for the able-bodied needy within
a number of State jurisdictions. 16 These tendencies do not necessarily conflict with a growing realization that general relief is a continuing responsibility rather than an emergency activity. There are
instances of specific provisions or tacit understandings for the convocation of legislatures in special session to appropriate additional funds
should the original appropriation prove inadequate for the fiscal period.
Where State grants-in-aid have been available, the method of allocating State funds to localities has had an important bee.ring on the
adequacy of assistance. Usually, State allocations have been based
on one or more of the following considerations: (1) the financial condition of the locality; (2) local expenditures for relief; (3) local relief
needs; and (4) the population of the locality. In some States it has
been required that a specified minimum local tax rate be levied on real
estate if the locality is to be eligible for State aid. During the period
under review there has been no pronounced trend discernible in the
method of prorating State grants-in-aid to local governments. It
appears, however, that the conditional or matching basis in allocating
State funds to localities has come to be utilized with greater frequency
in the past year or two. While this method of State financing has in
some instances stimulated more adequate local participation, it has
undoubtedly aggravated relief conditions in localities least able to
14 The need for general relief has been much more acute in urban a.reas than in
rural sections. In rural areas the problem of food and shelter is often less crucial,
and opportunities for self-sustenance and seasonal employment during the warm
seasons are greater. There has also been greater recognition of need in urban
than in rural areas. AB a result of these factors, urban a.reas, especially large
cities, have been marked by a relatively high concentration of families receiving
general relief.
11 See also pp. 113-114.
Digitized by
Google
GENERAL RELIEF SINCE 1936 • 113
raise funds for matching purposes.
Some State governments have
apparently realized this and have provided for flexible matching formulas contingent upon the financial condition of the counties.
One of the most significant developments has been the trend toward
integration of relief and welfare activities under unified State welfare
departments. In a number of States this has not only enabled them
to meet relief needs more adequately, but it has also led to more effective use of available funds through improved administration. 10 In
certain instances, however, the pressure of organized groups and the
desire to take the fullest advantage of Federal grants-in-aid have
resulted in an emphasis on liberalization of special types of assistance,
especially for the aged, at the expense of general relief. 17 On the local
level, similarly, in many instances, funds are concentrated by preference on the particular programs for which Federal matching funds are
available.
In certain States the fact that the WPA has not been able to provide
work to all needy employable persons has stimulated the setting up of
local work projects for the able-bodied persons on general relief. An
article 11 written early in 1940 and describing these local work programs, states:
Today, relief work programs are operating in at least twenty-four States.
Nine other States have legislation authorizing them. In some States they operate
on a very small scale, wBile in others they are fairly extensive. In terms of actual
workers employed, however, these programs are not yet very large. Complete
data are not available, but sixteen of the twenty-four States report approximately
120,000 workers employed. At most, the total in the twenty-four States probably
will not exceed 180,000, or about 8 percent of present total WPA employment.
In individual States the percentage of total relief families with relief work jobe
ranges from less than 2 percent in Virginia to over 25 percent in Kansas.
1t In January HMO a State agency exercised some degree of supervision over all
or part of the general relief program in all but 10 States (Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, MissiBBippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
and Vermont). Broadly speaking, State supervision was most sustained and
extensive in 24 States in which (1) State funds were provided and (2) branch
offioes of a State agency or county departments of public welfare administered
the program in all or most counties (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming). See
Bucklin, Dorothy R. and Teske, Alden J ., "The Administration of General Relief
in the States During 1940," Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 3, March 1941,
pp. 32--36.
1' See Burns, Eveline M., "The Impact of the Social Security Act on the Relief
Problem," National Municipal Retneto, Vol. XXVII, No. 1, January 1938,
pp. 13-20, 23.
11 See Gill, Corrington, "Local Work for Relief," SvrN1J Midm<mlhl71,
VoL LXXVI, No. 6, May 1940, pp. 167-169.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
114 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
The chief purpose of these work-relief programs has been to reduce
the cost of local relief to the taxpayer by making unemployed persons
in need do some useful work in exchange for relief furnished up to
their budgetary deficiency. 19 Most of these State and local workrelief programs appear to have been designed as economy measures
rather than as means of providing suitable employment on socially
useful projects. Available information indicates that the work projects actually undertaken under these programs are few, and that the
great bulk of such projects require the employment of only unskilled
labor and reflect the underlying philosophy of "work for relief." As
a rule these projects are of a type which would not be acceptable to
the WPA.
NUMBER OF CASES REalVING GENERAL RELIEF
Trend Since 1935
The estimated number of cases receiving general relief in the continental United States., during the 5-year period 1936 through 1940
has varied considerably. The peak for the year 1936 was recorded
in January, with 2,216,000 cases; in the low month of September
there were 1,389,000 cases on general relief rolls. During 1937 a new
low of 1,257,000 cases was reached in July; the next high point was
1,996,000 cases in February 1938. A drop of almost half a million
cases occurred by October 1938, with another rise culminating in
1,850,000 cases by March 1939. As table 5 indicates, the fluctuations in general relief rolls up to the middle of 1939 had followed a
Tal,le 5.-Number of Cases Receiving General Relief, Continental United States, by
Month, January 1936-0ecember 19-40 1
[Io thooaods)
Month
11187
1aouary ..•...•. ····- ···---·--- ---·· .••••• ·--· -· ••.•.
February .•• _.·--·---··-·· •• ··--_.-· •• ····---··-··- •.
March ............ ··- •• ·-· •. _••. -·_.-·.----·-· ... ·-·.
tfa~·:: :: :::: ::::: :::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
1une .. _••••..•••..• ··-· •.•.. _·----. ···--··- ···-·· ·-··
1u}y ..••.. __ •.• ·--- --·--·--··· --··-----··--·-·----·-.
August ...•. -·._ •• ·--.-. ___ ·-_ ••.•.. -· •••. _·--··-·- ••
September.----····.·---· __ .·-· ••..•.•.• ··--··--·-· ..
October .. ·------·-·---·--··---·······-······-·-- •••.
November .•• ·-···················-········-·········
Dooember ..•....•.••••••.•••••.....•••.•.• ·-········
2,2UI
2,136
2,010
1,827
1,667
1,1155
1,'52
1,43-l
1,389
1,300
1,406
1,510
1,6112
1,726
1,«184
1, 11,5()
1,382
1,m
1,257
1,271
1,265
1,270
1,368
1,626
19311
1, 8113
1, 111111
1.~
1,815
1,600
1,648
1,610
1,581
1,526
1,497
1,518
1,631
19311
1,772
1,844
1,830
1,724
1,644
1, 15118
1,639
1,583
1,665
1,628
1,559
1,558
llMO•
1,674
1,672
1,612
1,527
1,442
1,3115
1,362
1,MJ
1, ll61
1,230
1,218
1,289
• Includes recipients of local poor relief. Data partly estimated.
1 Excludes cases securing hospitalization and/or burial only, and, beglnnlng September llMO, cue11-IY1og medical care only.
Source: &!kral Wort Program, a-nd Public A11i.ta11U, Division or Btstlsttos W orll: Proleots Adminlatratlon, Federal Works Agency, Washington, D. C., March 11140, table 2, and February 1941, table 2.
For a discussion of the budgetary deficiency principle see p. 26.
For some States only estimates have been available although the number of
such States baa greatly declined in recent years.
19
20
o,g,tized by
Google
GENERAL RELIEF SINCE 1936 • 115
seasonal pattern. The case load during the second half of 1939 deviated from the usual trend by showing a rise in the late summer and
a drop in the fall. The increase in the winter of 1940 was unusually
small and was followed by an almost uninterrupted decline through
November of that year when a 6-year low of 1,213,000 cases was
reached.
Fac:1on lnluenclnt Varlallolll • the Gen.al Relief C- load
Fluctuations in general relief rolls since the discontinuation of
Federal grants have been influenced by a great variety of factors. 11
Those of the greatest importance have been: (1) variations in WPA
employment; (2) fluctuations in private employment; (3) the development of the public-assistance program under provisions of the
Social Security Act; (4) the operation of unemployment compensation under provisions of the Social Security Act; (5) variation in
seasonal needs; and (6) availability of funds. These factors are discussed below in the order indicated.
Ever since the WPA attained its initial employment quota early in
1936, the significance of the program from the standpoint of general
relief has been chiefly in (I) its ability to expand or contract in response to changing economic conditions or unforeseen emergencies,
and (2) the replacement of project workers absorbed in private employment with persons taken from the general relief rolls or otherwise
in need of relief. Thus the WPA not only has helped to stabilize 22
the volume of general relief but has also contributed to a more rapid
case turnover on the general relief rolls. These observations may be
substantiated by tracing the effect of major developments of the
WPA program on the trend of general relief since 1936.
During the first 2 months of 1936 WPA employment continued its
initial expansion and was partly responsible for the decline in the
number of general relief cases in the early part of the year. Although
progressive reductions in WPA employment occurred in the subsequent 5 months, these appear to have had little net effect on the
general relief rolls: improved economic conditions had made possible
the curtailment of both types of aid.
The WPA was instrumental in relieving the distress resulting from
the drought in the summer of 1936 and from the floods in the Ohio
River Valley in January 1937. By providing employment to the
11 It should be understood that the national case pattern of general relief is
the sum total of individual State patterns, no two of which are exactly alike.
In each State there are special local factol'II tending to influence the trend of
general relief.
11 More recently,· certain statutory provisions in the WPA appropriation acts,
including both fiscal and administrative restrictions, have reduoed the e1fectivene1111 of the WPA u a stabilizing factor.
D1g1tized by
Google
116 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
victims of these emergencies, the WPA forestalled in large part the
necessity of adding new cases to the general relief rolls in the areas
affected. Late in the fall of 1936 the Resettlement. Administration
(now the Farm Security Administration) took over most of the
workers employed on WPA projects under emergency drought quotas.
Lack of funds prevented an upward adjustment of WPA employment levels to compensate for increased seasonal relief needs during the
winter of 1936-37. As a result, the problem of providing for such
additional requirements was left largely to State and local relief
agencies.
The trend of general relief was not visibly affected by the large-ecale
reductions in the WPA rolls during the spring and summer of 1937.
Towards the fall of that year, however, there was a marked increase in
the number of cases accepted for general relief representing persons
formerly employed by WPA who had obtained and then lost private
employment.
The sharp rise in relief needs growing out of the business recession in
the late fall of 1937 brought about prompt increases in WPA employment. The rapid expansion of public employment programs was
chiefly instrumental in counteracting and finally arresting the rising
trend in the number of cases receiving general relief during the winter
of 1937-38; it also contributed to reductions in the general relief rolls
in the spring, summer, and early fall of 1938. In sections of the
country most adversely affected by the business slump, eligibility for
WPA employment was extended to applicants who were found to be
in need but who at the time were not receiving general relief. This
measure greatly relieved the pressure on State and local agencies
responsible for providing general relief.
The WPA rolls were curtailed and intake was restricted during the
winter of 1938-39. This measure was predicated upon a decided
improvement in business conditions, but, coming in the season of
growing needs, it undoubtedly accelerated the rise in the general
relief rolls. The effect of the progressive reductions in WPA employment quotas during the second quarter of 1939 was partly mitigated
by declining seasonal needs. By that time, too, a number of State
and local relief agencies had found themselves in serious financial
difficulties which made needed increases in relief rolls impossible.
During July and August 1939 the WPA laid off a considerable
number of workers in compliance with the statutory provision which
made mandatory the removal of project workers who had 18 months
or more of continuous WPA employment. The effect of this provision was to increase the need for general relief in the third quarter of
1939; later, the situation was eased considerably as WPA employment
quotas were increased and many discharged workers were reinstated
on WPA or replaced by persons taken. from the general relief rolls.
D1g1tized by
Google
GENERAL RELIEF SINCE 1936 • 117
Largely as a result of these latter policies, general relief cases declined
during most of the fourth quarter of 1939, oontrary to the usual
seasonal pattern.
The extent to which WPA employment has influenced the changes
in the volume of general relief has differed from State to State. The
chief determinants have been differences in general relief eligibility
requirements affecting employable cases, differences among States in
economic background, and the extent of local oooperation in WPA
project sponsorship. In States where general relief is virtually
restricted to unemployable cases, the shifts in WPA employment have
naturally had the least effect on the trend of general relief.
The volume of general relief has been sensitive to major fluctuations
in private employment. The downward trend of general relief during
most of 1936 was brought about in large part by improved employment conditions. There was a reduction in the relief rolls through (1)
direct absorption of relief cases by private employment, (2) reduction
in the need for relief supplementation, and (3) WPA replacements.
While it can be said that a national upswing in business means a
reduction in general relief rolls for the country as a whole, the effects
of economic changes on general relief conditions are not felt uniformly
in all States. The relationship depends upon (1) the type of industrial
activity within the State and (2) the number, age composition, and
occupational characteristics of the employables on general relief rolls.
In 1937, as private employment gained momentum in many industrial fields, the number of persons on general relief steadily decreased.
The business recession of the second half of 1937 began to affect the
trend of general relief in November and its influence was increasingly
felt in the early winter of 1938. Relief needs rose most in centers of
durable goods industries, especially in one-industry towns. Despite
the sharp expansion of WPA employment, the need for general relief
continued to rise in industrial areas during the spring and summer
of 1938. This was largely attributable to the steady influx of families
whose resources had become exhausted as a result of protracted
unemployment.
In the early part of 1939 changes in employment conditions were
not sufficiently pronounced to influence the trend of general relief in
the country generally; the resumption of the rising trend in production and employment beginning with the second half of 1939 has
been responsible in part for the declining relief rolls through most of
the last quarter of 1939 and the calendar year 1940.
The development of the public-assistance program since February
1936 under the provisions of the Social Security Act has resulted in
the removal from the general relief rolls of persons qualifying for oldage assistance, aid to dependent children, and aid to the blind. The
need for general relief would have been further reduced if a number of
D1git1zed by
Google
118 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
States had not delayed in becoming eligible for grants from the Social
Security Board. 21 It must also be home in mind that an undetermined
number of persons qualifying for special types of assistance had not
previously received general relief, and that many persons on the general relief rolls did not qualify for categorical assistance because of
residence and citizenship restrictions. In individual States the effect
of the public-assistance program on the decline in the volume of
general relief depended on (1) the existence of provisions for categorical aid prior to the initiation of the public-assistance program
under the Social Security Act, (2) a tendency in certain States to subordinate the needs for general relief to the financial requirements of
the publio-assistance program.,'' and (3) the nature of State and local
policies with respect to supplementation of special types of assistance.
The effect of unemployment compensation on the trend of general
relief since the inauguration of benefit payments under the Social
Security Act has varied considerably from State to State. These
variations may have been due to differences in the date of initiation
of payments • or to differences in policies affecting eligibility for
general relief of persons qualifying for or actually receiving unemployment benefits.•
The influence of the unemployment compensation program on
general relief needs has been most pronounced during the early stages
of its operation. General relief cases were closed if unemployment
benefits met the minimum budgetary needs of recipients and general
relief allowances were usually reduced for cases whose unemployment benefits covered a portion of their budgetary needs. The
indirect effect of unemployment compensation has been to delay
relief applications until benefit rights are exhausted. In many States
a point frequently has been reached when more persons have been
added to general relief rolls upon the termination of benefits than
have been dropped because of the receipt of such benefits.
• The old-age 888istance program under the Social Security Act was in operation in every State by the fall of 1938. A number of States, however, had failed
to pass legislation for aid to dependent children and aid to the blind.
14 This resulted in an arbitrary curtailment of t.he general relief rolls, or general
relief standards, or both.
11 The unemployment compensation program became fully operative in 23
States in January 1938 and by the end of the year this number grew to 29. In
January 1939, 18 additional States inaugurated the payment of unemployment
benefits. In the remaining two States unemployment compensation became
fully effective in July 1939.
19 The liberality of these policies frequently depended on the availability of
funds. A majority of States for which information is available usually allowed
general relief to needy workers waiting for unemployment compensation and
granted supplementary relief to meet the budgetary deficiency of workers receiving unemployment benefit.a.
Digitized by
Google
GENERAL RELIEF SINCE 1936 • 119
.Although the unemployment compensation program influenced
markedly the general relief situation in certain industrial areas, it
has been of relatively small importance in the national case turnover.
One reason is that unemployment compensation does not affect the
considerable portion of general relief persons who are definitely out
- of the labor market. Further, unemployment benefits are limited to
those workers who meet specific requirements as to the amount of
earnings in covered industries. Finally, a substantial proportion of
recipients of unemployment insurance are not former relief clients
and are not likely to seek relief upon termination of benefit rights.
On the other hand, the case turnover has been stimulated by the
requirement of waiting periods before unemployment benefits will
be paid, by the short duration of benefits, and by the frequent necessity
for supplementation of the small payments by general relief.
Despite its obvious limitations, the unemployment compensation
program undoubtedly has made some contribution to the reduction in
relief needs, especially during the winter months of 1938 and 1939.
Although sometimes obscured by other factors, there is a distinctly
seasonal pattern in the general relief case movement in the country at
large. Especially in rural areas, the late fall and winter months usually bring to general relief rolls a heavy influx of "borderline" families
whose resources a.re exhausted or whose earnings in private industry
or on WPA projects a.re insufficient to meet the extra needs for fuel,
clothing, and medical care. This seasonal rise begins in September,
partly as a result of the needs of school children for clothing and supplies. With the advent of spring, seasonal needs decline and outdoor
employment increases. The volume of general relief can then be
reduced, particularly in the rural districts with their greater opportunities for seasonal employment and self-maintenance during the
warm months.
The extent to which general relief rolls fluctuate with the seasons
depends upon the geographic position and climatic conditions of the
State, the relative importance of agriculture in the State economy,
the existence of other major seasonal industries, and the availability
of funds for general relief.
In the final analysis, the adequacy and changing volume of general
relief have been determined in large pa.rt by the availability of funds
in relation to the changing relief needs. The provision of funds, in
turn, is often a reflection of the attitude of the State on what constitutes proper standards of adequacy for general relief.
For purposes of this analysis, the States may be classified roughly
into three groups. The first group is made up of States in which financial provision has been chronically inadeq~ate.27 State participation
IT This group consists roughly of a dozen States, most of which are located in
the South.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
120 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
in such States has usually been either greatly restricted or nonexistent, while the local administrative policy has followed the old
poor-relief methods. A relatively stationary group of totally destitute families, mostly unemployable, has made up the general relief
rolls in these areas. .
The second group comprises States which have suffered from recurrent financial crises necessitating frequent revision of eligibility requirements and relief standards.• Lack of cooperation between
State legislatures and relief authorities and urban-rural antagonism
have been the chief difficulties here. Although, as a rule, these States
have managed to meet the most urgent relief needs in periods of rising
production and employment, they have found it very hard to cope
with a sudden increase in the pressure of need. Pending the appropriation of additional funds, they have forestalled a complete breakdown
of relief by such means as curtailing relief allowances or restricting
relief rolls to the most needy cases. These measures have also led to
restricted admission of new applicants for general relief. Temporary
withdrawal of State assistance from families with employable members
and from single-person cases has been another device used by a number of State administrations in periods of financial stringency. Not
infrequently State and local relief authorities have resorted to an
arbitrary curtailment of both relief rolls and relief standards; when
available funds have become exhausted as in Chicago and Cleveland
during the spring of 1938 and in Cleveland during the fall of 1939 the
inevitable result has been the virtual suspension of relief operations.
Finally, there is a small third group of States which has consistently
exhibited a liberal policy with regard to general relief. This group,
including most of the large industrial States,• has followed a fiscal
policy of providing not only for current needs but also for possible
contingencies. The trend of general relief has been more truly a
measure of relief needs in these areas than in the remainder of the
country.
AMOUNT OF GENERAL RELIEF EXTENDED TO CASES
Obligations incurred for general relief extended to cases from January 1936 through December 1940 totaled $2,205,495,000, or an
average of about $36,758,000 per month (table 6). The monthly
totals spent for general relief cases followed a pattern similar to that of
the case movement although fluctuations were often much more
18 This is the largest group, comprising nearly one-half of the total number of
States. They are ecattered all over the country with a preponderance in the
Rocky Mountain area and sections of the Middle West and the Middle Atlantic
area.
"Such as New York and Pennsylvania.
D1g1tized by
Google
GENERAL RELIEF SINCE 1936 •
121
pronounced. In most States the monthly relief bill varied with the
volume of need while in other States availability of funds was practically the only determining factor. 80
Tol,le 6.-Amount of General Relief Extended to Cases, Continental United States,
by Month, January 1936-0ecember 19-40 1
[In thouaands]
Month
1113&
1937
1938
lllill9
lan1ar7 ...................... ---- .................. .
..7,1121
t6,MS
-H,1166
40,070
84,m
13,lM
30,831
29,679
30,067
30,722
31, 1134
36,347
'37, 8811
St6, (Of
47,207
47,471
41, 113
87,337
36,747
35, 9119
36,244
35,406
"3,t!IKI
84,934
38,227
38,666
38, 715
36,476
40,865
38,2811
38, 731
11M0 1
--------------1---1----1--- - - - - - -
t:~·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
tt:·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June ••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••• --- ••••••••
July.....•• ----- ••• - .•...••. -- -- .•. -- . - -----. -- •• -··.
Augnst ..•..••••..••••.••.•••••••.••.•••.•.••••••.••.
September .••• ·•••··•·••••·•· .. ···•··•••••·••••·•···
October ..••••..•.••••.•••.••.•••••••..•••••••••••.••
November ...........••..••...••.•••••.•.•...•.•....•
o-mber ..•.........•...•............•.........•..•
89,260
39,786
35,745
30,616
28,226
29,015
29,965
30,274
80,729
83, 1181
u.~
46,026
46,68'
41,274
39,233
37,048
36, 2&7
"1,IIM
40,422
811, 08II
111,680
84,273
81,370
12,lM
81,869
:18,606
211, :ne
28,1111
211, see
1 Includes local
poor relief. Data partly e8tlmated.
• E:icludee cost of hoaplt&llsatlon and burl&I and, beginning September 1940, coat of medical care.
Source: Federal Wort Pra,,am, on4 Public Afflltlmu, Dlvl!lon of Statlstlct, Work Projects Admln!Amdoa, Federal Works Apnc,y, Waahlngtoa, D. 0., March 1940, table 4, and Februar, 11141, table 4.
Of the total amount of general relief extended to cases during the
period January 1936 through June 1940, approximately 57 percent
came from State funds and about 43 percent from local funds. 11
Throughout the period State governments contributed a major portion
of the cost of general relief. State participation was lowest (53 percent) during the fourth quarter of 1937; the high mark of 61 percent
was reached during the second quarter of 1939.
GENERAL RELIEF STANDARDS: THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF GENERAL
RELIEF PER CASE
Though no two States are quite alike in basic policies determining
general relief benefits,31 three broad groupings can be made: (1) States
where allowances to cases are determined by fixed relief standards;
(2) States where such standards are only partly in effect; and (3)
States where relief benefits depend entirely on the availability of
funds. The application of the budgetary deficiency principle in
determining the amount to be given to each case is characteristic of
the first group. Relief standards usually reflect the prevailing opinion
as to the proper maintenance level for a family on relief. In the first
Seep. 110.
Comparable data for the second half of 1940 are not available. Less than
1 percent of the total W88 extended from available balances of Federal (FERA)
funds; most of these balances were spent during the early months of 1936.
a See Baird, Enid and Brinton, Hugh P., A11erage Gemral Relief Benejiu, 19S319S8, Divisions of Research and Statistics, Works Progress Administration,
W&Bhington, D. C., 1940.
IO
11
Digitized by
Google
122 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
group of States, therefore, a.llowances to cases are greatly influenced
by seasonal changes in need. In States belonging to the second group,
only a few vital items of the fe.mily budget are provided for, or e. flat
percentage of the budgetary deficiency is a.llowed to those in need.
The latter method of determining relief grants has been resorted to in
periods of financial stress by States which norma.lly moot a.11 the basic
needs of relief clients. Finally, there are States (comprising the third
group) where relief standards are practica.lly nonexistent and benefits
are arbitrarily determined by the availability of funds. In such
States relief allowances a.re as a rule considerably below minimum
subsistence standards and are not influenced by seasonal variations
in need to any marked degree.
Regular statistical reports do not contain information concerning
relief standards, but merely indicate an "average" obtained by dividing the total amow1t of relief extended to cases during the month by
the total number of cases receiving relief at any time during the
month. Since many cases receive relief for only a part of the month or
receive a partial allowance in supplementation of other income, the
computed averages understate the a.mounts received by cases wholly
dependent upon relief throughout the entire month. The extent of
this understatement depends largely on the rate of case turnover and
the volume of relief supplementation. Since the amount of relief
extended to a case varies with the size of the household, the national
avera~e per case is also influenced by the proportion of family cases on
the rolls and the average size of relief families.
Fluctuations in the average amounts of general relief per case
nevertheless afford the nearest possible approximation to variations
in standards. As indicated in table 7, the average followed a distinctly seasonal pattern from early 1936 through 1940, reflecting the
Tal,le 7.-Average Monthly General Relief Benefit per Case, Continental United States,
by Month, January 1936-0ecember 19-40 1
Month
January ..... ____ . ________________________ _
February _______ .. ________________________ .
March .. __ --------------------------------
tf;;L_.::::: :: :::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: :
June _____________________________________ _
July ______________________________________ _
August . .. ---------·----------------------Beptember
____________ . __ . __ . ____________ _
October._-·------------------------------November. _______________________________ _
Decem her_._. ___ • ________________________ _
1
1938
$21.112
21.94
22.17
21.94
21. II
21.34
21. ZI
20. 70
21.63
22.00
22. 72
24.07
pt.61
23.1111
Zl.81
22.65
22.02
22.30
22.36
22.92
23. 21
ZI. 34
24.02
25.06
$22.80
22. 76
Zl.63
Zl.06
22. 14
22.10
Zl.08
23. 57
23.94
24. IQ
24.84
2.5. 36
Avert111:es !or September 1Q40 and 111beeQuent month• exclude
ments !or medlcal
11138
1G37
C83llS
1111111
nt.66
:14.42
211.18
23.94
23. 811
Zl.63
ZI. 67
24.15
23. 22
23. 78
:M.M
:M.811
1940
pt.SI
lN.18
::M.215
24.02
23. 77
Zl.16
23. 61
23. 511
22. 61
23. 711
23. 83
KIO
receiving medical care only and pay-
csni.
Source: Flpires !or JBDuary 11138 through MBrCh 1G37 were P&rtlally estimated by the Worlm ~
Administration, Bnd those for subsequent months were partflllfy estimated by the Bocflll Seccrity Board.
Data are corrected to Mar. 250 19U. Bee Baird, Enid and Brinton, Rugh P.,A.,.,.,., Gmnal Rdief Bm,Jlla.
/9~~-1~8. Divlalona o r ~ and BtaU.tloa, Woru Progl'98 Admmlstra&loll, Wuhlnslon, D. c .• IINO.
table 3, p. 12.
Digitized by
Google
GENERAL RELIEF SINCE 1936 • 123
extra needs for fuel, clothing, and medical care during the fall and
winter months and the corresponding reductions in these items in the
spring and summer. The average per case declined drastically with
the discontinuation of Federal grants-in-aid in 1935, but has gradually
risen since then.
CHANGES IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE GENERAL RELIEF CASE LOAD
The development of the WPA program and related public work and
construction programs during the latter part of 1935 brought about
important changes in the composition of the case load receiving emergency (general) relief. For one thing, many employables received
WPA work. Also, a comparison between June 1935 and the corresponding month for following years shows that family cases declined
much faster than single-person cases during that transitional period.
A versge !or June
Percent of the total caae load repreaented by1935
Family cases ___________ ---------------------------------------Single-person ----------------------------------------------
84. 3
15. 7
1938
1937
118.6
31..
11138
65. 6
70.11
M.•
211.1
Many State and local relief agencies gave preference to family
cases in certifying persons for WPA employment. As a result, the
expansion of WPA employment benefited family cases to a greater
extent than it benefited single-person cases. The group of singleperson cases on general relief rolls is marked by a relatively large number of unemployable persons not qualifying for categorical assistance
under the provisions of the Social Security Act.
Digitized by
Google
Dig1t1zed by
Google
Chapter XI
RELIEF PROBLEM OF THE FUTURE
As
WAS INDICATED in chapter I, the relief, work, and security
programs that emerged in the 1930's can best be understood in the
light of the changes which had been occurring in our economic system.
What can be said of the relief problem of the future? Will the Federal
work and security programs, as now constituted, or in modified form,
continue to be necessary? Obviously, no categorical answer can be
given. The future need for these programs will depend upon progress
toward the elimination of the basic causes of destitution.
In recent years it has been erroneously assumed in some quarters
that economic recovery would somehow of itseH eliminate the relief
problem or reduce it to extremely small proportions. This assumption ignores the basic fact that the present need of a very large proportion of those now receiving relief or work relief would not be
aft'ected even if a very considerable rise should occur in the number
of jobs available.
For example, about 50 percent of the 5 million households receiving
public aid in June 1940 fall into a class which cannot hope to benefit
greatly by future increases in employment. In this large group are
the unemployables (the aged, the blind, dependent children, etc.)
receiving aid under the public-assistance provisions of the Social
Security Act and other unemployables receiving aid under the general
relief program of the States and localities. 1 Some form of aid will
continue to be the major, if not the only, source of income for most
of these families; the need for a permanent program for this segment
of the relief population appears obvious.
The present problem of destitution among employable persons has
come about in the main because of the failure of the economic system
1 Also included among those whose need for relief is not due to lack of employment opportunities are a number of full-time employable persons who require
10me relief to supplement earnings which are insufficient for the full support of
their families.
125
Digitized by
Goog Ie
126 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
to achieve full employment. About one-half of the households
receiving public aid in June 1940 had an employable member. The
possibility of eliminat~r rather of reducing to small proportionsthe problem of employables depends in large measure upon the success
of efforts designed to expand the industrial system, to achieve new
high levels in production and employment.
The many difficulties standing in the way of full employment need
not be emphasized here. Suffice it to say that in addition to such
well-known factors as seasonal, frictional, and cyclical unemployment
there have become prominent in the 1930's such influences as the loss
of foreign markets, the decline in the rate of population growth, the
changing nature of technological advances, and the retarding influences of an economy which has reached a high degree of industrial
maturity. For these and other reasons our economic system during
the 1930's did not expand enough to make full use of its labor and
other resources.
The outlook for an increase in employment is now, of course, affected
by the national defense program. There is great interest in the
possible effect of this program in the immediate and more distant
future. As the rearmament program gets well ·under way in 1941,
the volume of investments and the level of income will increase substantially. Government expenditures for defense purposes may be
viewed as a form of public investment; these, in turn, will be accom_panied by a considerable volume of induced investment on the part
of industries producing for defense purposes. Should these combined
investments become sufficiently large in the next year or so relatively
full employment will result.
Large increases in work opportunities would naturally alter our
unemployment problem to a great degree. It is easy to exaggerate,
however, the a.mount of reemployment that can reasonably be expected and the effect such new work would have on the need for programs of work for the destitute unemployed. It should be noted
that, in addition to the 2 million workers employed on WPA projects
in December 1940, there were perhaps 6 million other unemployed
persons looking for work. WPA workers must compete for jobs with
these nonrelief unemployed, who are on the average younger and have
had more recent contacts with private industry. The fact that most
WPA workers are in areas only slightly affected by defense contracts
must also be taken into consideration.
Another significant fact is that a comparatively early stage of defense preparations is apt to be the period of maximum employment.
During this period many jobs open up as new plants are constructed
and new equipment is prepared. Later, as emphasis shifts from new
construction to maintenance, the need for labor is likely to decline.
Digitized by
Google
RELIEF PROBLEM OF THE FUTURE • 127
In such a. period of readjustment the need for government programs
of work for the unemployed will increase. It is extremely desirable
that plans be ma.de for work projects for this contingency in order to
avoid the errors inevitably arising from ha.sty improvisation.
Since the need for the various relief, work, and security programs is
not temporary, efforts should be directed toward perfecting these
programs. Experience gained iB. recent yea.rs points to the need for
impNvements a.long a. number of lines. Some corrective action now
appears essential if maximum results a.re to be achieved under the
provisions of the Social Security Act for public assistance to dependent children, the aged, and the blind. For example, numbers of needy
persons otherwise eligible for benefits do not receive them because of
technical residence requirements imposed by State laws. A still more
serious failing is that the benefits pa.id to eligible persons are clearly
inadequate in many areas. It has been suggested that perhaps the
only way to remedy this situation would be to discard present pro-•
visions for matching State funds with Federal moneys, and, instead,
to distribute Federal funds more in accordance with the need of the
various Sta.tee.
The problem of maintaining an adequate system of general relief
also requires attention. As has been indicated, many destitute
families fall outside the scope of aid given under the specialized programs that were developed during the 1930's. This residual group of
families is dependent upon whatever aid can be secured under the
various State programs of general relief. In only a limited number of
States, however, is an adequate program of general relief in operation.
Some States help in the financing of their general relief program;
others do not. The result is reflected in the extremely low general
relief benefits paid in many areas. Some students of the problem feel
that standards of general relief should be raised through Federal grants
to the States, which would be required to observe Federal conditions
in order to receive the funds. There is much to be said, however, for
the view that general relief is traditionally and properly the concern
of State and local governments, and that the motive power for improvements in benefits and administration should come from these
governmental units themselves.
Continued expansion and improvement of the present social insurance measures seem necessary. At the present time a great many
workers are not covered at all under the two programs. Workers in
agriculture, in domestic service, and employees of nonprofit institutions are among those excluded. Also, the benefits received by many
covered individuals are too low for minim.um support. In nearly all
States the amount of the weekly unemployment compensation benefit
and the duration for which it is to be paid are related to past earnings
of the recipient. Many workers therefore receive only meager benefits
Digitized by
Goog Ie
128 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
(often below $5 per week in Southern States) lasting for merely a
few weeks. While unemployment compensation is not designed to
tide workers over long periods of unemployment, benefits and duration
should be made sufficient to carry jobless workers for short periods
without the need for relief. .Another important step in the direction
of greater economic security would be the adoption of some system of
social insurance to afford workers needed protection against loes of
income arising from sickness and disability. At present, limited aid
in this field is given through State programs of workmen's compensation and the aid afforded to railroad workers through railroad retirement legislation.
Maintenance of adequate work programs for the destitute unemployed seems essential. As pointed out above, joblessness of a few
weeks' duration may be handled by an augmented and more generous
unemployment compensation program. Long-term joblessness, however, requires different treatment. The desirability of utilizing Government work programs rather than direct relief in meeting this problem seems increasingly apparent. Much useful work is needed in
virtually all the localities. Moreover, the work programs can and will
be geared to take an even more important part in defense activities
than they have taken in the past.
In short, destitution can no longer be regarded as a temporary
problem to be treated on an emergency basis. Rather, it must be
viewed as a continuing problem necessitating a permanent and varied
program of economic security. This problem cannot be met by
adopting a policy of drift and waiting for the need for the various
programs of relief, work, and security to disappear; instead, every
effort should be made to strengthen and integrate these programs.
Digitized by
Google
Appendixes
129
Digitized by
Goog Ie
D,~1t1zed by
Goog Ie
Appendix A
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Tol,le 1.-Amount of Obligations Incurred for Emergency Relief, by State and by Source
of Funds, 1933-1935 1
Federal funds
State
Total
Amount
State fonds
Percent
Amount
Local fonds
Per•
Amount
cent
Per•
cent
·Total .•.••.•••..•• U. 1111, OIK, 831 $2,1117,787,W
71 $520, 3611, 481
«, 762,571
95
Arizona ...••.•••••••••••
ArkaoS8ll ..••••••••••••••
California .••••••••••••••
Colorado •.••••••••••••••
"'17, 318,376
20,010, 3IHI
.Al, 500,210
236, 096, 613
46,609,879
15,900,624
40,037,586
161,041, 760
39,260,476
97
611
Connectlcat •.•..••••••••
Delaware ............•••
District of Columbia ..••
Florida .••...•.••...•.•.•
Georgia •••.•••••••••••••
53,526,605
6,208,956
19,003,421
43,6.'16,006
&A7, 640, MG
23,514,358
2, 138, 308
14,614, 779
40,073,341
'4,877,497
Idaho .••••••••••••••••••
Illinois .•••••••••••••••••
Indiana ••••••••••••••••.
Iowa ...•.•••••••••••••••
15,883,GM
808,556,400
726,ffl
13,369,320
232, 667, 669
61, 782, 792
24,126,481
39, 1146, 289
Kentucky .•••••••••••••.
Louisiana.··············
Maine .......•••••••••••
Maryland ....•.•••••••.•
M888aCbusetts ..••••••••
46,101,llG
~3, 182,136
23,276,067
46,916,~
2111, 2111, 172
38,825,024
51,660,969
11,737,508
33,349,867
11,806,480
Michigan ••.••••••••••••
Minnesota .•••••••••••••
Misslss:fpl··-··········
Missot1 •.••••••••••••••
Montana•• _ ••••••••••••
,.!2. 834, 618
172, 111111,626
111,134,471
127, 116,647
87,619,864
31,044,624
64, 0711, 914
22,027,341
Alabama .•••••••••••••••
KanMS•••••••••••••.••••
Nebraska •••••••••••••••
Nevada •••••••••••••••••
New Hampabln. ·-····
New Jeney . ............
New Muloo ............
New York ..............
North Carolina .•••••••.
North Dakota..•.....•..
Ohio ......•••••••••••...
Oldaboma••••••••••••••
80,303,843
41,764,128
56,
82,978, 8111
24,IIW,766
28, 11111,840
5,757, U04
80
84
44
41
73
92
94
84
76
&Ii
58
72
86
97
60
73
62
74
74
116
77
88
16
6
6,300,393
2,063,342
10
40
-
319,636
965,262
G2, 127,500
164,636
4,169,753
1,233,086
2,673, 1121
1,697
2, 102, 142
11,412,609
557,850
26,468,305
6,545,818
208,336
II, 008, 186
521,404
21, 6711, 251
4,945,186
6,849,474
87, 393, 325
14,736,364
77
86
5G
G3
94
2,748
116,527
2,437,211
41,320,8811
tSl,176
~-00
0
, 166
408, 002, 621
38, 2114, 238
55
JOG, 094, 744
!ri·™·868
,520,230
24, 858, 2119
173, 832, 844
'4,616,840
94
86
78
8G
.
312,212
2,790,007
305,135
38,200,477
2,108, IIOO
12, 140, 1174
138, 420, 786
16,656,761
28,803,384
.
18 $680, 867, 786
-
U, 1138
34,687,535
804,784
16
2,243,593
1,229,675
1,163,489
36,845,386
6,140,503
5
6
3
16
.
-
24,711,854
1,007,305
6,288,642
3,263,130
2, 763,0611
46
.
1,559,072
13,761,322
28,366,416
13,467,894
14,647,080
10
6
36
14
-
6
20
10
2
3,702,171
6
•
11
19
27
8
G
32
2G
8
3
1,629,470
9,436,417
1, 154,0811
103, 1126, 836
'8
11
2
111,416,674
17,968, 799
l,581,6/i9
11,800,792
2,444,021
11
20
5
12
10
2
20
30
3
6,517,841
6117, 1111
2,864,289
II, 706,572
461,222
II
25
•
.
.
16
6
.
15
-
16
•
See footnote. at end of table.
'l15, 602,835
2,1169,927
3,003, 147
15, 924, 4811
G, 63V, 612
u
2
23
12
:M
7
3
IO
6
H
7
ta
131
Digitized by
Goog Ie
132 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Tol,le 1.-Amount of Obligations Incurred fOf Emergency Relief, by State and by Source
of Funds, 1933-1935 -Continued
Federal funds
State
State funds
Total
Amount
Per·
cent
711
70
AmCIUD&
Oregon_ .••..••••••••••••
Pennsylvania •••••••••••
Rhode Island .••••••••••
outh Carolina _____ ••••
South Dakota•••••••••••
S27, 668,480
Wl,355,328
llO, 100, m
36,271,977
36, 8611, 838
S21, 749, 087
313,624, 3M
enn-._ ••••••••••••
38,397, lll
105, 451, 287
23, 5711, 821
34,741,076
78,583,128
18, 321, 103
3,412, 41111
23,773,012
Ill
IIO
34, 4,62
311, 960, 862
82
88
5,9111, no
&, 0111, 1188
4,234,316
333, 3'11
.,Texas .• - ....................................
Utah __ ••••••••••••••••••
Vermont••••••••••••••••
Virginia .••••••••••••••••
Washinfr;:ln·-··········
West V rglnla .••••••••••
Wisconsin ••••••••••••••.
Wyoming•••••••••••••••
8,020,348
20,355,156
48, 886, OIi?
67,270,419
!OIi, 8116, 028
8,415, 718
7,656, 1166
36,524,819
~147,187
60,6113,547
711,663,328
&, 1118, 010
as
ll8
'2,682,754
107,768,166
6, 4211, 577
1,324
72
8:1
Ptr-
cent
II
"
- -•
IIO
74
78
67
Local funda
876,000
17, 71111,008
1,136, gas
311,846
,n
2
AmCIIIDt
11.138,IIMI
X.ffl.8UI
7,103,763
745,834
.. 722, Cl61
H
•
•
2, 781,084!
11,0,2, 153
l,g22_782
2,668, 00:l
2,547,091
12
II
3,006,525
I, 659,884
17
4
4
26,008,382
1, 16',462
Per-
cam
12
e
Iii
2
10
7
II
8
a
10
e
s
:H
14
• Leas than 1 percent.
• Includes relief extended to oasee under the general relier prog,am, COl!t or admlnbtratlon and special
pr011:rams; bel(inninl( April IW. these ft1tures lllso include purchMea or materiala, supplies, and equipment.
rental or equipment (such as team and truck hire), earnings or nonrellef penona, and other ClOllta of tbe
Emergency Work Relief Program.
Source: Division of Btatlstlca, Work ProJecta Admlnl•tratlon, Wubtnctou, D. O.
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES •
133
Tol,le !.-Number of Resident Cases Receiving Emergency Relief Under the General
Relief and Special Programs, Continental United States, January 1933-0ecember 1935 •
Bpecla) programs
General relief program
Yar 1111d month
Grand
total
Total
Direct
relief
only
Work
relief
Total
---
-
Emer•
gency
educa•
tlon •
College
student
aid•
Rural
rehablli·
tatlon •
111118
J'1111nary. ---······· - 4,132, M2
ll'ebnlary_ .. __ . __ --- 4,3IMI, fN1
Mareh ____ ........ -- 4, '117, 742
tl:ff:·-···--····---
I!, 070. 866
4,736,427
J'une_.._._ •• _._ •.. -. 4,213,561
J"uly __ •••••••••••••• 8,1126, 786
.August.•• ---------- 3, 788, 483
3,428,074
3,476,110
3,872,388
3, 104, 170
Beptember-·-··-··October---······-·November.•.• -----December.. ·-----··
4,132, M2
4,M,fN1
4,977, 742
l!,070, 866
4,736,427
4,213, Ml
3, 1126, 785
3,788,483
3,428,074
3,475,928
3, 87o, 2211
3, Oll3, 248
2,WJ,MS
2, 750, 062
3, 01(), 884
3, 02ll, 662
2,756,815
2,496,035
2,247, 594
Z 07o, 566
I, 1191, 788
2,0111, 756
2,317,662
2,902,634
1,440,014
1,M9,1145
I, 966,858
2,045,204
I, 979,612
I, 717,618
I, tl79, 1111
I, 717, 1117
1,438,288
1,469,173
1,562,667
IIIO, 714
182
2,169
10, 1122
182
2,169
10, 7112
211,'Jlll
65, 2114
28,093
34,109
130
1984
2, 11111, 11811
J'an~·-···----···
Febrnary_____ • _____
March-------·----
ti:::-~::::::.:::::
.June_______________ -
.July____ ----------- -
August _________ ._ - September... _. _____
October.··-··-·--·November•••• ·----Deoember .... ______
3, 178, 4ell
3,687,089
4,456,071
4, 4611, 244
4,334,672
4, 3112, 138
4,817,446
4,738,846
4,812,393
6,002,546
I!, 2711, 976
2, 1162. 882
3, 113, 174
3,593, 100
4,363,061
4,360,602
4,266, 763
4,356,536
4,676,387
4,618,844
4,648, 51111
4,828,669
6,077,846
2,868,850
3,017,lm
3,432, 121
3, 27o, 898
3,000,016
2, 191,m
2,630,6M
2,652,048
2,667, 9114
2,648,490
2,656,813
2,774,416
I!, 278,016
6,240, 103
6,171,690
5,013,266
4,841,900
4,533,573
4,363,!!Zi
4, 2111, 537
3,900,746
3,722,736
3,463,430
2, 60II, 505
2, 8211, 7119
2,806,681
2,tm, 086
Z 737,082
2,646,366
2,612,483
2, 431!, 061
2,808,075
3,028,518
3,077,726
3,117,293
2,650,006
113,482
Ill!, 2311
160, 9711
I, 092, 153
1,360,586
I, 603, 1171
26,163
17,486
1,114
31,186
60,955
6/i,532
64,210
ll,20II
33,923
9,166
11,663
14,177
24,472
31,281
34,631
68, 1143
116,376
33,034
l,IIII0,850
2,000, 100
2,164,866
2,303,430
93,9811
112,0lll
114, 0811
84,706
61,034
49, /169
123, 28e
166,978
183,481
lm,361
2,448,217
2,434,522
2, 3611, 606
2,278,184
2, 1116,544
2,021, OUO
I, 1128, 772
I, 411,482
889,227
M5,009
3411, 137
59,410
214,382
232, 1153
321,720
367,863
346,219
288,000
28,286
31,679
25,259
Ill, 397
16,595
7,867
39,848
42,424
44,118
43,588
40,876
32, 2311
28,286
31,579
25,259
19,397
16,595
7,8e7
I, 724,870
I, 923,339
--
1111, 734
100,006
326
82,393
41,573
41,868
311,006
40,166
46, 131
52,4M
68,626
19U
J'annary. ·---·---. -. l!,4U0,326
Februlll'7---------·· 6,473,021
March.---··-·---·· 1!,4111,756
v.:.:-------·----··
6,387,396
J'UllCI.... -··----·---·
.July•. ------------- Aulltl8t.--·--··--··Beptember.-·····-··
4,814, 762
4, 3112, 1()8
4,251,116
3,935,004
3, 742, 132
ay- ----·--------· I!, 184,393
October •• -····--··-
November_·-•---·-- 3,4M,02ll
December.---·-·--- 2,617,372
102, 2116
103,2M
104, 740
104,446
100,013
62, 1111
72,238
87,275
172,862
20II, 830
206,330
lm, 570
• Data for January-June 1933 are partly estimated; duplication between figures reported for general rell&f
and rural rehabilitation programs are eliminated from grand total.
1 Program started In October 1933 1111d was gradually curtailed In the latt~r part of 1935, when similar activities were undertaken by WPA.
1 Program started dnrinf December 11183 In Minnesota 1111d during February 1934 In other Btate11 and was
dllloontlnued at the end o the school year 1934-36. Since that time a student aid program has been con•
ducted by the NY A.
' Program started during April 11134 and was transferred to the ~ttlement AdmiDlstratlon (DOW Farm
Becorlty Administration) as of June 30, !Im.
8oaroe: Dlvllion of Btatlatlcs, Work Projects Administration, Washlncwn, D. 0.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
1 34 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Tol,le 3.-Amount of Obligations Incurred for the General Relief and Special
au.a.1 relief Jll'Oll'&ID
Wort relief
Grand total
Year and montb
Total
Eernlnp
Dlnoi n,llef
Total
Toal
Total 1G33-IG36_ ••••••••••
u, 11g, oot, 631 $3,4811,IWT,gas $1.1182, 107, IN!6 SI, 4TI, MIO, 013 Sl,8311,372, HI
11133 _____ --- --·--·--···-·········
January ..••••••••••••••••••
February •••••••••••••••••• Marcb _________ ••••••••••••.
tr:::::::::::::::::::::::::
June .••••••.••• --···········
July_ •••...•.••.•.•••••••••.
August_.-----------········
September ____ .•••••••••...•
Octoher ________ •••••••••••••
Novrmher •••• _•••••••••.••.
December ••••.•••••••••••••
lQS-4_ --- - -- -··· - - - - ••••••••••••••
January ___ ···-·············
February ____ •••••••••.•••••
March _____ ••..••••••.••••••
April •••..•.•.•••••••.•••••.
May •••••••••••••••••••••••.
June .••••.•.••••••••••••••• July.········-··············
August .••.••••••••••••••••.
September_ •••••••••••••••••
October ____ -················
November .••••••••••.•••.•.
December ••••••••••••••••. 11135 _____ . --- -- ---- ••••••••••••·•
January_ ••••.•.••••••••....
Fcbruary ____ .•.•.•••.••.••.
March ____________ ••.•••.•••
tr;~·.::::::::::::::::::::::
June .•••••••••••••••••••••••
JulY----····················
August_··--·-··············
September....•••••••••••••.
October _____ -··········· ••••
November ..••.••.••••••••..
December •••••••••••.•••••.
Nf, 535,689
742, 372, 584
61,860,846
68,566,224
66,009,021
63. 407, 199
76,431,272
80,596,836
72,952, nJ - 69. 210,664
66,008, 7111
70,738,009
66, 2111, 936
62,217,171
60,100,820
56,400,986
61,986,206
67,850, 7ll0
54,994,128
69,294,516
60,627,000
65,300, 6M
M, 071, 512
71. 645,479
56, 767, 746
49, 6R6. 863
1,489, 861, 759 1, 244, 369, 645
65,084,536
46. 541,367
48,390,410
57,771.392
70,656,108
69,103,996
99,679,426
113. 622, 274
108, 337, 836
129, 249, 774
106, 347, 30;
l 2fl. 399, 3i3
110,952, 119
132, 165,948
125, 850, 546
150,621, 191
117,540,402
142. 612, 'NT
157,458, 139
128,675,536
173, 785, 308
143,313,455
14g, 637,245
180,435,419
1, 834, 607, 183 1, 472, 955, 739
163, 008, 635
llli, 929,424
148,636,980
181. 972, 977
150,080, 144
189,441,075
189, 328, 281
145,959,002
145,111,071
189, 406, 878
130, 551, 002
170,069,912
132, 393, 398
160, 974, 388
120, 994, 878
147,830,693
99,739,841
121, 282. 215
121,086,850
100, 517, 505
115,294,031
78,683,072
69, 990, 469
66,3111,251
"85,076,128
39,846,042
41,001,814
llO, 862, 118
44, 22ft, 738
41,100,3411
39,056, 740
34, 798, 726
34, 03g, 617
33,026,309
35, 798, 711
44, 2ZI, 383
46,038.581
ft62, 145,216
44,980,098
46,683,430
55,697, 761
56,219,393
55,035,989
61,151,003
60,258,268
54,640,661
53,009, 147
69,643, 160
63,259,439
71,566,867
83(, 887,611
77,600,156
72,860,945
75,527, 3511
72,021,381
67,107,094
112,735,584
65,719,001
71,425,445
71,721,083
Tl, 242,488
67,612,621
63,314,464
267, 2117, 456
18, n), 182
21,«h,385
26, 5611, 164
24. V83, 1126
25,712,370
23,160,431
21,602,~
23,811,133
21,007,819
24,828,385
21,848, 129
3,648,282
11112, 224. 429
1,561,269
1,706,980
3,406,235
43. 460,033
113,301,847
55, 100, 304
60,693,851
257,S7,485
18, 7lll. I 82
21,445,385
25, 5o9, 154
24, 983, 926
25, ;12, 370
23,160,431
21,lm, 260
23,811,133
21,007, 8111
24. 828,385
21. 848, 129
3,648,282
614,507,006
l, 561. 2611
1,706,980
a. 406,235
39, &46, 721
48, 774, 147
48,443. 1gg
113, Zill, 723
61,905,257
71,D,885
6', 531. 255
1111, 032, 376
55,994.65&
80,064,016
78,070,378
638, 068, 128
86,368,479
75, 776,lm
74, 552, 785
73, 1137, 621
78, 003, 1177 I
117, 8Ul,378
06, 674,397
411,569,433
28,018, 758
23,275,017
11,070, 4:il
1,004, 7W
60,235, 31111
70,427,'.ZW
68. 915,020
1167, 566, 781
78,036,314
68,834,312
67,063,280
66, 5i6, 383
1111, 630,210
69, 1156,854
68,880, 179
43,478,008
23,793,933
1g.~1,635
g,347,567
2,048,046
• Program started In October 1933 and was graduall7 ourtalled In tbe latter pan or 11116, wben similar
activities were undertaken b_y WP A.
• Program started during December 11133 In Mlnn""°ta and daring February 11134 In other States and waa
discontinued at the end ot the school year 11134-35. Since that time a student-eld program has been ooo·
ducted by tbe NY A.
• Program started during April I QM and was tnnslerred to the Raettlement Admlnlatratlon (now Farm
8ecurtty Administration) as of June ao, 1935.
Tol,le 4.-Average Monthly General Relief Benefit per Case, Continental United States,
by Month, January 1933-0ecember 1935 1
Montb
11133
Janu&r7 ••••••••••••••••• SH.17
February •••••••••••••••. 14.41
March .• - •••••••••••••••. 15. 35
13.65
14.13
Jone ___ --------·········· 14. 77
U;;L-..................
1
1934
11135
$16. 71
16.64
16.45
20.111
22. 40
21.93
$28. 13
25_gg
:16.55
26.511
26.'¥1
25.82
Montb
1933
Jul7 ...•••••••••••••••••• $14.36
AulnJSt_. ···············- 16.27
111.04
17.44
November._ ••.•••.•••••• 17.07
December. __ ·-····--···· 16- OIi
~J>i::-i:r~~::::::::::::::
1934
$22-40
23.114
22. 311
24.4S
26.20
26-31
Averageo f<r Jan08r}' tbrough June 1933 are bued on data which are partlall7 llltlmued.
Source: Dlvlalon of Statistics, W<rt Projects AdmlDllltratlon, Wasblngton, D, C.
Dig'.t1zed by
Google
11135
$27. 23
26.16
23. 75
25. 52
21.111
Sl.04
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 135
Pro91Gms, Continental United States, by Month, January 1933-0ecember 1935
0 - i relief IJl'Oll'Ull---(ontlnued
Special ~
Work relief-Continued
BllnllDp-Contlnued
Relief
persons
Purchase
ofmaterials,mpNonrellef Plillll,&nd
penons equipment
EmerTo&al
e.ou, 791
18,720,182
St, 848, 1211
3,648, 2112
467,066,634 fS'l,462,282
1,661,269
1, '/06, 1l80
3,406,235
18,084,674 8,162,147
42,661,704 8,112,443
42,8112,8119 8,060,200
47,810,920 6, IIIIO, 803
64,876,037 7,030,220
60,408,G96 6,690,963
63, 11117, 138
238,263
63,023, 1111 7,404,180
82,022,066
8112, 1173
616, 346, 027 62,220, 764
70,830,11117 7,~.317
82, 7118, 6611 6,036,843
61, 802, OIIO 6,260,820
61,280,483 6, 2115, 11()()
63,492, 11111 6,138,011
64,3211, 164 6,827,700
63,0IK,437 6,786,742
88, 1164, 668 4,623,600
St, 148,088 2,646,846
17,774,881 2,146, 764
8,266,800 1, Olll, 787
1, 684, Olll
463, 1166
e.
e.
I
Collep
student
aid•
Rural
rebablll•
tatlon I
Translants•
All other 1
$14,111~ Sf,8,212,86ll $101,422,228 ~114,178
6,665,174 41,161,31'
2,1533
326. 302 2,968,320
327,712
327,712
I, 174,110
420,048
420,048
I, 746,616
334,668
334, li68
1,407,488
335,306
335,306
1,4114,884
322, 3111
322,391
I, 762,374
338,811
S, 361,023
838,811
316,043
816,043
S,8111,413
328,606
828,606
S, 1171, 783
469,021
I, 761
466,270
4,304,637
788, 1146
64,614
724,331
4,786,022
1, 714,0311
876, 7111
2,1533
1,335, ffl
6,366,844
67,718, 1123 73,703,746 13,1138,n4 7,776, 7117 11,184,730 43,064, 2115 171, 788, 3G8
19,11611
3, 1118, 623 1,172,886
2,006,679
6,344,646
3, 1117,069 1,626,469
310,767
2,0IIO, 833
6,463, 9'J3
6,218, 761 1,683, 1811
837,406
2,698,166
S. 333,361
1,613,312 6,166, GOii 1,360,378
9.'50,220
4,667 2,860,463
8,787,240
4,627,700 6, 7(111, 161
11116, 1132
1148,286
8111,469 I, 2114, 474 16,142,777
S. 763,116 6,124,662
421,2118
'Jifl,443 l, 2311, 107 3,179,704 14,927,614
7,402,128 4,781, 3811
404,1122
833,847 8,642,920 16,432,"°
11,804,628 6,816, 188
IIOll,286
1114,788 4, Olll, 115 19,166,467
8,636, 1197 8,362,686
1121, 1172
647,098 1, 1411, 972 4,038,643 18, 7111,310
8, 7116, 977 8,6211, 760 1,234,636 1,267, 6112 1,804,241 4,828, 2112 20,162,843
11,638,717 II, 648,803 1,741,034 1,340, 1114 1,666,738 6,010,837 20, 823, 060
9,166,3411 10, 2112, 367 1,867,236 1, 2117, 732 1,716,011 6,442, 3711 20, li06, 817
70,601,347 1211, 476, 1148 :n6611,380 7,136,870 48, 877, 11311 62, 802, 759 232, 174, 4116
8,332, 166 11,473,MO 2,421, 2117 1,846,667 2,017,760 6,688, 1126 22, 487, 2311
6, 1141, 723 12, 878, 1163 2,334,64Y 1,346,673 8,778, 1167 4,920,764 :JO, 1167, 044
7,489,606 17, 316,1126 2,630,833 1,878,264 8,0lll,3911 6,316,130 22,046,306
7,361,238 21,286,783 2,469,804 1,384,11116 12,403,214 6,038,270 22,083, 4116
8,373,787 20, 1122, 443 2,416, 2511 1, 2117, 4111 12,108,360 6,101,406 28,373,364
7,869,624 17,266,866 l, 702,966
884,062 10,480,239 4,M,410 22,261,284
4,911,038 22,162,676
7, 7114, 218 8,418,416 1,607,377
4, 1166, 668 20, 030, 238
S. Olll, 366 6,806,677 1, &'18, 11111
4,190,101 16,139,128
4,224,826 6,403,MG 1,213,146
11811, 680
3,624,750 16, 1166,015
3,363,382 4,614,330
2,624,089 18, 137, 411()
l, 722,884 3,473,41111
849,410
1,722,217 11,662,848
1166, 761 2,118,860
396,643
126,302
21, 446, 386
26,368,164
M,1183, 9'J6
26,712,370
23, UMl,431
21,802, llllO
23,811,133
21, 1167, 8111
24,828,386
-~tioD
'1.2211.81111,107 $10l,8'l8,0ll8 S118,217,870 b»,192,486
267,2fll,4MI
geney
educ&-
"4.08'
--
• Data are ~=ated.
• Includes m
us expe- of the Emergency Wort Relief Protuam, such as rental of equipment
and team and truck hire; purchMllll of office mpplles and equipment; admlnlstratlve costs of general relief;
expensee ofmlBCelJ..._,,.. emergency aetlvltlllll; and other sen1cea and charges.
Source: Division of Btatlstlllll, Wort Projecta Administration, W Mhlneton, D. C.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
136 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Ta&le 5.-Funds Used for Civil Works Program 1 by State and by Source of Funds,
November 16, 1933-July 1-4, 193-4
S tate
State oontnbu•
Uoaa
LoaaJ ooalrfba-
Total
F ederal !unda
T ota l. •••••••••••••••••• .
$951,647, 8U 71
$.WI, 402, 8811. 84
'8, fl11, 861. 81
IM,811'1,IOI..
Continental United States . .• ..
Alahama .. . . .•.. . .. ..•. • ...
926, i'iQ, 6i'R 64
18, 1118, 55i'. 54
5, II 6, 973. 07
13, !J,7, 948. 112
835, 9U, 268. 811
UI, IM, 314. 37
4, 847, 424, 73
I 2, 378, 325. M
41,264, 194.
7,443, IIIO. 80
11,432,'IOUO
118,31111.87
84.406,714.115
1, 945, 843. 30
Ar izona . . ... . .... ......... .. ...
Arkansas .•.. .• .•• •• •.•••• . •
Calllornla . ..... •• • ••••••••.
f'olorado . · ·· ··· ·····-·----
45, 2,a, 694. 08
8, 628, 400. 00
ea
16,178.00
81, !OIi. 7ll
237, 336. 211
II0,~118
Uaal
254,370.M
tl28, 618. 81
3,787,Uk.16
1, 125, 030. 48
11. 499, .m. 211
711!1, 812. 86
5,697, \1111\. 98
18, 153, 8b5. /iO
15, 421, Ul3. 44
II, 889. 30II. 35
15, 8111. 14
fl55, 11 7. 24
5, 828, 110. 94
UI, 1116, 3117. 01
14. 107, OIi(), 04
18,380.44
211,683. IIO
1, 111M. 523. 77
116,315.18
611,886.04
1, 217. 874. 511
1,314,0Z.80
5, 445, 444. 73
67, 80II. 81111. 12
23, 071, 4118. 02
14. 715,140.88
12,235,141. 70
35.00
875,003.20
148. 528. an
2118, 122. 43
1511,2411.30
a. m. 837. a
Kamas •.•.••••••••••••••••.
5, 87ll, 140. 70
83, 112, 537. 70
27, 007, 1164. 01
17, 1!62, 824. 13
14. '111ft, 473. 72
Kentucky .•••••••••••••••• .
Louisiana ..••••••••••••••. .
Maine ...•.•.•.•.••• •••••••
Mary land . . . ......•••••••• .
M usacbusetts . ...•••••• • ..
II, 339, 134. 48
14, IIU5, OQ2. 08
5, 037, 082. 28
ll,64ll,511.58
33, M2, ll2'l. 88
10,0lle,5211.81
13, 203, 409. 22
4. 8M, 581. 84
II, 125, 162. 511
211, 7ll8, 100. OIi
711, M8. 28
Ill(), 1135. U
1,1411. 80
28,277. 07
837, 162. 77
3, 447, 574. OIi
Michigan ••••••••••••••••• •
M lnneoota .•••••••••••••.•.
M lsslsslppl. ••••••••••••• • ••
M lssourl •...•••••••••••• •••
Montana ...•••••••••••••••.
4G, 1181, 005. 511
:n, 875, tm. 113
10, M8, :.nl. 27
44. 423, 7111. 74
ft, 1184, 889. 63
111, II08, 103. 08
11,805, 7118.33
20, 002, 50.'I. 09
8,311,611. :Ill
28,680.M
210. 1136.
44,M0.83
720. 25
103, Ul2. 61
2, ms. 705. 211
1, 8M. 5811. 08
707, 7lll. 11
2, 3711,
OIi
670,216.88
Nebraska ••••••••••• •••••••
Nevada .. . .. . •... . •••••••••
New Hampshire . ••••••••••
New Jersey . •. . __ •••••••••.
New Mexico ...•..•••••••••
7, 888, 9111. 911
I, 4114, 946. 42
3,386, 1211. 86
30,222,450.31
2,810,913.02
6, )!In, 827. 82
I, 310, 614. 38
3, 04(), 791. 18
27, 1124, Oil. 20
2, 356, 221. 21
lK5, 336. 88
1123. 22
74, 2117.1111
111(), 71111. 78
112,211.16
1,41111, 7M.4e
ISi, 407. 82
271,040. 70
2, I 07. 1182. 33
182. 480. IMI
New York._ . .. .....•••••••
North Carolina ••.••••• • •••
North Dakota .. . •••••••••••
Ohio •....••••••••••••••••••
Oklahoma. •••••••••••••••••
100, 1111, 1567. 17
14,123,648.13
5,608,683. 17
fl3, 562, 8211.0II
111, 160,588.67
88, 411, 835. 82
12,967, 1181. 28
5, 102, 3117. 32
68, 484, 713. 82
17, 007, flll3. 88
837, 657.114
211,302. Ill
2.'I, 678. 37
15, 6111. 80
6(), 462. 70
10. 870, 373. 71
1,1311,364.M
480,807.48
5, 0112, 592. 44
1,202, U2. 01
Oregon ..••.•.••••••••••••••
Pen nay Ivan la .•.•••••••• _••
Rhode Island •••••• •• ••••••
South Carolina ...••••••••••
South Dakota ....•.•• , •••••
7, 3M, 771. 611
61, 4,'19, 418. IMI
4. 3911, 189. 47
II, 079, 078. 53
8, 772, 1137. 811
ft, 608, 671. 22
2.'I, 6118. M
ZIii, 718. 17
2.541, 212. 64
34,318.M
75,M0.41
832,801.82
8, 195, 123. 20
30II, 408. 27
MO, Oll3. 47
1,842, 184.118
-
81ft, 510. 84
3, 134, 275. 00
f' o nnecllcut ....• .....••.•••
l>•laware . . .. . . . . . . .. ... ...
Dis trict of C olumhia
l'loriJa . ....•.•. . .. •• . :: : : ::
0-,rla ......••. . ..... . .•..
Idaho ..••••••••••••••••••••
Illinois .••••••••••••••••••••
Indiana ••••••••••••••••••••
Iowa ... •..........•.•...•..
T e n n -.•••• •••••••••••••
TeX811 •.••••••••••••••••••••
tab . •.•••••• ••••••••••••••
Vermont•••••••••••••••• •••
Virginia... ••••••••••••••••••
u
22, 383, 000. 40
14, 071, 4711. 211
88, 473, 1811. 44
6, llllO, 631. 46
2, 147,4~06
12,9811,8111.13
44, 024, 677. 211
3, 830, 548. M
10, 384, 894. 51
8,865,092.M
,1.eo
n
13, 2114, 11118. 46
34,871, 024. 44
4, 6211, 780. 311
1,778,381.51
12, 21ft, 6211. 31
667,870.00
65,383. 76
Ill, 131. 53
1,094.00
al,M0.!17
4.1127, 636. 38
2,8411, 580. 82
2, 402, 082. 72
1, Ul3,048. SI
1, 301, 047. 45
3711. 350. 114
4113, 071.112
m
G7ll, 467. 31
2511, 1132. 01
752, 1116. 82
Wubl~on ••.•••••••••••••
W Ml V rglnla..••••••••••••
Wisconsin . ..•••••••••••••••
Wyoming ..••••••••••••••••
1ft, 284. 1142. 1115
13, 531, 4110. 10
an, 488. 768. ea
485,217.73
3M,8ll.87
68,110.82
611,951.94
2, 205, 835. 81
241,111.88
3,017, IIO'J. 71
13, 5113, 588. 311
13, 023, 768. 37
34, 657, 348. flll
2, 480, 357. 72
Territories •••••••••••••••••••••
4, 007, 780. :M
680,610.12
1, 200, 8111. 00
1, 1177, 9411. 00
:HS, 330. 12
3,801, 044. 12
617,11116.00
867, Oftll. 00
1, 1177, 9411. 00
:HS, 330. 12
175, I-le. 81
231, 6811. 31
112,1114.12
UIS. 676. 19
. . 860, 388. 83
8, 3113, 471. 40
8811,1116.43
._ 860, 388. 83
8, 3113, 471. 40
8811, 1116. 43
11, 80(), 000. 00
II, 80(), 000. 00
Alaska ....•.•.•..•••.......
Hawaii. ••••••••••••••••••••
Puerto Rloo .•••• . ••••••••••
Virgin hlanda. •••••••••••••
Central office.••.• . • • • •• • • • • • •••
Federal projects .. ..•••.• . ••
Admlnlstratlve expell8M •••
Emplay-• oompenatlon
!und •••••••..••••••••••••
1,872, 21111. 38
-
175, 148. 81
--
477,511.\.0II
--
80Uffll: Brown, Pamela, ,tttalrn, of Cini Warb Pro,rtlfA Stati«lu, Worn ~ A.dmfnlstratloa,
Washington, D. C., lune 111311, table 17, p. 30.
Dig1t1zed by
Google
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 1 37
Ta&le 6.-Amount of WPA and Sponsors' Funds Expended for Projects Operated by
the Work Projects Administration, 1 July 1935-December 1936 and by Month,
January 1937-December 1940
[Amounts In thousands)
Sponsors' funds
Year and month
Total
WPA!unds
Amount
July 193/1--December 1936 __·----- - -----1937
January __________ . . __. . ___ ----- ______ -February
__
--------- ----------------March . ___ . -------·---_______________ -_
tf..~L::::::::::::::: :: :::::::::: :::::::
June .·-·· - · •----·- - -------·--- ··· ··- · ·July · -- ··· • --·---- - -- - -- - · - - - - --·- -- · - ·
August. •. _- -·- . --· - ------- - -· - - - · - ·- · - .
Sept<amber
. ·----_-. -----·-- -________
- -- · - - --Octoher .....
.. ·___
·- _______
__-_
November .. -- · · · -·· · - · ·--·-•- --- -·- · - ·
December·- ·············· -·- - ·-··- · --·1938
January __ _.· - - · . .. . _.. . . . _·-- - - --- - - - - February . ___-- - -- -- - - · - - --- · ------- - · March .· - ·- -- -·- -- · --- - ----------- - - - --
~:iL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June .. __. . ___ --- -----·---_ •• ·--- - -·- - ..
July ____ ... -- ·- . - ·------ -. - ---· - --- · - ...
August .- · ___.. ____--- ---- --·· _. _- _. - . - September.--·--·---------------------October . . . . _-- - -·----- ----------------No,·ember. ----- - -------·---·----- - ---·
December__ ___···- · ---·---·------ - -----
1939
January __ .· -·-·----- - - - · · ----- · --- · ---February.
--------·-·--- -------- - ----March _·· ------- _______ _____________
___
~:t::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June
· - _··. -·-----·------------- - · .- -_.·-July ..___
_. ____ _____ .. _. ______ -____
__
AUgUSL --- · - · ------- -------------- - - - - ·
September ___ ---------------------- ·· _.
October . . . · - - ----- - __ -------------- -- · _
November __ . __ _._· -· - ·----- · ---·- · ·-- ·
Decemher. __·· • - · ·--· - ·-·-· - - ---- -· --- ·
1940
January _____ ·- __. _. . . _. - . - - - . • · - · - - ---February _______ ·- -- ·-·- __ __·-- _______ _
March __ --- · - -----·-------------·-·· --·
April ____ - _- - - _- . - _- _- -- --- -- -- -- - - - . - . May ... ----------------------------- --June.. _________________________________
______ ---- ----- - -·---------------·_
July
August· -- · ·---------·---------·· -·- -- -_
September_
___________________________
October .. - - -------------------------· -November
_. __ · --------------------· -..
December ___________
____-- - - · . __. __ ___
Percent
$2,~.240
$2,138,670
$281,670
11.11
167, 2112
148,698
178,613
154,884
149. 203
159,417
!JS, 079
118,079
119, 7,~I
119,708
123,152
136,509
136, 368
123,426
152,208
132,133
126, 847
135,302
107,234
93,641
91,922
91,996
90,022
101,896
30,924
25,272
26,405
22,751
22,356
24, 115
30,845
24,438
27,829
27,712
33,130
34,613
17.0
H.8
14. 7
16.0
15.1
22.3
20. 7
23. 2
23.1
26.9
25.4
126,239
125,366
174. 379
170. 295
181,837
201. 780
195,290
218, fi..'\6
224, 741
235,674
221. 308
244, 794
97, 575
100,337
140, 727
136, 774
147. 425
164, 017
160. 719
182. 697
184,056
191 , 463
179,473
197,923
28,664
25,029
33,652
33,521
34,412
37, 763
34,571
35,959
40,685
44,211
41,835
46,871
22. 7
20.0
19. 3
19. 7
18. 9
18. 7
17. 7
16. 4
18.1
18.8
18. 9
19.1
215,529
186,491
232, 922
19.~. 597
193,352
197, M 7
168,009
171.025
139,037
150,339
154,377
162. 327
169,864
147,385
100,020
157, 111
152,352
154, 90\I
131. 910
127. 679
97,i41
106, 752
109,404
124,015
45,665
39, 106
42,902
38,486
41.000
42,648
37,059
43,346
41,296
43,587
44,973
38,312
21. 2
21.0
18. 4
19. 7
21.2
21. 6
21.9
25. 3
29. 7
29.0
29,1
23.6
153, 320
143, 125
172,165
164,542
166, 688
157,025
145,987
156,035
144, 072
1113, 7119
150,631
152,280
111,646
111,730
133,307
124,618
120, 746
109,024
103,126
110,169
96,385
108,228
101,379
107, 114
41,674
31,395
38,848
39,924
45,942
48,001
42,861
45,866
47,687
65,571
49,252
45,166
27.2
21.9
22.6
2i.3
27.6
30.6
29.4
29.4
33.1
33.9
32. 7
29. 7
18.6
• WPA expenditures are baaed on checks Issued by the U. s. Treasury Department. Sponaora'
expenditures are based on WPA reports or sponsors' certifications. Does not include projects operated by
other Federal agencies and ftnanced by allocation or WPA funds under the provis ions or seetion 3 or the
ERA Act or 1938, section 11 or the ERA Act or 1939, and section 10 or the ERA Act, fiscal year 1941.
Souroe: Division or Statistics, Work Projects Admlntstration, Washington, D. C.
Digitized by
GoogIe
Ta&le 7.-Amount of WPA and Sponsors' Funds Expended for Projects Operated by the Work Projects Administration,1 by Type of Project and
Object of Expenditure, United States and Territories, July 1935-0ecember 1940
(Amount• In thousand•)
I
Total
Sponsors' runds
WP.~ runds
Amount
I Percent I
Total
I
Amount
0
~
N.
(0
a.
er
'<
CJ
0
0
00
.---,I
t"i)
I
Total
Labor
Type or projects
Percent
of total
WPA
lunds
Amount
Percent
or t ot al
funds
N onlabor
Amount
$10, 491 , 165
100. 0
'8,'11,364
$7, 4&, 317
89. 0
$2,079,801
19. 8
SI, 731,184
Division of Operations •.. . .. .•...•.•. . . . ••.• ••• •.•.• •. . •• .••
H~hwsys, roads, and streets ..••• . .. . . . ..• •.•...• ... •••
Pu Uc bulldlngs . . •.• • •..•... __. ____ . .. .. .. . . _... . _• . . . .
Recreational rscllltl~t buildingB) ... ....... .• ... .
utilities ... ••...• •..• .. •. • . .
Publicly owned or o
Airports and &lrways_. _........ .. . . . . _. _.. • . • •... __. •• •
Conservation ... •. • _•.• • . . .. . •• __ . ________ • __ •.. _•. . •• ..
Sanitation .. _•.. _____._ •• _._ .. _. ____ _.• _._ .. _•. . _. __•• _.
Engineering surve ys ••• • ___ __.. • _. _. . .• . _•• •..••• • •. .. ••
Other • ..• .•.. .••. •••.• •• • .•........ . . ..... •.• .• •..•.. . •
Division of Community Service Programs . . ..• •. •.. . •• •• •••
Public activities programa . ••.. .. _..... _....•••• • ... •••.
Education . •••.. . .•.•• . . ••. . _.. _•• . ••..•• _•• • . . .•••.
Recreation • • • ..•••• ••• _. _••••. _. _•.... _.• • . • ...••..
Library •.• • .•• ••• • ••••• • .••••• •••• • .•..• ....• . •• ...
8,235, 661
4,113, 333
1, 0Rll, 692
004, 969
78. 6
6,465,918
3,178, 523
826,8&
m . a1•
820,5G8
189, 056
340,546
168, 2911
34,552
150,178
1,942,334
566, 918
179,243
1114, 047
87,719
22,341
27, 789
113,748
21 , 031
5, 1149, 669
2,759, 237
731 , 556
678, ~
728. 504
128. 860
87. 4
86. 8
88. 5
87. 2
811.5
75. 0
87. 7
94. 8
96. 2
90. 5
I, 76U, 743
934. 810
21. 5
22. 7
24. 1
14. 1
22. 5
25. 0
15. 1
20. 9
16. 3
:JO. 8
13. 0
16. 0
14. 8
:J0. 8
15. 8
13.8
1, 496,839
71l8, 24G
:221, 498
103, 001
197,855
61,724
48, 263
41,577
a, 6211
31,157
214, 9GO
76,300
5. 7
1,496
8,317
337,097
1211,0116
171,977
131, 8ff7
22,461
Mll.1etun •• • •• ••• •••••••••••••••••••• • • • •• • • •• • •••• •
Art .••.... •.• •• ••.•••••• •••..••...••.•....•. ••• . .•• .
Mwdc ••...• . • .. ..•••• ••••. . ...•••••...•..••.••• •• . •
. . : : ~ d recorda programs • ••••••••••• • •••••••• ••••
a-.rch and lllln'ey1 .... . ... ................. . . .. .
Publle recordll. .•.....••.. . . ....... -....••. -.•..•...
Blllorical , - d i aurveya... . . ................•....
I, 058, 596
225,482
401,030
212,726
40,790
189,063
2, Zll, 7113
665, 60f
210, :182
:J06, 7211
103, 947
25, 870
211,W
ffl, GIO
21,703
3113,483
213,039
166,746
3',878
10.4
8.8
IO. I
2. 2
3.8
2. 0
0.4
1.8
21.3
8. 3
2. 0
2. 0
1.0
0. 2
o. 3
0. 8
0.2
3. 8
2. 0
1.6
o.a
180, 616
133, 1113
28,M
2ll8, 6G8
159,644
33,253
135,847
I, 824, 737
546, 042
170, 595
169, 801
85, 8:ill
21,llll
2e, 172
81, 1183
:JO, 036
113. 9
96. 6
115. 2
97. 4
97. 8
98. 8
114. 2
97. 2
95. 3
97. 3
96. 4
118. 9
116.0
Peroont
of t otal
sporuon'
funds
Labor e1Jl<'ndltures
as peroont
or t otal
lund.,
262,807
127,6M
238,028
66,40ll
60,484
44,430
6,238
38,8&
:189, 4.MI
99, G86
31,039
42, !182
16, 2'll8
3,620
I, 1174
3,~
672
M,aell
82,DC
22,633
1, 2811
6. 7
3. 1
H.I
16. 1
H.6
6. 2
~437
31, 1121
11,542
2, 08U
4118
27,722
H,169
12, MIG
N7
7t. 7
84. 6
71. 9
70. 4
93.6
66. 8
80. 1
74.3
76.5
82. 0
7t.8
71. 1
Ml. 2
70.9
~
0
"',..,
,..,
C
"'~
-<
77, 7
72. 4
)>
68.3
0
77. 6
78. 3
88. 2
76. 9
85. 1
85. 6
83.8
82. 5
87. 1
811. 2
89. S
86.9
89. 4
74. 2
113,1
49.2
"3.6
116.9
75.0
r-
~
83. 2
85. 4
84. 3
80. 7
83.1
91. 7
79. 8
•..,
,..,
,..,0
"')>
Vl
- --
All projects .• ••••••.•••••••••••••.•.••..•••••• • •••• •. •
39.2
_.
w
ex,
92.6
110. 7
90.1
110.9
12.3
z
"'r-,..,
m
..,
w~ri~-aiiciiioiiiiiaiw.;i::::::::::::::::::::
-------------------- -- --------------. . -- -proJecta
Bewlnr
____________ __ __eewlnl)
(except
Production
Housekeeglng aides .. ·· · ··· ··-· · ·· ·· ··-··-····--·· ·
Bousehol worqn' tralnlnl---- - -- --·- - · - ··- ··· · · -8chool lwicbea . • ... . -- · -· · •• -- ------- -· ····---- -··Distribution or smplua oommodltlee.• -- -- ------ --·Other . . ••. . - •. . .• -----··-··-··-- - ·· --· · ·-----·----· ·--Division or Employment:
National deCenae vocational training .. • -----------··-·-Mlsoella.neoWI '······-·. ------ - ...••• • - -- - -- ----------------
1,042, S20
66, 188
883,3&1
66,3&2
73,627
3, 3711
CICI, 8611
82,66'
130,40CI
II.II
O.CI
8. Cl
0. Cl
0. 7
8,770
14,1141
11111, 787
63,853
628,482
887,773
62,962
111. l
6116,:163
88.6
98.a
116. ll
911.0
46,778
0.8
1.8
611,702
1111, 1132
66,2611
1111,66'
2,812
48,842
611,081
112,827
o.1
7,0M
-3,1143
11,984
3,1127
1111.0
•
0. 6
0.1
68,877
70,287
a. OIi()
Ill.II
116. 8
113. II
11'-4
-
11.8
18. 6
8. 0
IIM,408
86. 1
122,MS
12,336
M,8611
7,Cl76
31111
SIil
21,0QI
22,862
10,874
11.e
6,8111
62,1114
II, 744
2,440
11.4
81 . 6
27. 7
8. 8
111,738
111, 4Cl8
11. 632
47.1
IICl. 4
87. 11
72.S
87. 0
98. 9
72.1
80.1
I, 716
18,884
Ill. Cl
126. 4
!IOI
18,884
100.0
a.
'-Cl
m
29. 2
82. 1
811. II
81. 7
118. I
116. 7
84. 6
97.
•
76. 7
811. 8
113. 6
28. 3
•1- tbt.n 0.06 percent.
• Does not Include proJocts operated by other Federal agancfes and 1lnanoed by alloc.tlon or W PA funda under the provlalom or eeotlon 3 of tbe EBA Ao& or 11•, eec&lon 11 ot
the ERA Act o( 1939, and S(•ction 10 or the ERA Act, llsoal year 11141.
• Includes WPA expendlt111'88 for supply fund; sponsors' expenditures ror landJ and lellSCS, e-menta, and rtgbta-oC-way, COi" which tbe distribution by type or projeot Is not avail•
able; and lldJWltmentaof WPA reports or total expendlt111'88 to reports or tbe U. B. Treasury Department. Credit llpreresultaCromeu-ort~adJuatmen taoverao&ual
expendlturee for miscellaneous PllrPOSeBN ou.-Revlsed through May 11141.
Bolmle: Dlvlaion or Statistics, Work Pro,lecta Admlnlstntlon, W asblngton. D. o.
0
cg:
N
co
a.
~
C;
0
a--(v
I
,.,
z
>
-<
:11:1
-4
>
m
Ei
...
•
w
'°
140 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Table 8.-Average Number of Claimants Receiving Unemployment Compensation
Benefits, by Region and State, December 1940
Average
nu mber or
claimants•
R('!tlon and State
Total ........ •....••••.••.•. . . .
666._
636
,___
Region I :
Connecticut ..•.......••.•.•••.••..
Maine .•. . . . .. ...•••. .• . •• . . • •• ..
MassachuS<'t ts .•.•.. .. .•••••••.. ..
New Hampshire .••.••••••. ... .• ..
Rhode Island .. . . .. ..•••..••.•.. . .
5,633
9,049
42. 097
4, 925
5,744
1, 486
Vern1ont __ ····· · · ·-·----- - ---- - ·
Region II :
!\cw York .. . . ... .••.•••..•. •••...
Rt• Rion I JI :
Delaware . • . . .• . .....•••• •. ••. . . .
115, 034
1,455
21, 224
44,977
N e w JPrSt~Y. _ ... ---- . --- - ------- _.
Pen nsylvania . .....•......••• . . ..
RoRIOn I V:
Distric t or Colum bia ... ...••••. . .
Mar~·lnnd . . . . . . . . ... •••. ••...
North Carolina . .. . .••••••••••••..
Virginia . . . ..... .. . . ••••.••••... . . .
West Virginia . . . . .••••••••••••••. .
Region V:
Kentucky . . . . . . ...•.•.•.•.••..... .
Michigan .. .. . . ..••••••••.•...... .
Ohio . . . . .. ..... ..• . .•.•••••••.... .
Heglon VI:
Illinois .. ... . . . .•••••••..••..•.... .
Indiana . ... .. ...••••.•.•••••••... .
Wisconsin .•....•••••• •• •••• .••... .
Region VII:
Alabama . ........•... ...... •..••..
Florida . . . . ... ..•.. •..•••••••... . . .
~":~i,i,1.:::::::::::::::::::::::
4,010
8, 362
11,006
7, 71141
5,M3
10,034
16,676
I
29, 1176
61,222
10, 114111
6,660
10, II06
6,806
8,540
4,121
Region and Suite
A.....-
1111111lattl
...
olalmat1 1
Region VII-Con,
South Carolina ..••. •••••••••••••••
Tennessee .... .. ·········----······
Region VIII :
Iowa ... ... ...... ··· ···-···-·······
Minnesota .•. .•..•• •••••••••••••••
Nebraska ...... • . ·· ········-······
North Dalrota •• •. ••• •• --.-· ••• _•••
South Dakota. ••••• · ··-··-····--··
Region I X:
A rlransas •••• ••••• •• .••••••••••••• _
Kansas ... .••••••• •• ••••••••• •••.••
M lssourl .••• •••••• •••••••• ·-·· ·--·
Oklahoma . .•••••••••• ·-···--·--···
Region X:
Louisiana ...•.• •••••••• ····-----·.
New Mexico • • ••• • •••• _._ ••• _. __ ••
Texas .. . ..• ····· ····-···-··-----··
Region XI:
Arlsona . . . ....................... .
Colorado••.••••••••• ••.. •••••••• • •
Idaho . . ...•.•••••••• .... .••••...••
Montana............ .... . ........ .
Utah . . . ...•. . .•• ••••••.• . .••••• • • •
Wyomlnc ......•••..••...••••• . .•.
Region XII:
ca11romla.... . .•••••••••••• • •. . •.•
Nevada .. . .................... . .. .
~~gwn ................... . . . .
Territories:
Alaska . .......................... .
Hawall ..••••••••••••••••••.. .•••••
10,tM
I, 741
11,,11
1,217
.,
1.0IIO
1,111
I,"'
17,162
a.au
11,0'll
2,UC
11,IIJ
...
1, . .
I, 807
',7'6
a.mo
1,m
1.•
'19, 1117
',IM
12,11111
1111
a
1 Represent• average number or weeks of unemployment compensated during weeks ended within
month.
• Excludes miners recelvln11 benefits resulting from a labor dispute In 1930.
Source: Social Suurltr Bulldm, February 1041, Vol. 4, No. 2 ,p. 44.
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 141
To•le P.-Number ol States Paying Unemployment Compensation Bene&ts, Number of
Recipients, and Amount ol Benefit Payments, Calendar Yean 1936-19-40 and by
Month, January 1938-0ecember 19-40
Yell' IIDd month
Number
or Statea
l:ylng
neAts
Number of Amount of benellt
recipients I
paymentl
Sl, 3t8, 11111, 862
Total, 11136-lNO••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
1a.....................•...................................
11137
·•·••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
11138.....•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••
January.··················· •••••••••• ·••••••••••••••• •.
February •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••
March•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••
tr:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
July .. ·•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••··•·•••·•••·•• •.
August •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
September••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•
October ..•.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•••••.
November ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•
Deoember •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••·
18....... ················································ ..
January ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
February ••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•..•..•
March ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•.••.•.••...
M':·.:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••
July ••••••.••• •••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••
August .•..•.••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••.••.••.••.
Bep!Almber....••••••••••••••••••••••.••..••••.••.......•
October ......••••••••••••••.•••••.••••••.••.••••••••••••
November ..•.••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••.•.•
December •.•.••••••••• ••••••••••· ••. •••••·•••••· ••..•••
llNO....... ................................................. .
January •••.••••••••••••••••••.••••••.••••••••••••••.•.•
February•••••••••••••••••..•••••••••••••••••.••.•••••..
March .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••
tr.::·.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Joly .....•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
t=ber.:: :: : : :: :: :: : : : : :: :: : : : : : : :: : : : : :: : : :: : : :: : : :
October .•..•.•••••••••••••••.•••••.••..•.••.•••••••••.••
November.•••••••••••••••••.•.•••••..••..•••••••.••...•
December .•.••••• •••••••••·••••••••••••••••··•··••·•·••
1 Data
I
1
•
28
28
2&
26
2&
28
28
29
29
29
81
49
49
49
49
49
411
61
61
61
51
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
I
~
657,208
769,770
833,159
685,073
776,006
802,209
764,885
797,235
729,929
501,714
637,029
068, 295
877,367
985,4811
1,0ll5, 155
960,735
I, 201,004
l, 268, 556
1,2111, 629
1,125,251
875, 4111
6118, 148
675,997
666,636
131,073
2,131,678
IIIB,400,428
1,291,188
111, '34, 834e
43, 8ft0, 440
36,610, 16'
38,605,956
39,819,836
38,519,697
47, 481, 727
41,683,509
35,271,239
27,901,671
26,020,2Z1
1429, 820, 056
29,203,395
34,744,426
48,873,425
33,457,526
39,929,931
43,161,144
35,596,230
44,491,421
33,655,002
26,689,676
28,368,003
30,471,094
' 631, 108, 217
40, 11115, 731
44,328,375
47,130,476
42,286,163
154, 8711, 227
53,617,656
55,740,735
61,6116,427
36,594,227
32,230,658
29,660,940
30,886,400
for 19311 repreeent the number ol lndlvlduals receiving benefits during week ended neal'l'•t middle
of month; UNO date repreeent average number of weeks of unemployment compensated during weeks
ended within tbe month.
• Not available.
• Includes $1,176,983 resulting from recalculation of weekly beneftts In Ohio not allocated by months.
' Includes $162,303 resulting from recalculation of weekly benefit amounts of miners' claims, due to labor
cUspute In 19311 In Ohio, not allocated by months.
Boonie: Bureau of Employment Security, S..mmar, of Emplo,nunt &cunt, Aetloltfa, 8ocla1 Beeurlty
Board, Federal 8ecurtt7 A1enc,y, Wasblngton, D. C., Januaey 1941, p, 13.
D1g1t1zed by
Google
142 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Ta&le 10.-Number of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance BeneAciories and Amount
of Insurance Payments, Calendar Years 1937-1940 and by Month, January 1939December 1940
[Io thousands]
Year and month
Monthly benetltsprimary, supple•
ment.ary, and Sura
vlvora
Benefiel•
arles
T otal 11137- 1940 . . . ... . .. .. ..• .
Pay•
ments
Bene ft clarles
Pay•
menta •
Pay•
men.Ill •
l,IJI
Jll,,GI
J anuary ..... ••.• . • •• .• •..•• . ...
Februar y . . ....... •. • . .. •. .. ....
March . . .. ...•. . •. . . . •.. ... . ...
1
: . : : : ::::: :: : : : : :: ::: : : :: :
Ju ne ... . .. .. ... ... . .•. . .. . ••..• .
Jul y . . ...... .. . .• .. •• .. . . . .. .. .
August. . . .. . ..• .• . . •. •• ••. ..•••
September .. . . . . . ..••..... . . . . .
October ... ...• .•• • •... .......
November . ..... ... ... ... .. . . •• .
December . . . . .. . .•• •.• •.. . .. ..•
1940 ······ ······ · · · · · ····· •···· ···· ·
J anuary .. .. ...• . •. • . • . . • . . . ....
February . .... . .. .. •• . .. . .... .. .
March .... .. . . . . ...•• . •. •.. ••. ••
3. 7
8. 4
76
251
32. 6
1115
1
.·.::: : ::: :::::: : ::::: : ::: : : :
72. 5
18. 7
17.6
21. 7
111.4
10.3
18. 2
t1:;
tr:;
aries •
18,906
$28,858
1937 • • •.. . . .•... .• • . · • •· • ·• • ••••• • • •
1938 . .. . · • ·· ·· • · .. •• •• •• •••• • • • • . • • •
193g
.. · ·· · ·· ·· · · ·· · ·· • · ·· · ·•· · · ··
June .. . . . . .... •• . •.• .• •. . .... . .
Jul y . . .... . ....• •.• ••.•..• . . . .. .
Au=t .. . .. .•.. •• •.•. ••• •......
September . .... ..•. . •. .... .. ....
October ... .. .... .. . . .... . ... . ..•
No vem ber . ....••• ...... . . ......
Decem ber _ .... . ...• .. .. . . . . • . • .
Benellcl-
16. 7
10.11
8.6
8.6
11.4
6. 8
28, 8..'18
~2. 7
00. 7
120. 8
143. 4
Jf\.1 . 9
190. 0
207. 4
225. 7
1,288
1,625
2,266
2, 712
3, 138
8, II06
(I)
1.0
4.3
5.3
5.0
6.1
6. 3
3, ll.13
4, 109
5.6
7.3
7. 5
4, 262
4, 583
6. 4
6. 7
a
159
859
796
735
8811
IKK
llOt
1,030
1,0M
goo
967
8.11
6.2
6.2
I.I
1.8
2.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
0.8
0.6
n.•
1,:1511
I, 11111
1,541
1, 41111
1,li:15
1,618
1,325
11111
NI
806
8111
6M
:t,D
1113
li84
412
238
2S8
125
1111
SI
61
54
ID
25
1 P ayable with respect to deaths offully or currently insured workers after Dec. 31, 111311, In cues where no
survivor was entitled to monthly benefits for month In which worker died .
• Figures for September 1939 and subsequent months are for lump-sum death payments with respect to
deaths of covered workers prior to Jan. 1, 1940.
• Figures for January- August 1939 include 59,380 individuals who received payments at ace 66.
• Figures through August 1939 include paynwnt..s at age 65 totaling 9.9 mtlllon dollars.
• Less t han 50.
Source: Social &curitv Bull,tin, February 1941, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. ~
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 143
To6le U.-WOllcers With Taxable Wages for Old-Age and Survivon lnsuNlnce in 1931
and Amount of Such Wages, by State 1
State I
Total.................................................
Alabama.... .........•..•............................ ... .. .
Arizona.....................................................
Arlramu.. -········································· .......
Cllllfomla.. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ·-·····················
Colondo.••.••••••••••••• ·-·································
Work. .
Tuable wages
(In thous&nds)
~
w111e
1844
II, 000, 3811
• · 173,920
1-----·1------1---m
19f,8()4
2211, illl2
Comiectleut.•••••.••••••••• ······--··········· ••• •••• •• ••••
Delawue...................................................
District of Columbia........................................
lflorlda.....................................................
Georgia.....................................................
tN,Mll
ltN,643
l,OU,038
28a,818
eeo, 273
74,808
D,tN4
486,3113
1142, 1112
118,MI
115,747
l,lldl. 42'1
173,888
m,111
Ill, 1127
l'IV,823
'nll
ao
7'1
-
m
11111
223, Cl65
282, 6118
IIH
1121
ld&bo.......................................................
Illinois......................................................
Indiana.....................................................
67,1167
I, 267, 954
662,630
287,861
1113, 724
1121
Iowa........................................................
Kanaaa•••••.••••••••••••••• ············-······· .. .• . . • • . . . .
92, 1116
2, 1122, 026
798,324
408,074
2711, 488
~~·.-.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
8111, 820
416,326
251,996
::;
fl30
268,663
Maine......................................................
Maryland..................................................
Massachuaetta..............................................
226,663
473, 176
1,888,683
142,622
373,115
1, 1116,876
Michigan...................................................
Minnesota..................................................
1, 4112, 740
1,3M. 717
422,960
606,614
~l:o~~f
pL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Montana...................................................
210,638
805,028
96,827
Nebraalca.. ... .. .• ••• •••••••••.•••••..••.••••••••••••••••••.
Nevada.....................................................
New Hampshire............................................
New lene7... .•••.••••••••••••••••...••..•.•••.....•..••...
New Menco .....••••••••••••••• .•··••··•······•·•·••···••··
1118,033
New York ....••••••••••••••••••••••...••••••••••.••........
North Carolina ..••••••••••••••.••••...••••.......•.........
North Dakota .•.•••.•••••••••••••..••..•.••..........••....
Ohio ...........••••••••••••••••••.•..•.........•••....•... __
Olclaboma .•...•.••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••..
Oregon .........•••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•...•..•.........
Pennsylvania.....••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••..........
Rhode Island ...••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••....•...
South Carolina ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••........
South Dakota.-······························ .•••.•........
Tenn-................................................. .
Texas ........•.••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.•••.......
Utah ..........•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.••....
Vermont.•••...•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.....
Virginia .•......••••••••••••••••••••.••••••.•••••••.•••••...
88,664
860,349
76, II07
ffl
830
70II
11111
7811
89t
m
=
II OIi
1136
7M
144,916
1,196, 2311
117, 20II
132,360
25, 30II
100,033
1,166, ll60
48,477
11118
81!11
_,
11'19
M7
4,283,899
665,764
60,810
1,843, 178
824, 6114
4,404,708
361,750
1,028
552
l, 703, 178
240,116
ll'M
2117, 02II
248,267
117,974
118,268
217,634
2,426,976
199,993
16.'I, 5811
48,632
BUI
IIOO
806
483,437
1,216,&W
108, 3611
76,126
4118,024
282, 4711
814,4711
80, 4511
51,1118
nll,308
211,MI
2,697,594
38,4211
m
740
4811
ll3II
11114
742
8112
ea
;:r~~·············································w1scom1n ..•...••••••• •••••••·· ••••.•.••...••.•.••••.••••..
430,202
Bell, 1311
Wyoming .....•..•••••••••••••••••••••..••.•.•..•••.•.••....
396,533
670,864
61,288
327,411
rNT,487
311, 6113
8118
Ba
8111
772
Alaska .•...•.•...••.••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•••..••......
Hawaii .••...•••••••..•.•.•••...........................•...
111,072
111,060
17, 761
63,251
1111
6'IO
• Excludes 142,433 workers holding railroad retirement sccount numbers and their taxable wages of
'38,951,968 and 52,WT workers wb09e sex and/or race was unknown and their taxable wages of $24,967,260.
The totals of this table plua the above excl11Biona represent an approximate 100 percent of all workers with
taxable wages In 1938 and such wages.
• State or employment In the basic tabulation was Indicated only for workers for whom taxable wags
were reported for the fourth quarter or 1938, and their wages for the entire year were allocated to that State.
For the remaining 6,II00,21111 workers and their taxable wages of $2,999,107,424, State or registration was Uled
In estimating distribution by State or employment.
• Represents snm of umounded figures, hence may differ slightly from 111m or rounded amounts.
Source: FlftA Annual &port of tu Social &nlritf Board, 19,IO, Federal Security Agency, Wulllnatoa.
D. O., ltNl, Table B-2, pp. l'I0-171.
01g1tized by
Google
1«
• FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Tnle H.-Reciplents of Special Typn of Public Aaislance in States With Plans
Approved by the Social Security Board,1 February 1936-December 19-40
.Uc! to dependent
Year and month
Old~ liat.-
obl1dna I
t----,------1
hmlllel
1936
Febn11117 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
March .••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Aul(U5t ..••.••••••••••••••••••••.••••••.••••••••••••••
247,421
~076
471, 100
5113, XO
llm,710
7115, 11117
80t, 481
BeptembeT ••.••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••.•••••.
October .••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••.•.•••.•••••.
November ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.
Deoomber .•••••••••••••••••••• ••••••• •••••••••••••••.
117l,Ul2
l,m3, 470
1,UM,M7
. . 070
77,446
M, 1162
81,500
811,1166
!Ill, 372
83,11911
111,738
106,312
1011,188
111,QJ.l
1, 147,9113
1, 1117, 810
1,2M, 307
1,2114,388
1,325,481
1, 211(), G73
1, 3112. 1186
1,433,808
1,~878
1,604, 1110
1,543, 8117
1,6711,lllll
117, 7111
122,4641
128, 119()
134,907
1116, 498
171,410
175,0'n
182,850
1113, 11116
11111,334
204,484
211,721
2119,767
310. 488
326, OflO
Ml,083
40!!, !1811
421,837
431,826
4112,568
480,581
4116,U2
608, 4111
U8,eoD
l,~O'J5
1, 8211, 5.'lll
1,Mll,308
1,8114,Ml
1,680,051
1,6611,:»5
1, 70II, 812
1, 7111, 124
1,733, 91111
1,838, U7
1,764,569
l,7'111.~
218, OOII
~.737
231,001
2:18, 241
240,079
243,422
Ht, 712
251, 743
254,839
257, U5
Zl,116
Z8,222
541,22'
667,813
1,790,0IIG
1, 80'J, 2INI
m. 1187
April•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
May •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
lune •••••••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••.•••••••••.••••
luly •••••••. ••••• ••.•••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••• ••
8116. 882
Aid to tbe
blind
Cblldnm
1111, 1116
70,300
141,562
162,«-12
175, 144
m.001
215,024
233,796
2117, 018
777,1118
384,801
12,054
11,0UII
18,376
18,IKl
17,671
:1111,500
llll,IIOl
27,478
77, 1181
38,4641
28,11811
11137
J &DQlllJ' ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
February ••••...•••••••••••••••••••.••.••.•••.•.••••.
March •••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•.•.•••.••...
~::::: :: :::::: :::::::::::: :::::::: :: :: ::::: :::::::
June •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••..
July························· •.•.•.••• ••·•·• .•..•••••.
Auirust .••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
September •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
October ...•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••.•.••••.
November •••••••••••••.•.••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
December........................................... .
:18,417
ID, 117
I0,1111.1
11, 1i1M
33,734
S5, ot2
37,248
38,618
40,138
'1,185
G,560
G,718
11138
JanQlllJ'. ••••••.••.••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••• ·-.
Febnllll'J' ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..
March .••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•.•••
~::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
lune ••••••••••..•..•...••••.•••••...•.•...•••••••.•.•
luly ..••••••••.••••••.••.•••.••..•••••••••...•.•.•••..
Aucust ..•••.•••••.•••••.••••••••••..•.•.•.•••••••••••
September •••••.•••••••••••••••••••••...•••.•••••••••
October .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•
November •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
n-moor .......................................... .
111:ig
lannary ...........•.•.•.....................•........
Febrtlllf7 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••.•
March •••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••• • • • • • • • • • •
~-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June •. ••••••••••••••· .•.••••.•••.• •••••·• ••.••••••••.
July •.••••••••••••••••.••.••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••
Auguat .••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•.•.•.••.
September •••••••••••••••••••.••.•.••...•.•••.•.•.•..
October .••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.••.•..••.•••.•
November •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•..
Deoember••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••.•.•
1940
1Bnuary .•••••••.•.••••••••••••.••.•••••••••••••••••..
February ••••••...•••••••••••.•.....•.••.•..•.••••••.
March •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•••••••••
t/',t:·::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June •••••••••••••.•••••.•••.••••••••••..•.•••.•••••••
luly •... ·•••••••••·•• •••.••••••.••••.••..••• •·•·• .•••.
August ...••••••••••••••.••...•••.••.••.•.••••.•••••••
September •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••
October ...•••••••••••••••••.••.••...•.•••••••.•••.•••
November ••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
December •••••••••...•.••••••...•••••••.•••••.•••••.•
1,815,913
1,832,588
1,835,246
1,846,040
282, 1~
284,262
282,009
285,GU2
297,344
1,860,550
1,874, OIIO
2118, 015
2118, 827
672,582
S&\ lg,)
6114, 024
llm, 336
QI.IM
820,181
828, 766
833,703
Ml,881
854, 2IIO
870,040
888,1132
11811,~
883,888
1191, tl63
717,11811
nl,134
720,480
722, 20II
722,040
722,987
730, 1115
13,ogs
S5, 149
18,393
37,218
38,131
38, 783
39, 5416
40,195
41, OO'l
"1,449
a. :156
42, 1138
43,355
43,740
43, 1168
44, 2tO
44,161
'4,5711
44,897
46,2M
1,887, 4611
1,896,635
1, II05, 008
1,1111,683
2119, 707
300. 026
2119, 1196
301,823
l,924,M6
311,775
315,758
320,854
325,345
329, 1112
333,017
336,288
3:ig, 645
343,362
829,044
346,545
836,280
8112, 136
358,384
48,271
48,503
48,85.l
47,160
47,558
47,812
48, 106
48, 30'l
48,548
848,429
11&6, 128
49,016
1, 9211, 490
1,935,232
1,944,950
1,958,614
1, 1170. 607
1, 98\l, 187
2,003,928
2, 0111, 619
2,037,385
2,054,396
2, OOII, 704
76.1,11911
7113, 076
774,588
784. 877
793,303
801,750
811,170
820,668
46,~
46,437
46,608
46,881
48,061
48,836
1 Data relate to program~ administered under State plBD!I approved by tbe Social Security Board and
programs administered under State laws without Federnl participation concurrently with ~ programs
under approved plans.
• Includes estimates for Hawaii for 1une 1937-May lll38.
Sourro: February 11136-Dooember 1937, Social Securitr Bullell11, July 111311, Vol. 2. No. 7, p. 112; lanaary
1931,--December 1939, Social &curitf Bulktl11t_February 11141, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 74; JanU91')'-Deoember 1940,
Socld &curilr Bullelln, March 11141, Vol. 4, NO, 8, p, 43.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 145
To•le 13.-0bligations Incurred for Payments to Recipienh of Special Types of Public
Assistance in States With Plans Approved by the Social Security Board, 1 February
1936-December 19-40
Y ear and m onth
Total
Old-age assistance
Aid to dependent children •
Aid to the
blind
Total Ul36--1940 __ ____ _________
$2, 214, 686, 748
$1, 743, 1167, 703
$417,266, IIOO
$53,762,443
1936- -- - - - ------ - -- - ----- - - ---------
183, 510, 046
4,1144,IM
6,29'J,303
8,807,061
10, 7112, 622
11,710,049
16,783,748
17,888,014
19, 6311, 566
21,436,174
22, 9112, 494
24,636,861
382,791,215
26, 677, 8IIO
26,766,822
28,087,666
29,004,368
80, 1166, 490
30,627,241
32, 149, OOII
33,193,506
34,866,836
36, 908, 867
37, 304, 4911
38,668,133
494,797, HO
39,050,667
39,610,IIG2
40,217,107
40,622, 133
40, 787, 566
40,872,494
41,476,321
41,886,379
42,336,646
40,287,138
43,438,019
44,413,280
664,773,980
44,11611,281
46.~,728
46,440,052
45,281,113
46,244,883
48,166,438
48,601,363
46,824,105
47,104,370
46,971,736
47,334,832
47,666,090
818,813,386
49,402,377
49,867,634
49,883,915
60,189,742
60,413,386
51,067,838
61,612, 180
62,041,767
62,253,666
53,322, 172
53,971,314
M, 787,575
136, 11611, 424
3,762,466
4,336, 6:12
7,087,664
8,977, 6311
9,661,11611
13,030,934
21,671,381
604,962
Ml, 168
1,334,345
1,405,943
1,634,648
2,106,224
2,332, 124
2,617,830
2,776,640
2,966,849
3, 160,648
61,408,035
3,333, 145
3,603,164
3,746,879
3, 8V6, 532
6,103,776
5,239,847
6,406,314
5,1137,514
6,967,662
6,211,896
6,664,448
6,816,868
93,427,846
7,014,662
7,222,237
7,624,472
7,630,714
7,640,168
7,644,607
7,671,460
7,978,814
8,071,316
8,188,402
8,422,218
8,818, 776
111. 183,ru
8,900,
9,067,661
9,173,357
8, 81111, 963
8,968,982
9,278,766
9,326,066
9,349, 336
9,402, 700
9,628,637
9,590,872
9,697,571
129,875,057
10,073,662
10,207,883
10,413,612
10,539,353
10,589, 750
10,686, 141
10,791, 46/i
10,920,004
11,028, 855
11,255, 167
11,452,926
11,715,349
6,969,240
286,737
315, 613
386, 052
FebrulrJ'- - - ------------ -- - ----
March __ -- ----- -- -------- ----- -
ti:::-·::::::::::::::::::::::::
June __ - - - -- -------------------- -July __ .• __ ______ __ _-- - - - - - - -- - ·AUCWlt ___ _- -·-·· -- .... -- . .. . .. =
r~~: ::::::::::::::: : ::::
November._---· .. ·--·-- - -----_
December ___ . ___ . ..... .. .... _--
11137 ________________ ·· --------------
January .. ------ -- · · - ·· · ······ · ·
February .. ---- -·· ... ··--·· . . . -
March._----------------- · --· -·
~--~:::::::::::::::::::::::: .
June _______ ___ ____ ________ ... __
July . . . ·------------------·-. - - .
August_ _. . ·--- - ·- · ·-·· . .. .... -.
~ : r ~ ::::::: : ::::::::: :: : :
November ._.-·- ___ ._ -· .. ____ -·
December __ .. ____ .. ..... .. . . ...
1988 . .... -· · ·-· --·-··-- · -· · -· ·· ·-·-January _·-· · · -··- · -· · ···· · ... ..
February . _.··· - -····---- ·- -·- Mlll'Ch. ··-·· ·· · · ·-· ···· ······· ·
tr.~.-::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June . ..•••• . •.... ·-·· · - ··-· -· -·
July •.. . -· -· · · ·· · · · · ···· ·· ······
August ___ . _·· · •·-· -- ----··-·-·~=r~~ ::::: : :::::::::::::: :
November ___ -· · ·------ -·· -····
December.... •- ··· -- -- -··-· · ··-
1!139 ••.... . -.... -· ···-- --- · ·--······
January ... . · · · - -· · ·· - ······- • ..
February.·- - - · ·- - ---· .. ·-·-·-·
Mlll'Ch _··- - -·-·-· ···· .•.. • .....
tf.':.-::: :::::::::::::: :: ::::: ::
June .. ..... . .. . -·-·- --· -·- -- -- -
July ___ . - - -· . .. .. - -- ..... - .. - .. -
=i~~::::::::::::::::::::
November _________________ --- .
December. -- __ ·------------ -- -11140---·---·----·------------------January ____________ ____________
February._-------- ·-. --· --- ---
Mlll'Ch _____________ __ _.. -..... .
=:::::::::::::::::: :: :: :: :::
June-- ------------- - ------· · -··
July .. , -- - --- -·----- ·····-··-· - ·
August ___ .. - - - . - . · - ------- -- -·.
September . _--- ---------------October_ .. _. - .... - ------ - - - ---November ____ --·· ------------D ecember __. ___ ______ _.... . ----
H, 8110, 365
16,238,430
17,953,719
19,312,868
20,737, 1159
310, 394, 105
21,594,369
22,486, 6411
23,653,047
24,312,644
24,706, 131
24,412,863
26,819, 773
26,608, 6611
27,866,117
28,640,469
29,661,716
30,733,959
390,402,0M
lll,227,4116
31,443,867
31,821,575
32, 115,423
32,364,745
32,323,431
32,875,578
32,966, Z4
33,309, 172
31,131, 171
34,031, 11116
34,792,347
431, 139, 902
36,058,634
36,173,297
36,242,039
36,364,391
36,253,819
36,852,758
36,240,776
36,431,580
36, 566, 702
36,390,682
36,681,658
36,894,667
475,752,218
38,248,912
38,574, 6411
38,378,404
38,560,408
38,717,600
39,263,252
311,701,860
39, 9112, 831
40,099,460
40,930,361
41,372,613
u, 921, 11811
399,HO
423,432
646, 511()
663,625
683,306
704,815
722,777
738,254
10, 989,075
750, 376
767, no
787,740
795, 192
846,583
874, 531
922, 922
947, 422
1,034, 066
1,056,492
1, 088, 336
1,118,306
10, 967, 240
808,420
844, 488
871, 060
875, 996
882, 662
004, 466
928,283
942,301
966,057
967,661
983,SOI
1,002, 157
12, 450, 797
I, 010, 283
1,019,770
I, 024, 666
1,026, 759
1,022, 082
1,034,914
1,035,512
1, 043, 189
1, 045,962
1,052,516
1, 062, 302
1,072,852
13, 386, 09 1
1,079, 803
1, 085, 103
1, 091,899
1,099,981
1,106, 036
1,118, 445
1,118, 86li
I , 128, 032
I, 125,261
1, 136,654
1, 145, 775
1,150,237
1 Dat a relate to prORJ'&lllS administered under State plans approved by the Social Security Board and programs under State laws without Federal participation administered concurrently wlt h smlliar proirram s
under approved plans. Data exclude eost of administration, hospitalization, and burials.
• Includ es estimates for Hawaii for June 1937--May 1938.
Sourre: February 1936--December 1937, Sodal &curltr Bull.tin, July 1939, Vol. 2, N o. 7, p. 52; J anuary
1938-Dece.mber 1939, Sodal Suurit11 BuUttint_February 1941, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 74; January- D ecem ber 1940,
Social Stcurll7/ Bulletin, March 1941, Vol. 4, NO, 3, p. 43.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
146 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Tol,le 14.--Number of Recipienh of Old-Age Assistance and Amount of Payments
to Recipients in States With Plans Approved by the Social Security Board, by Region
and State, December 19.W
Region and State
Total. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
Region I:
Connecticut .••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
Maine ___ .. __ , •.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..
M8SS8Chusetts ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..
New Hampshire •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•...
Rhode Island ..•••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••.•..
Vermont ...••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••. ••.
Region II:
New York ......................................... .
Region III:
Delaware ..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.....
New J~•""'Y- ••.••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••.•. ·•• •
Pennsylvania ..•..•••••••.•••••••••••••••••••.••••••
Region IV:
District or Columbia __ ..•••.•••••••••••••••••••.••••
Maryland .. _.....••.•••.•.••••••••••••••.•...•.••••
North Carolina ..••..•••••...•••••.••.••..•.•.••••••
Virginia . _..•••..•••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••.•..•••
West Virginia .•••••••••••••••••••••• , •••••••.••••••
Region V:
Kentucky .••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••.••••
M lchigan •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••
0 hio•••...•••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••
Reizjon VI:
Illinois_ ..••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•.••••..•••••••••.
Indiana . _.•••.•••••••••••••.•••••••••..••.•...•..•.•
Wtscons!n •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•.••••••
Region VII:
.\lahsma ..••••••••••••.•••.••••.•.••...•••.•....•.•
Florida __ •..••••••••••••••.•••.•••••..•.•••.•.••.•••
Georgia ___ ..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.••••••••••
Mississippi . ...•.•••••••••••••••••••.•••.••.•..••••
South Carolina ...•••••••••••••••.•••.•••.•.•..•••••
Tennessee ...••••...•••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••
Region VIII:
Iowa .... _._ ...••••••••••••••.••••..••..••••••••.••••
Minnesota .•..•••••••••••••••••••.•••.•.•.••••••••••
Nehrasks ___ ..••••••••••••.•••••••••..•.•.•.••••••••
North Dakota .•••••••••••.•••••••...••.•.•••....•••
South Dakota ..•••••••••••••••••••••..••••.••••••••
Region IX:
Arkansas ...••••••....•.•....•••........•.•••••....•
Kal'•'IS. ··••••• •. ••••••·•••·•••••••·•·•••·•••····•••
M lssou rt ....•.••••••••••••..•••••••.•••.••••••••••••
Oklahoma .••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.••••••
Region X:
Louis Inna __ ....•....•..••.•••..••...•.•••...•••..•••
New Mexico ..••.•....•.••....••...••..••...••....••
Tex at.: ___ • ___ ._. _________ ------ ••• ______ ------------Region XI:
Arizona ..••.•.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Colorado ..••.•••••••.•••..••....••.•.•••••.•••.••••
Idnho_ ....•••••.•..•..•.•.•..•..•..•••.•••..•.••••••
Montana .•.••..•..••••........•..•••..•....•....•..
Utnh __ .....•.•.•••••.•.••..••••...••••.•.•.••..•••.
W yoml ng_ ..•.•••.•••••.••.••.•••.•.•.•••.•••..•••••
Region XII:
C~ II lorn I& ..••.•.•••••.••••••••••.••••••••••••••....•
Nevar!s ___ ..•.••••••••••••••..•••.•••••••..••••••...
Orei,on _.....•.•••••.•••.••••••••••••••••••••••••..
Washington ..••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••...
Territories:
Alaska ___ ...•..••.•.•.•..••••••••••.•••.••••..•.•...
Hawaii ...•.••..•••••••...•.•••••••••••••••••••••••.
Number Of
reclplanta
2,000, 704
Amount or PRY·
menta to reclpl•
enta
I
Average
amount per
rectplent
ftl, D'.11, 988
Q). 2e
1------t------➔-----
17,384
4II0,214
27.116
18,220
275,268
86,821
20.82
2, M0,474
6,609
140,611
138, Mt
86,4Q8
211.26
21.28
19.96
16. 61
Im,744
8,008,668
lit. 9'l
2, ll80
81,410
GG,"4
28,889
G00,001
2,196,322
11.42
21.01
21.96
87,087
824,177
374,176
25.47
17. 76
10.12
1115,484
260,'28
lll.99
6,960
6,240
8,419
18,262
36, 1182
111,646
18,617
11.96
64,374
484,645
77,808
184,021
1,303,643
3,080,821
22.99
142, 03!
67,231
113,310
8, 131,!jg4
1,217, 727
1,200,864
22.05
18. 11
22. 53
20,196
37, 1187
38,746
26,164
17,415
40,276
187,330
471,224
317,648
216,264
137,716
407,013
66,435
63,0M
28,579
8, 1123
20. 72
21. 16
14, G46
1,169,562
1,384, 3114
Ml,684
149,741
288,425
26,124
28,066
108, 8411
76,016
197, 7M
f,62,070
1,619,994
1,83V, 231
7.87
20.03
14.115
17.86
34,296
4,1111
120,483
433,002
84,272
1,668, 8111
12.63
17. 16
lll. 77
8, r,oo
41,8.51
9,116
12,217
13,669
3,464
238,102
1,325,209
204,033
232,754
308,676
28.01
31.66
22.38
111.05
22. fill
23. 91
942
2,316
111,626
40,264
6,716,383
61, 4113
4111, 1182
1113, 744
22. 70
1,644
'3,668
18,4Sl
28. 22
12. 96
JI!(),
1,809
82,826
8.111
16. 75
9.28
12. r,o
8. 20
8. 60
7.111
10.11
19.30
16. 78
111.30
117.ffl
26.M
21. 40
Represents ohligatlons Incurred from Federal, State, and local funds; exclud08 cost or 8dmlnistratlon.
Source: Social S«1Jritv Bllllttin, February IG41, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 76 and 8oclal 8ecurit;y Board ror revlslona
116 or Feb. 16, 11141.
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 147
To•le 15.-Number of Railroad Retirement Beneficiaries and Amount of Insurance Payments, Calendar Yean 1936-19-40 and by Month, January-December 19-40 1
[In thousands]
Employee annuities
and pensions
Survivor and death•
benefit annuities
Lump-sum death
payments
Year and month
Benell•
ciariee
Total 1936-11140... .. ..•...•...
1936.................................
Pay.
ments
Benefi•
ciariee 1
Pay.
ments
$358,883
$4,743
683
2
444
1,401
1,450
1,446
113
114
114
123
123
120
120
118
121
132
124
124
Pay.
ments
Benell•
claries
$4,712
1-----1-----1-----+---i-----+--
11137..•• •• •• • • • • • • . • • • . • .• . • . •• .•. ••.
40, 001
1938.................................
1939. .•• ••• • .. . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . .
lll40...... .• • • . • • . • . .• . • . • . • • . .• .• .. .
186. 6
137. 6
138. 4
96,749
107, 282
114, 168
9, 141
9, 299
9. 310
141. 2
142. 1
143. 0
143. 9
144.9
145. 6
146. O
9,520
9, .'i08
9, 639
9, 696
9,763
9,738
9, 696
January........................
February.......................
March..........................
tr..1.·.::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June............................
July............................
Augmt................ •• . . . •. . .
September......................
October.........................
November......................
December......................
mu u:
2.8
2. 8
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.2
a. 3
200
1,926
2,496
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.a
1.2
1.0
1.0
1. 3
1. 1
0.9
1.0
164
1118
178
268
22'l
230
1110
183
253
236
178
206
1 Beoellclarles or employee and survivor and death•benellt annuities include number or individuals on
rolls at end or month sp('Clfled, based on month lo which annuity or pension was certiflt'd or terminated
upon notice of death rather than on month lo which annuity or pension began to 8CCM1e or beneficiary died.
• Widows receiving both survivor and de.ath•beoellt annuities are counted twice, but 2 lndlvidua.ls or more
sharing 1 death·beoefit annuity are counted as 1.
Source: Social &curltr Btuldm, February 11141, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 96-llfl.
Toltle 16.-Number of Beneficiaries of Railroad Unemployment Insurance and Amount
of Benefit Paymenh, July 1939-December 19-40
[lo thousands]
Year and month
Beneficiaries •
Payments
____,_____
Total July 1939-December lll40........................................ ,_
111311. . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .• •••••
July.....................................................................
August................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .. . . . . . . .• . •. • . . • . . •• •
September..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •• .•• . •. • . .• • . . . •
October. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• . . . •. . •• •• •• •. .
November.. ..............................................•.••..•••.....
December...............................................................
UNO.......... ... . ....................................••..••.•.••••••••.•..
January.................................................................
February................................................................
March...................................................................
tr:·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June....................................................................
July.....................................................................
August..................................................................
September...............................................................
October. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . .
November...............................................................
December...............................................................
$21,656
18.3
30. 5
50. 2
30. 5
28.3
37. 3
5, 767
277
1,022
1, 330
977
~
57.0
52. 8
57.4
1,209
15,889
1,820
1,797
1,814
~:
~
31.4
~: 858
31. 1
37.8
111111
l,OZ
28. 9
20. 3
73. 7
2,406
22.3
m
703
950
772
1 Number of individuals receiving benellts during second and third weeks of month for days or unemployment In registration periods of 15 consecutive days through November 1940; 14 days thereafter.
Beuree: 8od<d 8"11,U, Bvlldm, February 11141, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 95-911.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
148 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
To•te f7.--Number and Amount ol Railroad \JnemploYIMllf IMUIGftCe Beneflt Payments
Certified, by State ol Raiclence ol BeneAc:iary, September 28, 19«>-J--, 3,
19-41 1
Cenl9ed under orlclDal
Cenlfled and« ameadecl
-
Number
Total.···-·······-------··--··---············
Alabama__ ·-------·--···---·------·.-·-······-··-··
Arlzon•---·-··-·-····-·--·------- ____ -----····-··-·
act
~t
Number
A.moan&
a.-.
----,-----------1, 1188
81,
110,810
'1,IIO,IIIO
1111,W
27,414
11,052
121
1, 11M
'58
2,802
7,2111
9,
California..•• _•••••••.••• __ • _________ -···········-·
Colorado __ .·-···--·--···--- __ -·--·-···-··········-·
800
2,147
4, M2
1,441
ao,
Connecticut __ •• _·-·------··--·-----·-·--··········
Delaware ___ ._·- .. _______ ·----- ____ --··············
District of Columbia ___________ ._. _____ .••••• _.____
Florida_······--·-·-.-·----·-·---·-·-·-··-······--_
o-ria··········--·-----·---····--·-···-·-····--- -
287
41118
802
4, 11111
1,1182
8,767
4,733
111,407
a, 02'l
44,81la
a.
147
11,728
I, 218
6, 1811
183,881
1,118
16,
Kentuct-y ___ ·····-····---·---·------·---·········-Louisiana .. -·-·········--··-·------····--·······--_
Maine ___ ·--·-···-···-··-··-·-···--········-·-···-Maryland ______ ·-·-····--------·--·----·-········-_
Mll&'!achuaetla-···········--····----····-········--
I, 148
2, 11117
1, Olll
IIGt
Michigan __ -·-·····-··-·----·-··------·-········-·MinnPsota __ ··-·········-···--··----···-·····-·----
2, 7118
...
...
2,151
Idaho ___ ·············--··-····--···-··········----_
llllnols_ •••••••••••• -•• ··-··----·---·-··-········--·
Indian•-············---·-···-·----·-···········---_
Iowa_---·············-··----------·---·········---Kaosaa •••••••• ·-····--·---·-·-------···-·······--.
488
83,027
7,882
7,11811
Montana __ ••• ············--·--·----·--·-·-·····---
Nebrllllka_ --------·····-·--·----·-·-----· ---·-··--.
I, 1134
211
80
22,662
I, 181
1,D
28,891
22,164
"8113
Clll
New York_._----------·-·-----·--····---······---North Caroltna_···-----·-------------·········---North Dakota •••••.• ---·---·-·---·-·-·-----·-·---·
Ohio. __ ._--··--·-···-···---····-·-·---·-·-·-··-···Oklahoma._···················-·-·····-··········-
8, 1112
IJB,1211
211,330
628
7,:IU
4, 2'lll
IKI, 1163
80,488
11, Dll2
1,198
1, 7M
Oregon_. ___ ---···-·-·····--·--·----·····--··--··---
847
Penmylvanfa_ ---··-·-·-·-·----·------··-··--····-·
Rhode Island.--··-··-···---·-·---·-·-··-·--·····-·
South Carolina____ ·-·-·-·---·----------·--···-··-··
South Dako&a---·-·······-·-----·-·---··-··········
7,243
6,797
90,810
1,000
16,617
6, 481
Arl<lUIIIIIII--•••••---••·•--•---·---·-----·•·--•···•··
~t:~-:!fPL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Nevada .. _________ ----·-·------------·---··--·-·--_
New Hampshire_-·--·-···-····-·-·-·-·-----·--·---
~:: ~':fco:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ten----···-·---·--------------------·--------Texaa __ • ___ •• _••••••• ---·------·--·----·-·--------Utah
________
-············-· - _-- -••-·________
-- --··- •- ___
-····-·--Vermont
.• _•••••••• _________
• __ • __ _
Vlrglnfa____ --···- ······-··· -- -· -··--- --- -·-- -··-·-·
Washington _____ • ___ ••••• ··-._._·-- __ --·-·--·- __ ._.
West Virginia _____ ._. ____ --·-·---_.-·_.·-··--·-·- __
WtaoonBtn •• - •• ·-·----------··---·--·----·····-·-··
Wyoming ______ ····-·-··-----··-··-·-····-·······-·
Outside oonttnental United States •••••••••••••••••
2, 1116
2,«118
1, 1114
I, 800
~~
~=
1,478
2,007
211
1,078
3112
2,107
8,834
77,231
21, . .
44,8118
17, 4118
41,447
17,902
15, 6118
II, 192
4,402
171
Mil
2'19
1, 7IIO
61,
149,
11&
e,
11,
6,
IO,
16,786
811,
6,885
108,
101,
"Sll2
6,IIM
86,
2, 11.13
l,IISO
52,
1,8115
872
13,
a1,
16,
l&,619
1,6CIII
28,
41,UB
I, 168
12'l
2,801
17,
112,
ao, 4IRI
28,773
a.
1,88f
281
2, 1118
1, 8811
7',289
2,421
1, -11118
0.
281
937
1,208
2,461
0,2117
1~:
:H,
84,
10,
::
6,
221,
22,
30,
127,
47,
:ill,
172,
6,
17,
21,
46, 21111
112, 6911
41,438
7,11511
18, 9611
744
118,708
11, IKl2
1,308
10. 487
11118
l, 182
1,323
2, 6IKI
176
17,llll'l
10,506
19,270
2,183
2, 1148
1, 79/i
6,098
12,678
1,093
17,812
21111
B,1111
4,078
2117
1 BMed on :JO-percent 1111D1ple of beneftt oertl1lcatloos.
Source: Bodal &euritr Bullch&, March 11141, Vol 4, No. I, p. 78.
Digitized by
2,148
421
-
Google
M.317
112,8118
4. m
Appendix B
LIST OF TABLES
TEXT TABLES
Tahu
P<Jfle
1. Number of families, single pel'l!Ons, cases, total persons, and percent
of population receiving emergency relief under the general relief and
special programs, continental United States, by month, January
1933-December 1935_________________________________________
2. Number of pel'l!Ons working and amount of earnings on all projects,
Civil Works Program, continental United States, by week, November 23, 1933-July 14, 1934________________________________
3. Average number of persons employed on WPA projects, by month,
United States and territories, August 1935-December 1940_______
4. Ael!ignments to and separations from employment on WPA projects,
continental United States, by month, January 1939-December
1940________________________________________________________
6. Number of cases receiving general relief, continental United States,
by month, January 193&-December 1940_______________________
6. Amount of general relief extended to cases, oontinental United States,
by month, January 193&-December 1940_______________ _________
7. Average monthly general relief benefit per case, continental United
States, by month, January 1936-December 1940_______________
U
31
54
65
114
121
122
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
1. Amount of obligations incurred for emergency relief, by State and by
source of funds, 1933-1935--- _____________________ . _________ ..
2. Number of resident cases receiving emergency relief under the general
relief and special programs, continental United States, January 1933December 1935______________________________________________
3. Amount of obligations incurred for the general relief and special programs, continental United States, by month, January 1933-December 1935____________________________________________________
4. Average monthly general relief benefit per case, continental United
States, by month, January 1933-Deoember 1935._______________
6. Funds used for Civil Works Program, by State and by source of funds,
November 16, 1933-July 14, 1934______________________________
6. Amount of WPA and sponson' funds ezpended for projects operated
by the Work Projects Administration, July 1935-December 1936
and by month, January 1937-December 1940-----------------1-49
Digitized by
131
133
134
134
136
137
Goog Ie
150 • FEDERAL WORK SECURITY AND RELIEF
Tabk
Pa,,
7. Amount of WPA and sponsors' funds expended for projects operated
by the Work Projects Administration, by type of project and object
of expenditure, United States and territories, July 1935-December
1940-----------------------L-----------------------•---•••-138
8. Average number of claimants receiving unemployment compensation
benefits, by region and State, December 1940____________________
140
9. Number of States paying unemployment compensation benefits, number of recipients, and amount of benefit payments, calendar years
1936-1940 and by month, January 1938-December 1940_________
141
10. Number of old-age and survivors insurance beneficiaries and amount
of insurance payments, calendar years 1937-1940 and by month,
January 193~December 1940_________________________________
142
11. Workers with taxable wages for old-age and survivors insurance in
1938 and amount of such wages, by State_____________________
143
12. Recipients of special types of public assistance in States with plans
approved by the Social Security Board, February 1936-December
1940________________________________________________________
144
13. Obligations incurred for payments to recipients of special types of
public assistance in States with plans approved by the Social Security Board, February 1936-December 1940___ _ ___ _______ ______ __
145
14. Number of recipients of old-age assistance and amount of payments
to recipients in States with plans approved by the Social Security
146
Board, by region and State, December 1940____________________
15. Number of railroad retirement beneficiaries and amount of insurance
payments, calendar years 1936-1940 and by month, JanuaryDecember 1940______________________________________________
147
16. Number of beneficiaries of railroad unemployment insurance and
amount of benefit payme11ts, July 193~December 1940__________
147
17. Number and amount of railroad unemployment insurance benefit payments certified, by State of residence of beneficiary, September 28,
1940-January 3, 1941_________________________________________
148
Digitized by
Goog Ie
Index
151
Digitized by
Google
,
o,g,tized by
Google
INDEX
IBsclutles appeudu tables, which an Hated In appeudu B.J
Abbott, Edith _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
lln
Age composition, changes in _ _ • _ _ _ _
7n
Agricult.ural Adjustment Administration _
43n
Land Policy Section _ _ _ _ • • _ _ _
69
Aid to blind _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ • - _ _
96
Aid to dependent children ____ • __
96
American Federation of Labor, unemployment estimate _ _ _ _ • _
Sn
American Red ero.·. Bee Red Croes, distribution of 1111rplua wheat.
A8ch, Berta • _ • _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ • _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Sn, '211, 69n
Association of American Railroads. • • • _ • • • • • _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ 100
Baird, Enid _ _ • _ _ • _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 26n, 27n, 122n
Bartlett, F. S _____ • • • • _ • ___________ • _ • _ •
23n
Beck, P. G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sn, '2n
Betters, Paul V _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • lSn, 19n, 31n
Bevis, Joseph C_ _ _ _ • _ _ _ • • _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ • _ _ _ _ _ Mn
Breckenridge, Sophonisba P _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ lln
Brinton, Hugh P _ _ _
_ __ • 26n, 27n, 122n
Brown, Malcolm _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ Sn, 46n
Brown, Pamela. ____ • ________ _______ . 3ln,34n, 136n
Browning, Graoe A . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ lln
Bucklin, Dorothy R . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ 113n
Budgetary deficiency principle • ______________ 26, ((), 41n, 51
Bureau of Employment Security, Social Security Board ____ • __ • 141n
Burna, Arthur Edward
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 32n, 33n, (On, 48n, 61n
Burna, Eveline M _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 113n
Carothen, Doria _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ 25n, 33n, 37n
Carrien Taxing Act of 1937 __ •• _____________ 100, 102-103
Castle, H. H _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ . .• • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ 4 ln
Categorical relief, development (,u alto Aid to blind; Aid to dependent
children;Old-agea.i.stanceprogram;SocialSecurity Act) ____ 13-14, 50-51
Children's Bureau, U. S •• _ • • • • • • • • _ • _ • • • • _ - • 16n, 17n
Civil Works Administration (see alto Civil Works Program; Federal-Statelocal relationships):
Creation _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ • _
_ _ . _ _
29
Rulee and Regulations No. 1 • • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • • • _ • _
33
153
Digitized by
Goog Ie
154 • INDEX
Civil Works Program (see alao Civil Works Administration):
Page
Earnings _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
31
Employment _ _
_ 30, 31
Expenditures _ _
_ _ _ _ _
33
Hours of work _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ 33, M
Types of projects _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ 34-35
Wage rates
_ 33--34
Civil Works Service Program_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
32
Civilian Conservation Corps _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 67-68, 97
Colcord, Joanna C _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13n, 14n, 28n
45
College student aid program (see also National Youth Administration) _ _
Commerce, U. S. Department of
4n
Cotton Stabilization Corporation _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
18
84n
Creamer, Daniel _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
lln
Creech, Margaret _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Defense vocational training program. See Work Projects Administration,
defense work.
Depression of 1930's, previous depreesions compared_ _ _ _ _ _
1-2, 5
Direct relief. See Federal Emergency Relief Administration; General
relief since 1936.
Douglas, Paul H _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
15n
Eighteen months' clause. See Work Projects Administration, employment,
regulations.
Elizabethan poor laws _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11, 12
Emergency education program _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ 44----45
Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 _
_ _ _ _ _ 18, 31n
Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 _
_ _ _ _ _ _
53
Emergency relief, definition_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
46n
Emergency Work Relief Program _ _
_ ____________ 37-40
Employment trends, 1900-1940 _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3-4
Farm Credit Administration, Farm Debt Adjustment Section_
69
Farm Security Administration _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 43n, 50, 6~70
Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works. Su Public Works
Administration.
Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 19, 21-23, 45
Federal Emergency Relief Administration (au also College student aid
program; Emergency education program; Emergency Work Relief Program; Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933; Federal-State-local relationships; Federal Surplus Relief Corporation; Grant-in-aid system;
Rural rehabilitation program; Transient program)
_ _ _ _ 22-28
Allowances authorized _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
26
Average relief benefits _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
27
Case load _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ 46-47
_ - ___ 19, 22
Creation of _ _ _ _ _ _
__ 40, 41
Direct relief _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 27-28
Early work-relief program
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
47
Expenditures _ _ _ _ _ _ _
24
Number of persons aided_
Rules and Regulations No. 3 __
26
Sources of funds _ _ _ _ _ _
47
-Digitized by
Google
INDEX• 155
Page
Federal· Farm Board_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18
Federal Insurance Contributions Act _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
92
Federal Old-age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund _
92
Federal relief prior to 1933 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
1~19
Federal, ReaertNl Bulletin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5n
Federal Security Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 72n, 97
Federal-State-local relationships:
Civil Works Administration __________________ 31-32
Federal Emergency Relief Administration _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 23, 37-38
Social Security program _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 50-51
Work Projects Administration _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~57
Federal surplus commodities. See Surplus Marketing Administration.
Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation. See Federal Surplus Relief
Corporation.
Federal Surplus Relief Corporation _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 43-44
Federal Unemployment Tax Act _ _ _ _ _ _ _
78
Federal Works Agency_ _ _ _ _ _
_ 53n, 72-74
Food stamp plan _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 44n
Forster, M. C ____ - - - __ - _______________ 8n,42n
Geddes, Anne E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ Ion, 16n
General relief, definition __ _
109n
General relief since 1936:
Average benefit per case _
_ _ _ _ _ _ 122
Case load _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
114-115
Composition _ _ _ _ _
123
_ _ _ _ _ _
117
Effect of private employment trends_
Effect of Social Security program _ _ _
_ 117-119
115-117
Effect of Work Projects Administration employment_
Seasonal fluctuations
_ _ _ _ _
119
_ 120-121
Obligations incurred_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
State policies _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
109--114
Work relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 113-114
17
Gifford, Walter 8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Gill, Corrington _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2n, 3n, 15n, 29n, 35n, 53n, 113n
Goldwasser, Betti C _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 85n
Grain Stabilization Corporation _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18
Grant-in-aid system (see alao Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933; Public
Works Administration) ____________________ 55, 21n
_ 5,93n
51n
l7n
42n
73n
16
22n
Hansen, Alvin H
Hauser, Philip N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hayes, E. P _ _ _
Holley, William C __
Home Owners' Loan Corporation _ _
Hoover, Herbert _
Hopkins, Harry L _ _
Ickes, Harold L _ _ _
29n
Keefer, Mary Wysor _
Kelso, Robert W _ _ _
lln
lln
Digitized by
Google
156 • INDEX
Pa,Kerr, Peyton _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 61D
Key, V. 0., Jr ___ . ____________ • ____ • • • __ 21n, 65
Kifer, R. 8 •• _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ • • _ _ _ _ • _ _ • _ 8n, 42n
Koplovitz, William C • _ _
• _ _ •• _
28n
Kurtz, RW!8ell H _ • _ •
28n
Labor supply, 1870-1930 _
I, f
Latimer, Murray W _____ - - - - _ . _ - . . __ - _ . __ 99n, 104D
Lively, C. E _ • _
- _ • • •
42n
Lowe, Robert C _
_ - • • _
13D
Lubin, Isador _
3
McCormick, M. Riggs _ _ _ _ . _ _
_ _ . _ _ _
McCormick, Thomas C _
MacDonald, Austin F ____ - - - Macmahon, Arthur W _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mangus, A. R _ _ _
- - - - Melvin, Bruce L _ ~ - - - - - - • - _
Millett, John D _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _
Millspaugh, Arthur C _
- - - - - - - • _
Monthly Report of the Federal Emerg,ncy Relief Adminiatraticm _
22n
f2n
_ 21n
_ 53n
42n, 69n
42n, 66n
53n
12n
23n
_ • • _ _
_ . _ _
_ _ _ _
8n,
_ _ _ _
_
National defense program (au alao Work Projects Administration, defense
work) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 126-127
National income _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
National Industrial Conference Board __________ _
3, Sn
Unemployment estimates ______________ _
16, 17
National Industrial Recovery Act _ _
_ ___ _
- - 29, 32
National Resources Committee _
_ ___ _
7n
National Youth Administration_
fS, 60, 97
Hours of work _ _ _ _ _
_ ___ _
67
Wage rates _ _ _
_ ____ _
- 66,67
_ _ _ _ - _
Nicol, Mary Aylett
26n
"
Office of Education
_ _ _ _ _
97
Ogden, Gladys _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
53n
Old-age assistance program _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 93-96
Old-age insurance system (aee alao Federal Old-age and Burvivora Insurance
Trust Fund; Railroad retirement system, old-age insurance system
compared) _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ 85-93
Old-age Reserve Account_
91
Palmer, Gladys L _
- - - - Sln
Payne, Stanley L _
_ _ _ _ _
64n
Per capita income. Su National income.
Poor-law system _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11-14
Population changes. See Age composition, changes in.
President's Committee on Economic Security _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 84, 85, 93, 104
President's Emergency Committee for Employment _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16
President's Organization on Unemployment Relief_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
17
Prevailing wage rate (aee alao Civil Works Program, wage rates; Emergency
Work Relief Program; Public Works Administration, wage rates) _ _
62
Digitized by
Goog e
INDEX• 157
Page
Production trends, 1860-1939_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2-3
Public Buildings Adminiatration_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
74
Public Roads Administration _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 73-74
Public Worn Adminiatration __________________ 29, 70-72
Employment _
72
Grant system
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
71
Hours of work
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
71
Wage rates_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
71
Railroad Retirement Act of 1934 _
100
Railroad Retirement Act of 1936 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
99
Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 _______________ 99, 100-101
Railroad Retirement Board_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
107
Railroad retirement system ____________________ 99-104
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 102
Benefits paid _ _ _
Classes of benefits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
101-102
Financing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
102-103
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
103-104
Old-age insurance system compared
Workers oovered _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
101, 102
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account
_ _ _ _ _
107
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act _ _ _
104
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Administration Fund_ _
107
Railroad unemployment inaurance system _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 104-107
Benefit formula_
_ _ _ _ _
105-106
Benefits paid _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
106
Financing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
107
State unemployment compensa.tion systems compared _
107-108
Workers covered _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
105
_ 100, 104
Railway Labor Executives' Association _ _
Real income, measurement _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4n
Reconstruction Finance Corporation _ _
_ _ 18, 19
Red Croes, distribution of surplus wheat _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18
Reeder, Sherwood L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 18n, 19n, 31n
Relief prior to 1933 _ _ _ _
_ 11-19
Reorganization Act _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
72
Reorganization Plan No. 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 72, 97
Resettlement Administration (aee
Farm Security Administration) _ _
42,
43n, 69, 116
Roberts, Verl E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 64n
Roes, Emerson _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 53n
Rural Rehabilitation Division, Federal Emergency Relief Administration _ 42, 69
Rural rehabilitation program _
_ _ 41-43
auo
Schmitter, Lyle L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
85n
Security wage policy. See Work Projects Administration, wage rates.
Shaffer, Alice _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
lln
Sheppard-Towner Act of 1921 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17n
Smith, Elna N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 42n, 66n
Social Security Act _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ·_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 50, 77, 84, 85, 93, 97-98
Social Security Board (aee auo Bureau of Employment Security) _ _ _ _ _
97
Social 8ecurit71 Bulletin _________ 142n 144n, 145n, 146n, 147n, 148n
D1g1tized by
Google
158 • INDEX
Social Security program. Su Aid to blind; Aid to dependent children;
Categorical relief, development; Federal-State-local relationships;
Old-age assistance program; Old-age insurance system; Unemployment
compensation; U. S. Employment Service; U. S. Public Health Service.
Social Security Unemployment Trust Fund _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
107
Stecker, Margaret Loomis _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 62n
Stewart, H. L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sn, 42n
Subsistence Homesteads Division, Department of the Interior _ _ _ _ _ _
69
Surplus commodities. See Federal Surplus Relief Corporation; Surplus
Marketing Administration.
Surplus Marketing Administration (11ee alao Federal Surplus Relief Corporation; Food stamp plan) __________________ 44,50,lll
Sv.rvey of Cv.rrent Bv.ainu11
_ _ _ _ _
4n
Taeuber, Conrad _ _ _ _ _
42n
Temporary National Economic Committee _____________ 2, 3, 4n, 6
Teske, Alden J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 113n
Transient program _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 24, 45-46
Unemployment (11ee alao American Federation of Labor, unemployment
estimate; Employment trends, 1900-1940; National Industrial Conference
Board, unemployment estimates) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8, 15-16
Unemployment compensation (aee alao Railroad unemployment insurance
system, State unemployment compensation systems compared) _
_ 77-84
Amount of benefit payments _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
82
Effect on general relief load __________________ 118-119
Financing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 78, 82-83
State laws _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ 79--84
Weekly benefits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
81
Unemployment Trust Fund _ _ _ _ _
_ _ 78, 82
U. S. Employment Service _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
97
U.S. Housing Authority_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
73
U. S. Public Health Service __ • _________________ 17n, 97
Watson, Donald S_ _
_ _ _ _ _
19n
Webb, Beatrice _ _
lln
Webb, John N _ _ _
_ ________ • _ Sn, 46n
lln
Webb, Sidney_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Wellman, Arthur C _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
84n
Wells, Anita _ _ _
23n
Whetten, Nathan L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ 42n
Whiting, T. E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 23n, 109n
Williams, Edward Ainsworth _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 19n, 22n, 45, 48n, 55n
Williams, J. Kerwin _______________ 18n, 19n, 31n, 55n, 71n
Winston, Ellen _ _ _ _
_ _ 42n, 69n
Witte, Edwin E_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 91n
Wood, Katherine D _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ 51n
16
Woods, Col. Arthur _
Woofter, T. J., Jr_ _ _ _
_ - - - - - _ 42n, 69n
Digitized by
Goo~ le
INDEX• 159
Page
Work Projects Administration (see also Federal-State-local relationships) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 53--65, 72
Defense work _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 59-60, 64
Employment _ _ _
- _ _ _ - _ _
54
Regulations
_ 63-64
Turnover_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ 64, 65
Hours of work _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ __ 62-63
Method of operating_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ 56--57
Sponsors' contributions
_ _ _ _ _ 58n
Types of projects _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ 58-60
Wage rates_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ - - - - ___ 61-63
Work relief. See Civil Works Program; Civil Works Service Program;
Emergency Work Relief Program; Federal Emergency Relief Administration, early work-relief program; General relief since 1936, work relief;
Work Projects Administration.
Work relief prior to Federal Emergency Relief Administration _ _ _
28
Works Program, definition _· _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
53n
Works Progress Administration. See Work Projects Administration.
Zimmerman, Carle C ____ _
~
Digitized by
Goog Ie
@FedFRASER