Full text of Migrant Families, Research Monograph XVIII
The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Publications
oF the Division of Social Research
Works Progress Administration
Research Monographs
I. Six Rural Problem Areas, Relief-Resources-Rehabilitation
II. Comparative Study of Rural Relief and Non-Relief Households
Ill. The Transient Unemployed
IV.
Urban Workers on Relief
V. landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation
VI. Chronology of the Federal Emergency Relief Admi.nistration,
May 12, 1933, to December 31, 1935
VII. The Migratory-Casual Worke,
VIII. Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation
IX. Part-Time Farming in the Southeast
X. Trends in Relief Expenditures, 1910-1935
XI. Rural Youth of\ Relief
XII. Intercity Differences in Costs of Living in Morel, 1935, 59 Cities
XIII. Effects of the Works Program on Rural Relief
XIV. Changing Aspects of Rural Relief
XV. Rural Youth: Their Situcoion and Prospects
XVI. Farming Ha:a:ards in the Drought Area
XVII. Rural Families on Relief
XVIII. Migrant Families
Special Reports
Legislative Trends in Public Relief and Assistance, December 31, 1929,
to July 1, 1936
Survey of Cases Certified for Worlc1 Pro9ram Employment in 13 Cities
Survey of Worlcers Separated From WPA Employment in Eig~t Areas
During the Second Quarter of 1936
A Survey of the Transient and Homeless Population in 12 Cities,
September 1935 and September 1936
Areas of Intense Drought Distress, 1930-1936
The People of the Drought States
Relief and Rehabilitation in the Drought Area
Five Years of Rural Relief
Age of WPA Workers, November 1937
Survey of Workers Separated Frorn WPA Emplovment in Nine Areas,
"1937
Workers on Relief in the United States in March 1935, Volume I, A C~mUI
of Usual Occupc;1tions
Urban Housing: A Summary of Real Property lnventoues Conducted a;
Work Projects, 1934-1936
_________________________ ___
.;._
-
--
c..-..--
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
F. C. Harrington, Administrator
Corrington GIii, Aaistonf Administrator
DIVISION OF SOCIAL RESEARCH
Howard B. Myen, Director
MIGRANT FAMILIES
By
John N. Webb
and
Malcolm Brown
•
RESEARCH MONOGRAPH XVI 11
1938
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
Letter of Transmittal
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D. 0., December 27, 1938.
Srn: I have the honor to transmit a report on the characteristics
and activities of the depression migrant families which received
relief from the transient program of the Federal Emergency Relief
Administration.
A high degree of population mobility is a basic necessity in America.
As long as the American economy continues to expand, population
redistribution to fit the changing concentration of resources will be
essential. Rapid changes in industrial technique require a continual
shifting of workers among the industrial areas of the country. Varying
birth rates in different parts of the country produce a population
flow from the regions of high natural increase toward the regions
where the increase is less. Soil erosion and the increasing mechanization of agriculture are constantly releasing great numbers of small
farmers and agricultural workers for industrial employment in the
cities. In the West large-scale agriculture requires an army of
migratory agricultural workers who travel great distances to piece
out a year's work at short-time harvest jobs.
During good times, when migrants reestablish themselves in a new
community with little difficulty, the desirability of population movement is not questioned. During a depression, on the other hand, the
same 3ort of population movement frequently entails a relief problem.
As a result, distress migration is generally disapproved by the resident population. This disapproval is expressed concretely in the
multifarious State legal residence requirements that exclude newcomers from the usual types of relief benefits in the local governmental
units.
In 1933, recognizing that the State residence requirements created
a no man's land in which large numbers of needy migrants were
ineligible for relief, the FERA set up a uniform requirement of 1
year's residence for general relief throughout the United States.
Through the Federal transient program the FERA assumed responsibility for those persons who could not meet this requirement. On
this basis the transient program gave care (in addition to the unattached) to some 200,000 different migrant families, containing
approximately 700,000 individuals, during the 2 years of its operation.
Ill
M44083
Dig rt zed by
Goog IC
IV • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
By examining the experience of the transient program, this report
has been able to isolate a number of widely-held misconceptions
about transients and transient relief. Analysis of the reasons why
migrant families left home and of their subsequent travels reveals
that they were not-as is so commonly believed-irresponsible and
degraded groups addicted to chronic wandering. On the contrary,
a large majority of them were habitually settled and self-supporting
families dislodged by the depression and seeking reestablishment
elsewhere. The families left home not only because they were in
distress but also because of a reasonable expectation of an improved
status at their destination. Their travels rarely took them beyond
the region with which they were familiar and frequently took them no
farther than into an adjoining State. Half the families had moved
no more than once before receiving transient relief; afterwards, a
large majority remained in the same transient bureau where they
ha.d first registered until they found work.
Of particular significance in this connection is the evidence in this
study that migrant families were reabsorbed from the transient relief
program at a rate considerably higher than the rate for workers on
general relief. This fact suggests that the migration of the families
studied aided them materially in working out their economic problems, even though public assistance was temporarily required in the
process.
The report finds that the transient relief problem is essentially an
urban-industrial problem which has in recent years been complicnted
by migration of destitute drought-refugees. In spite of the belief
that depression migration is a one-way movement in which certain
States are exclusively contributors, while other States are exclusivPly
recipients, it is revealed that the migration of the familiPs studiPd
usually involved a more or less balanced interchange lwtween the
States.
The report concludPs from the evidence prt>sented that future
efforts toward providing relief to nonresidents should recognize that
migrants in need are not essentially different from residents in need.
The solution of the transient relief problem would therefore appenr
to lie in the direction of making the regular work relief and general
relief programs accessible to nonresidents by means of reducing or
eliminating State legal settlement requirements which artificially
create the "transient" as a separate category. The experience of the
past, however, warns against the presumption that the initiative in
working out this solution will come from the individual States.
Transiency is a national problem, and Federal leadership is essential
in achieving a solution which would take into account both the needs
of distressed migrants and the interests of the individual States.
Digitized by
Google
LETTER OF TRANSMITT Al • V
The study was made by the Division of Social Research under the
direction of Howard B. Myers, Director of the Division. The
collection and analysis of the data were supervised by John N. Webb,
Coordinator of Urban Surveys. The report was prepared by John
N. Webb and Malcohn Brown. Special acknowledgment is made to
M. Starr Northrop and Jack Yeaman Bryan, who assisted in the
analysis of the data, and to Katherine Gordon, who assisted in the
preparation of the tables.
Respectfully submitted.
CORRINGTON GILL,
Assistant Adminwtrator.
CoL. F. C. HARRINGTON,
Works Progress Adminwtrator.
D1g1t1zcd by
Google
r·g,t zed 'Jy
G oog 1c
Contents
Page
Introduction - -
XIII
Summary - -
XXI
Chapter I. Reasons for migration
1
Reasons for leaving settled residence
4
Reasons for selecting destination
9
Reasons for migration, by State
Family histories _ _ _ _ _ _ _
14
21
27
Chapter II. Origins and movement
Movement between States _ _
28
Rural-urban migration
52
__
Chapter Ill. The background of migration
59
Settled and unsettled families
_ _
60
Mobility before transient relief _ _
65
Mobility and year of formation
68
Mobility of settled and unsettled families
71
Chapter IV. Migrant famllia and the haMient program __
The migration that led to transient relief
73
74
__ _
The effect of the transient program upon mobility
76
Legal residence requirements for general relief
86
Chapter V. Personal charaderlstics - -
93
Composition of migrant families
94
Size
96
97
99
Age Color and nativity
101
Citizenship
Marital status ,. _
101
VII
Digitized by
Google
VIII • CONTENTS
Page
Chapter V-Continued.
Sex __ _
102
Education _ _ _ _ _
103
107
Chapter VI. Occupational resources
Employability _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Usual occupation and industry _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Duration of unemployment _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
107
112
119
The normality of transient relief families
Transient relief and restrictions upon mobility
125
125
127
Transient relief and population redistribution
Implications for the future _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
128
130
Chapter VII. Conclusions - - - - - -
- - - - - -
Appendix A. Supplementary tables - - - - - - - _ - - - _
Appendix B. Some aspects of minority-group migration - - - - _
Appendix C. Schedule and instrudions - - - - Appendix D. List of tables
_ _ _ _
Index - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
135
165
169
179
183
FIGURES
Figure
1. Location of transient bureaus and number of cases included
in study of migrant families _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2. Reason migrant families left settled residence, by State or
region of settled residence _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3. Type of contact of migrant families at destination, by
State or region of destination _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4. Objectives sought by migrant families at destination, by
State or region of destination _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5-10. State or region of origin and of transient bureau registration of migrant families _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11. Net displacement of migrant families, June 30, 1935 _
12. Rate of migrant family emigration _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
13. Intensity of relief in 1934 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
14. Rate of emigration of native United States population _ _
15. Rate of migrant family immigration _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16. Rate of immigration of native United States population _
17. Rural-urban movement of migrant families, by year of
move _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18. Percent of families in the general population residing in
rural places, 1930 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Digitized by
Google
xix
15
18
20
29
41
45
46
48
51
52
54
56
CONTENTS• IX
f,'igure
Page
19. Percent of migrant families with origins in rural places
20. Percent of migrant families with destinations in rural
places_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
21. Number of transient bureau cases opened and closed during
each month and number of cases under care on the 15th
of each month, February 1934-September 1935 _ _ _ _
22. Rate of opening and closing transient bureau cases, February 1934-September 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
23. Size of migrant families and of families in resident relief
and general populations _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
24. Age of migrant family heads and of family heads in resident
relief and general populations _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
25. Color and nativity of migrant family heads and of family
heads in urban resident relief and general population _ _
26. Schooling completed by heads of migrant families and by
heads of urban and rural resident relief families _ _ _ _
27. Main class of usual occupation of economic heads of migrant
families and relief families in 1935 and of gainful workers
16-64 years of age in the general population, 1930 _ _ _
28. Usual industry of economic heads of migrant families and
relief families in 1935 and of gainful workers 10 years of
age and over in the general population, 1930 _ _ _ _ _
29. Unemployment since last job at usual occupation and last
job at any occupation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
D1g1t zed by
56
57
78
81
97
98
100
105
114
118
123
Goos IC
Oigrt1zcd by
Google
Migrant Families
XI
D1911 zed by
Goog Ie
INTRODUCTION
D1STRESSMIGRATION was one of the problems that confronted the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration when in 1933 it undertook
the wholly new task of active cooperation with the States in extending
aid to the unemployed. Through the transient relief program the
FERA made available-for the first time on a national scaleimmediate and adequate assistance to the needy nonresident. Little
was known at that time of the nature of depression migration, and one
of the important, though incidental, services of the transient program
was to call attention to the problem of the migrant unemployed and
to provide a means by which this problem might be studied.
The background of this study is the transient relief program of the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration. The principal purpose
of this report is to make available information-parallel in its details
to the discussion of unattached transients in The Transient Unemployed 1-about the migrant families which registered at transient
bureaus. In addition the report attempts t.o relate the distress
migration of families to the larger fields of labor and population
mobility.
NONRESIDENT FAMILIES IN NEED
Although transiency bas been a recognized social problem for a
generation, the problem of nonresident families in need was not clearly
demarked until the operation of the transient program. Prior to the
transient program it was not generally known that any considerable
number of needy families were migrating, and depression migrants
were believed to consist almost entirely of unattached men and boys.
So little was known of family migration that the early plans for the
transient relief program were principally for providing congregate
shelters in cities and camps outside the cities for unattached men.
The relatively small proportion of family registrations and cases under
care in transient bureaus (see ch. IV) during 1934 was, in large part,
the result of a lack of facilities for family care.
1 See Webb, John N., Research Monograph III, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935.
XIII
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
XIV • MIGRANT FAMILIES
The underestimation of family distress migration during early years
of the depression partly grew out of the fact that family mobility was
less spectacular than the mobility of unattached persons. Needy
families did not ride the freight trains or congregate at the railroad
yard limits where they would have attracted attention at every town
along the main-line railroads. Instead they moved largely by automobile so that, except for the general state of disrepair of their cars
and the frequent protrusion of personal belongings from the sides,
they differed little in appearance from many nonmigrant travelers on
the highways.
Another reason for the failure to note family migration was the
cautious nature of their travels. All the families studied here were
interstate migrants; yet, in the majority of cases they moved relatively short distances. More often than not they migrated within
the same general area in which they had been residing. Usually
they went to places where they were known or had relatives and
friends who might help them. Accordingly, migrant families did not
appear as strangers completely unfamiliar with the country.
Most in1portant of all is the fact that a substantial proportion of the
families which received aid from transient bureaus made their application for assistance after the completion of migration. These families
had often lived in the new community for several months before they
found it necessary to ask for aid. Before the initiation of the transient
program, the problem of these families would have been known only
to social service workers.
The transient relief program brought the problems of needy migrant
families to light by granting assistance not only to (1) the migrants
who were in need while en route but also to (2) those whose need
developed after they had reached their destinations but who could not
get resident relief before the expirntion of the time required for
establishing legal residence in the new community. For this latter
group of families transient relief was, in effect, little different from
resident relief. Their appeal for special assistance did not arise out of
distress connected with the act of migration itself, but from the fact
that some specified period of time had not yet been served in the new
community.
IMPLICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT AID
The registration figures of the transient relief program justify an
estimate that-in addition to the unattached transients-some
200,000 different migrant families, containing approximately 700,000
individuais, were assisted by the transient program during the slightly
more than 2 years in which the program was operated. Even granting
that many families later returned to their original place of residence,
□ig,t zc:d by Goog Ie
INTRODUCTION • XV
it is clear that the families assisted by the transient program made up a
population movement of considerable importance.
The role of the Government in assisting these needy migrant
families had little or no effect in initiating their mobility. Very few of
the families (or the unattached either) migrated for the purpose of
obtaining transient relief. The effects of the transient program upon
population movement were felt after migrants were already on the
road and frequently after their migration had been completed. The
transient program did not create depression mobility, but it was itself
created to cope with the fact of depression migrants in need.
The basic purpose of the transient program was to relieve a particular category of distressed persons. The depression demonstrated that
people will migrate regardless of the danger that they may become ineligible for normal relief assistance. The difficulty of obtaining local
public assistance did not "prevent" the migration of distressed families before the initiation of the transient relief program; it did, however,
increase the distress of the migrants who failed to establish themselves
at their destination. Because the Federal Government extended
assistance to migrants who failed to reestablish themselves after leaving home, it did indirectly affect the population movement itself. In
that respect the migration studied here differs from the unassisted distress mobility before 1933 and in previous depressions, when aid to
transients was meager and was given with reluctance.
RELATION BETWEEN NORMAL AND DEPRESSION MIGRATION
Basically, migration represents population movement in response to
real or fancied differences in opportunity. In periods of prosperity
this fact is never questioned. Migration in good times is obviously
the response to a greater opportunity in some community other than
the one of residence. In periods of depression, however, the opportunities of prosperous times, and particularly the economic opportunities, approach the vanishing point in all communities. Nevertheless,
relative opportunity remains the motive force buck of depression migration, even though the response on the part of the migrant was
largely the result of comparing the fuct of no opportunity in the place
of residence with the hope of some opportunity in another community.
During the prosperous l 920's, for instance, differences in opportunity
precipitated a large scale movement of workers from rural areas to the
cities, and during the early l 930's many of these workers went back
to the land because even the limited opportunities in the country
were greater than in the cities.
There are two complementary forces at work in any migration and
particularly in a depression migration. In the first place there is the
expulsive force in the community of residence, and in the second place
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
XVI • MIGRANT FAMILIES
there is the attractive force in the place of destination. When unfavorable conditions prevail the expulsive forces receive most attention, and when conditions are favorable the attractive forces are most
likely to be noted.
Such expulsive forces as unemployment, underemployment, and low
wages were obviously an important cause of <iepre.ssion migration.
They were not, however, the only forces at work. The apparent ease
with which solvent families move from one community to another
during prosperous times has by a careless analogy been carried over and
applied to depression migrants. Actually, migration is far from a
simple operation even in the best of times; and the force required to
uproot a settled family and initiate a migration during a depression
is far greater than is generally realized. In the migration studied, an
essential part of the motivation was the fact that the families were
usually drawn to a particular destination by attractions which gave
the appearance of being reasonably substantial.
Trial and error are necessarily involved in most migrations. There
is an element of uncertainty in any change of the environment and circumstances under which a living is obtained. Detailed knowledge of
the social and economic conditions in the new community (and of their
probable development in the future) would be necessary if the element
of risk in migration were to be removed; and such information is seldom
available to migrants or, for that matter, to anyone else.
The element of uncertainty in migration explains why attempts to
find a more desirable place to live frequently end in failure. Undoubtedly the risks of leaving a community that is known for one that
is unknown, or less well known, vary with favorable and unfavorable
economic conditions; but the risk remains in some degree even in the
best of times. There is some wasted effort in migration at any time
and the loss increases when conditions become adverse.
The migration under consideration in this report occurred during a
period of widespread unemployment. Moreover, the migrants studied
had, at the time of ob~Prvation, been unsuccessful in their efforts at
relocation. HowPvPr, the fact that migration had foiled to achieve its
purpose does not warront the conclusion that the migrants studied were
a residual group of failures. On the contrary, the evidence suggests
that-granted an upturn in employment--most of the families could
have been expected to gain the objective of their migration and resume
economic self-support. IndeP<l, thPre was little to distinguish the
families which received relief as transients-in either their behavior
or social characteristics-from families in the general population which
take part in normal population movements except that transient relief
families are temporarily in need of public assistance.
During good times migration in search of economic opportunity
liquidates itself without a great deal of need for public assistance.
D1g1t zed by
Goos IC
INTRODUCTION • XVII
During a depression, on the other band, essentially the same sort of
population movement entails a relief problem. As a result, distress
migration is disapproved by the resident population, and tenuous
moral distinctions between normal and distress migration get wide
acceptance. These distinctions have little objective basis. The
"normal" mobility of prosperity becomes "mobility in trouble" in a
period of depression. Transiency bas been aptly described as being in
essence simply "the trouble function of mobility." 2
PROBLEMS IN MEASURING MIGRATION
Because of the complexity of motivation, including, for example,
the weighing of alternatives by the individual, migration is difficult
to explain. Distress alone will not account for the migration of the
families assisted by the transient program, nor do the risks of depression migration explain why some distressed families moved and others
did not. For some families the distress of unemployment was offset
partially by the relative security of local relief; for others, the risks
of migration were outweighed by the opportunities that might be
found. Only through direct contact with the migrant can the important factor of motivation be appraised.
The term migration is applied within a wide range of mobility.
At the lower end the range stops just short of absolute stability; i. e.,
just short of the situation where a person was born, reared, and resided
continuously in only one community .3 At the other end of the range
migration approaches the constant mobility of such groups as the
migratory-casual workers who live and work on the road from one
year to the next.• Between these two extremes are to be found the
great bulk of the migrants who in the course of time bring about the
fundamental changes in population distribution. Obviously then, the
2 Wickenden, Elizabeth, "Transiency= Mobility in Trouble," The Survey, Vol.
LXXIII, No. 10, October 1937, pp. 307-309.
1 Moves within a community were excluded from the definition of migration
used in the study, although such moves are a special ty-pe of migration and dei;erve
more attention than they have received. Clearly, intracity moves could not be
excluded on the basis of distance traveled alone, since within large metropolitan
areas, such as New York or Los Angeles, it is possible to travel distances greater
than those separating many communities from their nearest neighbor. There are
good reasons for the decision to exclude moves within cities when the entire
country is under consideration. The unit of measurement in spatial changes
must necessarily be some recognized civil division, and the city unit serves that
purpose without the loss of essential information and without undue complications
in statistical tabulation. The city unit also serves as a rough distinction between
urban and rural in such important matters as the origins and destinations of
migrants.
'Boo Webb, John N., The Migratory-Casual Worker, Research Monograph VII,
Division of Social Rt:search, Works Progress Administration, Washington,
D. C., 1937.
Digitized by
Goog Ie
XVIII • MIGRANT FAMILIES
term migration covers many types of population movement. It
becomes increasingly important that these types be identified and
their interrelationship studied.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION
In the main the information presented in this report is based upon
a representative sample of 5,489 migrant families selected from the
total number receiving care in transient bureaus during September
1935. All the families considered in this report were intersta~
migrants. The sample was drawn from 85 cities located in 39 States
and the District of Columbia (fig. 1). The cities were chosen to
provide the wide geographical distribution necessary to the inclusion
of all types of migrant families, as well as to take account of differences
resulting from variations in size of city and from variations among the
States in transient relief programs. The number of families selected
in each State was proportionate to the number of families under care
in each State during July 1935. A system of random selection was
applied within each city to insure freedom from bias in choosing the
families to be interviewed.
Through no fault of the method applied in selecting the sample, the
families included do not provide a full representation of depression
migrants. The unattached persons who received care at transient
bureaus are of course excluded. Since the characteristics and behavior
of the unattached differed markedly from those of the families, extreme
caution must be exercised in applying to the unattached the generali◄
zations that will be drawn from the study of the families.
There was a distinct urban bias in the transient relief population
as a whole, and that bias appears in the group of families studied.
Transient bureaus were necessarily located in cities and particularly
in large cities, because the main routes of travel converge on centers
of population. As a result migration involving exchange or redistribution of rural population was much less likely to come into contact
with the transient program than was the migration of urban population.
Still another limitation of the sample as representative of all types
of depression migration grows out of the fact that these families were
selected at a time when the transient relief program had been in
operation for about 2 years. During this period of time there was
some tendency for families to "pile up" on transient relief in some
areas where the slowness of economic recovery retarded their absorption into the resident population. Where this occurred, there was
some tendency toward overrepresentation of the less successful
depression migrants.
Digrt1zcd
b,-Goog 1C
FIG. I- LOCATION OF TRANSIENT BUREAUS AND NUMBER OF CASES INCLUDED
IN STUDY OF MIGRANT FAMILIES
I.I
.
~.p,11"
,
t,
1\lff
•••
-.
CASPU
...10,..,.
,au'
CHtrfHH(
•
•
-
...
0£NV(R
'
>o
: cs
,o. .. . .. . . .
OU
OMAHA
$1
5
W ' .wnu.NAPOl.:s
r------•·
01
-----,...1___,~?..~!1!~~"!..'..l
,s
01
TUI.U 30
fORT $MITH
"
u&C.WIIIL\.t
~
~~
•o«
~
___/" -
• ~
"o' °' l t t ~ " '
10
•
..-.. ••
o/" -~• '
..
~
~ - ~- - t.1~'-~4
t
1------.
•
r
L
,.
t"•"S!•LLt 1..ou,,..,1\.1..c
ic.c. ON. K.. ~two..,,., L01.11s
w1cHiTA
•
~
,c):t:O - ~ · -•
t&
t
... er_M'II\.L
OIClAKOMA CITY -
"-'L.,. 10
MC 4l.CSTCR
•
I
• ~ 3 0 ~ LITlL:.ROf'
~...
\ - .....-
~~10N
z
-I
:io
DAU.AS
70
0
ci:i'
""
;;;co
Q_
.s?"
C")
0
-
~
( i)
N-Ote . Area of c1rcles proportionate lo number
ot families interviewed at each center.
~""L"L ......".
•
-··· f P O f l : l ~
-
·
0
C
C
- ~
Q
HOUSTON
5
z
,oo
AF· 1283, WPA
•
x
X
XX• MIGRANT FAMILIES
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
In view of the complexity of motivation in depression migration
and its importance to an understanding of this movement, the first
chapter deals with reasons for migration. The second chapter
examines the origins and destinations of these families with particular
emphasis upon the extent to which redistribution of population
resulted from the movement of the families studied. For the purpose
of determining whether the presence of these families on transient
relief was the result of habitual instability, an examination is made
in chapter III of the mobility of these families prior to the migration
that led to need for transient bureau assistance. With these aspects
of migration established, it is possible in chapter IV to consider the
effect of the transient relief program upon distress migration. The
personal characteristics of migrant families in terms of such familiar
social classifications as age, sex, color, and race is the subject of the
fifth chapter; and an analysis of their employability, occupational and
industrial attachment, and duration of unemployment is presented in
chapter VI. In chapter VII the more important findings of the
report are reconsidered in terms of the larger problem of population
mobility of which the depression migration of needy families is shown
to be a distinct and important type.
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog IC
SUMMARY
ALTHOUGH TRANSIENCY has been a recognized social problem
for a generation, the problem of nonresident families in need was not
fully realized until the operation of the transient relief program of the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, which gave care to a total
of roughly 200,000 families containing approximately 700,000 individuals during 2 yea.rs of its operation, from September 1933 to September 1935. The transient program brought to light the full extent
of the problem of needy migrant families. It extended aid to the
depression migrants who were in need while on the road. It also
aided those migrants to a new community whose need arose before
. the expiration of the time required to establish residence. Transient
relief took over the no man's land of responsibility created by the
tradition of residence requirements for relief eligibility.
Distress migration is disapproved by the resident population, and
as a result tenuous distinctions ho.ve been drawn between migration
under normal and under distress conditions. These distinctions have
little objective basis. There was little to distinguish families which
received transient relief-in either behavior or social characteristics-from families in the general population which have taken part in
the "normal" mobility which is considered to be a characteristic of
the American people. The normal mobility of good times becomes
"mobility in trouble" in a period of depression.
REASONS FOR MIGRATION
At first glance it may seem impossible to reduce the causes of so
complex an action as migration to simple terms for analysis. The
complexity of the descriptions, however, is reduced by the fact that
reasons for migration are composed of two complementary factors:
the reason for leaving one specific place and the reason for selecting
another epecific place as destination.
The 5,489 migrant families which were interviewed in transient
bureaus to form the basis for this study reported that economic distress was the principal reason for leaving their last settled, self-supporting residence. Unemployment was the most important cause of
XXI
Digrt1zcd
b,-Goog 1C
XXII • MIGRANT FAMILIES
distress, and as a reason for leaving settled residence it by far outweighed the combined effects of business and farm failures, inadequate
earnings, and inadequate relief. Ill-health requiring a change of
climate was second to unemployment as a displacing force.
The complaint that migrant families were on the road to see the
country "at no expense" to themselves had little basis in fact. Nearly
all the families were in more or less acute distress at the time they
left their last settled residence.
Very few of the families with a settled residence set out with no
destination at all or with such vague destinations as "eastern Colorado" or "the cotton-fields" in mind. Moreover, those families which
did intend to migrate to a specific, predetermined place rarely reported
an unreasoning choice of destination. The families generally migrated only when the probability of an improved status appeared to
be high. More than half the families chose a destination in which
there were close personal connections more or less obligated to assist
them. Another large group chose its destination because of such
specific facts as letters of recommendation to employers, the purchase
of farms or homes, and employment-office direction. Altogether,
four-fifths of the families had a definite contact at their destination.
What the families hoped for at their destinations was a solution to
the basic problems which had confronted them at their former residence. Four-fifths of the families sought economic betterment, principally employment and, to a less extent, help from relatives. Among
the remainder the chief objectives were healthful climate and the,
desire to rejoin relatives.
The reasons for leaving settled residence and for selecting a destination did not vary greatly in the different sections of the United
States. Unemployment was the principal expulsive force in every
State except North Dakota and South Dakota, where farming failure
was of principal importance. Inadequate earnings and inadequate
relief showed no significant regional variation. The principal regional
variation in the objectives sought at destination was in the proportion
of health-seekers, who were particularly attracted to Arizona, California, Colorado, and New Mexico.
The families were neither particularly adventurous nor, on the other
hand, irresponsible in undertaking the migration which later necessitated aid from transient bureaus. The essence of the migration
studied is contained in the fact that the families were, in general,
distressed groups which saw a reasonable solution to their problems
through migration to another community.
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENTS
The FERA records of the 30,000 migrant families under care in
transient bureaus on June 15, 1935, show that migrant families tended
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog IC
SUMMARY • XXIII
to move relatively short distances. Only 3 percent of the families
made full transcontinental moves. The preponderance of shortdistance moves places the much-discussed depression movement to the
West coast in a new perspective. Although the transcontinental
migrations of families were by far the most spectacular, they were
. actually much less important numerically then the short migrations
in all parts of the United States.
A considerable amount of family mobility consisted of a balanced
interchange between the States. Rarely was there a large movement
from any given State to another without a substantial counter movement. Net population displacement was thus only a fraction of the
population movement. Two-thirds of all the movement resulted in
the balance of losses and gains within each of the States, and, in tenns
of population displacement, was canceled. The remaining one-third
of the movement was net displacement.
In the belief that they were moving toward regions of greater
opportunity, many of the families moved to communities from which
families like themselves were at the same time departing because of a
lack of opportunity. It would thus appear that a large part of the
movement dissipated itself in waste motion. Such a conclusion is
not without value in demonstrating the disparity between desirable
social goals and uncontrolled social behavior. This conclusion,
however, has little relevance, in view of the concrete realities facing
depression-stricken families.
Migrant family displacement showed clear geographical trends .
. The westward flow of families into Kansas, Colorado, California,
Washington, Oregon, and New Mexico far exceeded all other net
movement, and the general direction of the net movement for the
entire United States, with the exception of the Southeast, was consistently toward the West. In the South the greater pnrt of the net
movement was northward to Illinois, Ohio, New York, and Michigan.
Negroes played an important part in this movement.
There was a striking similarity between these trends nnd the displacement of families in the general population between 1920 and
1930. In both periods the predominating tendency was a westward
movement, and the chief destination in both was California. The
emigration from the Cotton States was principally northward in the
two migrations. In both there was a net movement out of the less
industrialized Eastern States into the more highly industrialized
Eastern States.
The most important differences between the displacement of the
general population in the 1920's and thnt of migrant families were
the greater movement of families from the Great Plains States, particularly Kansas and Oklahoma. Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were
exceedingly important as migrant family destinations, though they
Digrt1zcd
b,-Goog1C
XXIV • MIGRANT FAMILIES
received little net gain from the internal migration of the general
population in the 1920's.
Throughout the United States on June 30, 1935, 1 migrant family
was under care in FERA transient bureaus for each 910 families in the
total population, or 1.1 migrants per 1,000 resident families. Because
of the wide variety of social and economic conditions in the various
regions of the country, the rate of emigration from many States
fell exceedingly far above and below this national average. Nevada,
for example, contributed migrant families to other States at a rate 35
times the contribution of New Hampshire. The States from which
the families emigrated most readily were mostly Western States.
All the States with exceptionally high emigration rates lay west of the
Mississippi. Several Southern States, particularly Arkansas and
Florida, had family emigration rates above the national average.
Migrant families emigrated least readily from the densely populated
northeastern and north central regions of the United States.
When the migrant family intake of the various States was adjusted
to State population, it was found that Idaho, at one extreme, had 1
family under transient bureau care for each 100 population famili~,
while South Dakota, at the other extreme, had 1 family under care per
30,000 population families. In proportion to the resident population
the problem of needy migrant families was most serious in Idaho,
followed by New Mexico and Colorado. California ranked as fourth
and was closely followed by Washington, Wyoming, and the District
of Columbia. Most of the States with the highest rate of immigration
were States lying west of the Mississippi River.
Migrant families tended to emigrate most readily from those States
which had normally been contributing the greatest proportion of their
population to other States before 1930. Migrant families tended to
seek out those States into which the population had largely been
flowing before 1930. There was, however, no consistent relationship
between high family emigration rates and a high intensity of resident
relief, nor between high family immigration rates and a low intensity
of relief.
The origins and destinations of migrant families were both predominantly urban. The families moved mostly from city to city,
rather than from farm to farm or between urban and rural places.
The origins and destinations of 56 percent of the families were both
urban, but both were rural for only 8 percent.
All States, with the single exception of South Dakota, contributed
fewer migrant families from rural places than the rural composition
of their population would have warranted. In spite of the 1934
drought and in spite of the chronic agricultural problem in such
States as Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Texas, families from
these States originated chiefly in urban places. It would appear,
Digrt1zcd
b,-Goog1C
SUMMARY • XXV
therefore, that in the United States as a whole the migrant family
relief problem was basically urban and industrial rather than rural
and agricultural.
THE PROBLEM OF "CHRONIC WANDERING"
Chronic wandering, at one extreme of mobility, is the aimless type
of movement characteristic of persons to whom stability hns become
either impossible or unattractive. Migration, at the other extreme,
is the purposeful and socially necessary type of mobility which has
stability as its immediate object. Plainly, public assistance furthers
readjustment more easily among migrants than among wanderers.
Examination of family mobility between January 1, 1929, and the
date at which the families first registered at a transient bureau reveals
that few of the families were habitual wanderers. Overone-half had
maintained one residence for 3 years or more, and four-fifths had
maintained one residence for at least 1 year. Thus, not more than
one-fifth of all the migrant families could be considered to have been
highly mobile before they received transient relief.
When family mobility is considered in terms of moves rather than
length of residence, it is found that one-fifth had lived in only one
place between 1929 and first transient relief and three-fifths had lived
, in no more than three places. Very few of the families reported any
substantial gaps of mobility between their various residences.
The record of family moves shows that the more recently a family
was married, the more mobile it was in relation to the length of time
it had been formed. Family mobility tended to be greatest soon
after marriage and before the families had gained a foothold in a
community.
The families which were settled and self-supporting before 1929
became progressively more mobile between 1929 and 1935. But the
families which were not settled were as mobile in 1929 as they were
in the years that followed. In part, the consistently high mobility
of this small group of families resulted from the pursuit of migratorycasual occupations. Except for this minority group, there is little
doubt that the families had by and large been habitually settled and
self-supporting until a short time before their first transient bureau
registration.
Two-fifths of all migrant families first applied for transient relief in
the community where they had been residing. Thus, in spite of the
generally accepted belief that the nonresident relief problem is one of
assisting persons on the road, actually, a large number of families had
already completed their migration before applying for transient relief.
EFFECTS OF THE TRANSIENT PROGRAM
The transient program was frequently condemned for "encouraging transiency." Transient bureaus, it was held. aided migrants to
Digrt1zcd
b,-Goog 1C
XXVI • MIGRANT FAMILIES
"blithely skip from one camp to another, seeing the country while
the Government footed the bill." The wide acceptance of such
opinions is not difficult to understand. A small part of the migrant
family population did consist of chronic wanderers, and the extreme
case, because of the attention it attracted, was accepted as proof
that all needy migrants were irresponsible and undeserving. The
evidence presented in this report indicates that these opinions were
unfounded.
In the first place there was relatively little movement of families
from bureau to bureau. At the time this study was made three-fourths
of the families had registered only at the transient bureau where they
were interviewed, and only one-tenth had registered at three or more
bureaus.
In the second place families came into and left transient relief at a
fairly rapid rate. Monthly closing rates averaged 30 to 60 families
for each 100 families under care in the transient program. This
could only mean that the same families were wandering from bureau
to bureau or that the migrant family population was continually in
process of renewal. Since the movement between bureaus was small,
it must be concluded that the migrant family population was rapidly
changing in membership. Roughly 20 to 40 percent of each month's
family case load left the transient relief program each month. The
closing rate on resident relief during the same period was 5.6 percent.
Allowing for families closed from transient bureaus to the resident
relief rolls, and even for the possibility that many other families may
have received resident relief later, the turnover of migrant families
through normal economic adjustment would still appear to be
many times higher than the turnover rates on resident relief.
Transient relief appears to have been a stabilizing influence upon
families uprooted by the depression. It did not encourage wandering.
On the contrary, it prevented aimless wandering by relieving the
needs which were its cause. Stabilization, however, did not mean
unlimited dependence upon the transient program for support.
Transient relief provided necessary but interim assistance to migrants
who in most instances had definite objectives and who were frequently
only temporarily in need. The transient program not only provided
immediate relief to a distressed group, but it also assisted materially
in the solution of the problems that gave rise to the distress.
In judging the value of the transient program, it should be kept in
mind that the transient program defined and took over the no man's
land of responsibility which had been created by the tradition of the
legal settlement requirements for local relief in the various States.
The extent of the needs which would otherwise have been largely unmet
can be inferred from a summary of the multifarious and frequently
stringent restrictions governing eligibility for resident relief benefits.
Dig11ized l:>y
Goog Ie
SUMMARY • XXVII
Typical poor laws provide that a migrant would not be eligible for
local relief unless he had lived within the State continuously, with
intent to establish permanent residence, and without public assistance for at least 1 year; and in 10 States the residence must have
lasted from 2 to 5 years. The migrant's legal status was further
complicated by statutes in 19 States providing for loss of legal settlement in the State of origin. These provisions often caused migrants
to lose settlement status in one State before it could be acquired in
another. A large number of families were, indeed, without legal
residence in any State. This fact does not reflect any particular
degree of mobility among the families so much as it demonstrates the
efficiency with which the settlement laws operate to penalize needy
migrants.
Whether or not severe residence requirements do protect a State
from an influx of needy nonresidents is still a debatable question.
But in many cases the only reasonable solution of distress is through
migration. At this point residence requirements and economic forces
meet in a head-on collision, which can only be avoided by broadening
the concept that people actually do "belong" in a particular place
even though that place may be unable to provide them with the opportunity to make a living.
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Comparison of the personal characteristics of migrant families with
those of families in the general and nonmigrant relief populations
reveal several important selective factors at work in the migration
studied:
1. Youth was a clearly defined characteristic of the economic heads
of migrant families. One-half were under 35 years of age, and fourfifths were under 45. In contrast only one-third of the heads of all
resident relief families were under 35, and only three-fif tbs were under
45. Among male heads of families in the general population about
one-half were under 45. This distribution indicates the presence of
many infants and school-age children in the migrant families; and,
indeed, four-fifths of the children in these families were under 15 and
one-third were under 5 years of age.
2. Migrant families were small families. Well over half contained
only two or three members. The average family size was 3.1 persons,
significantly less than the size of both resident relief families and
families in the general population (excluding I-person families).
3. Migrant families were preponderantly native-born white families.
By comparison with the general population, foreign-born and Negro
migrant family heads were underrepresented. These two minority
groups were overrepresented, however, in the resident relief popu-
C1grt zeo oy
Goos IC
XXVIII • MIGRANT FAMILIES
lation, showing that although more frequently victims of the depression, these groups nevertheless tended to remain immobile. During
recent decades the foreign-born have tended to settle in large industrial centers end to group thems!'lves according to racial or national
ties. These ties have acted as deterrents to migration, despite
limited economic opportunity and recurring unemployment. Moreover, local prejudice outside the highly industrialized areas makes the
migration of distressed foreign-born persons more difficult than of
the native-born. Custom end prejudice operate to restrict the
mobility of Negro families just as effectively.
4. There was a small incidence of separation, widowhood, and
divorce among the family groups. Among migrant family heads the
proportion that were separated, widowed, or divorced was less than
that found in the general population.
5. Migrant family members had a higher level of schooling completed than the heads of either the urban or rural resident relief
population. Some of the dilferl'nce between the school attainment
of migrant and resident relief families is attributable to the youth of
the migrant group and to the underrepresentation of Negroes. In
any event, it is clear that migration was not caused by lack of education.
OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCES
Well over half of the economic heads of migrant families were fully
employable. One-third were employable with certain handicaps,
consisting principally of chronic illness, physical handicaps, and age.
One-ninth of the economic heads were totally unemployable; women
heads with dependent children made up a majority of this group,
which also included the aged and totally disabled.
Thus, a majority of the economic heads of migrant families were
able to work, willing to work, and within the preferred age-range for
private employment. Because of physical handicaps and age, the
employability of the next largest group was qualified to some extent.
There remained a small group of families with unemployable heads;
for these families, it is clear that public assistance through old-age
and disability benefits and aid to dependent children was the only
means by which stability could be assured.
In terms of main class of usual occupation, migrant fnmily heads
were markedly "higher" than the heads of resident relief families,
and they compared favorably with the gainful workers 10 years of
age and over in the general population. There were fewer unskilled and
more skilled workers among migrant family heads than among either
the resident relief population or the gainful workers in the 1930
Census. White-collar workers were also overrepresented among
migrant family heads by comparison with resident relief workers,'
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog IC
SUMMARY • XXIX
though they were greatly underrepresented by comparison with gainful
workers in the general population.
The greatest number of skilled and semiskilled migrant family
heads were building and construction workers. Among the unskilled
migrant family heads, manufacturing, agriculture, and domestic
service were represented in about equal proportion. The principal
white-collar groups were farm owners, salesmen, storekeepers, musicians, technical engineers, and clergymen.
In terms of usual industry, migrant family economic heads were
underrepresented in agriculture by comparison both with the economic heads of resident relief families and with gainful workers in
the general population. This underrepresentation reflects the basically urban background of the families in transient bureaus. Migrant
family heads reported a larger proportion usually engaged in trade
and professional service than beads of resident relief families. Otherwise, the two groups showed about equal representation in th~ broad
industrial classifications.
It is significant that the great majority of the families were not
usually migratory workers. The detailed occupational and industrit.l
analysis reveals, however, that a large proportion of the family heads
customarily followed pursuits that permitted migration with little
loss. There was, for example, a large concentration of skilled workers
in building, of semiskilled machine operators, and of unskilled workers,
such as restaurant cooks, whose occupations can be followed equally
well over a wide area.
Long unemployment involves a deterioration of skill which lowers
the probability of reemployment. Accordingly, the information on
the family heads' usual occupation and industry is qualified by the
lapse of time since they lo.st worked.
The averu.ge time elapsed since the migrant family heads' last employment at their usual occupation was 18.5 months. It was substantially less than the average duration of 30.3 months as reported
in sample studies of urban workers on resident relief in 1934, or the
average of 40.6 months for a sample of WPA workers in April 1936.
The average time elapsed since the family heads' last job at any
occupation was 7.8 months. ~'or urban workers on relief the average
·was 22.7 months, and for WPA workers in the last quarter of 1935 it
was 24.0 months. It is indicated that many families, while not
usually migratory-casunl workers, had turned to migratory-casual
work after beginning migration. This fact not only implies low
earnings on the road but also a lowered occupational status, and it
qualifies to some extent the relatively high distribution of family
heads in terms of main class of usual occupation.
The analysis of the occupational resources of migrant families
·suggests the probability of their return to self-support. Beginning
D1g1t zed by
Goos IC
XXX • MIGRANT FAMILIES
with the families with unemployable economic heads, it is clear that
if these families were to be absorbed by the new community of residence, it would be on the basis of a transfer of the relief obligation
from the old community to the new. It should not be overlooked,
however, that such a transfer wns frequently socially desirable.
Many of the families with handicapped economic heads were wellequipped occupationally. Some of these families, however, had migrated to c.ommunities where their health might be improved but
where the opportunities for securing adequate employment were not
promising.
For the remaining and majority group, the fully employables, there
appears to be little question that their migration could achieve the
purpose of reestablishment in the new community.
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
Chapter I
RE AS ON S FOR MI GR A Tl ON.·>~-.£
DURING AND after the operation of the Federal transient program
there was widespread public discussion of the effects of distress
migri;.tion. Usually, however, these discussions have been concerned
only with the real and imagined effects of this migration upon the
resident population. Little effort was made to understand the real
point of view of the migrants themselves. This neglect has given rise
to popular acceptance of strange theories about the causes of migration, theories which prevent any understanding and hinder any
solution of the problem. It seems plain that an understanding of
distress migration must include some knowledge of what it meant to
the migrant. The depression migrants' own point of view is clearly
revealed in the causes the families reported in explaining their migration.
Although there is a considerable body of information available on
the generalized causes of population mobility, little is known of the
way in which these causes directly affect individuals. In order to
learn the individuals' own explanation for the migration which
eventually led to relief at transient bureaus, two questions were asked
each of the families interviewed for this study:
(1) Why did you leave the community where you last maintained a settled, self-supporting residence?
(2) Why did you select one particular place, to the exclusion of
other places, as your destination'/
The answers to these questions are the basis for the present chapter. 1
1 The reasons for migration could not be determined for about one-fifth of the
5,489 families included in this study. It was impossible, by definition, to derive
reasons for the migration of the families which had no settled residence. Thia
group of families consisted of those which had not been settled and self-supporting
since 1929 and of those which had not been settled and self-supporting since the
time the families were formed, if this event occurred after 1929. Although these
families must be excluded from the study of reasons for migration, they are the
subject of special analysis in ch. III.
1
C1grt zeo oy
Goos IC
2•
MIGRANT FAMILIES
At first glance it may seem impossible to reduce the description of so
complex an action as depression migration to simple terms for statistical analysis. With a small number of cases this would be true, but
examination of many descriptions reveals that they tend to form
patterns and that each pattern centers around one common reason
•. • •
• . . !h!)-~ predominates throughout the entire class of similar situations.
·: ·:.:· • ·..: : ~!)t.~<>ver, the complexity of the answers which the families gave was
• . . . •. . . ...• reduced py recognizing that the reasons for migration are necessarily
;"."·.: :·:: :-·: :.: ·:: c,ampns~d of two complementary factors: the reason for leaving one
specific place and the reason for selecting another specific place.
The problems involved in statistical presentation of the reasons for
migration will be evident from an examination of the families' own
statements. At the end of this chapter will be found typical reasons
reported by 15 typical families. A review of two histories in which
particularly complex circumstances are involved will illustrate both
the complexity of motivation and the method by which the complexity has been reduced. The Krugers, for example (see history 6,
p. 23), migrated from Chicago to San Antonio, Tex., because of (I)
unemployment, (2) inability to get resident relief, (3) eviction, and
(4) free transportation to San Antonio. The fact that a friend who
was driving to Texas was willing to take them with him does not
explain the Krugers' move from Chicago, although it does explain the
selection of their destination. Economic distress arising out of
difficulty in obtaining employment or relief and culminating in eviction for nonpayment of rent was the expulsive force that explains
why the Krugers were ready to leave Chicago.
The Mosher family (see history 9, p. 23) had long wanted to leave
Alabama for the North, but it was not until the death of a brother in
Chicago that their move finally took place. The fact that the Moshers
had difficulty making a living on an Alabama farm, plus the inadequacy of the relief they received, explains why they wished to leave
Alabama; and the death of a relative in the North explains their
selection of a particular destination.
The first step in the analysis was to differentiate between the reasons
for leaving settled residence and the reasons for selecting a particular
destination. The cause of migration always presents two aspects,
either directly or by implication. In terms of the place of origin, the
cause of migration manifests itself as economic or personal i'TUUkquaci.es associated with the community of origin. This aspect may
be isolated as the reason for leaving settled residence. 1 In terms of
1 Reason for leaving settled residence was defined as the force, associated with
the community of sPttled residence, which made the families susceptible to the
idea of moving.
D1g111zcd by
Goog 1C
REASONS FOR MIGRATION •
3
the place of destination, the cause of migration consists in the expected
In this
aspect the cause of migration is manifested as the reason for selecting
a particular destination. 3
The reason for leaving one place and the reason for selecting
another were, of course, two sides of the same coin. It must be
remembered that neither reason by itself contains the full explanation
of migration. Although the two sets of reasons are tabulated separately, each contains but part of the explanation and the complete
explanation must consider both. Moreover, it is important to note
that the inadequacies of the place of origin and the advantages of
the place of destination were not absolute, but relative to each other.
In earlier internal American migrations the "inadequacy" of the places
of origin consisted to a large degree in the substantial advantages of
cheap land and speculation in new country and in the extensive job
opportunities that resulted from the rapid expansion of industry.
After 1929, however, this situation was reversed, and destinations
frequently came to have advantages only by comparison with the
desperate conditions which existed in the communities in which
migrants had been settled.
The reasons for leaving settled residence and the reasons for selecting a particular destination, although considered separately, involved
special complexities in the reports of many families. In most cases,
however, these complexities were merely different aspects of the same
general circumstances. In both of the family cases that have been
cited, the generic reason for leaving a settled residence was economic
distress. For the Krugers, this distress manifested itself as unemployment, inadequate relief, and finally as eviction. Because it was
not possible to classify all three of these related circumstances, the
one which came last in point of time was selected.' The Krugers'
reason for leaving settled residence, accordingly, was classified as
eviction; and the fact of eviction carries the implication of the other
economic difficulties even though they are not specified.6
advantages associated with the community of destination.
• Reasons for selection of destination were classified in two ways: first, according
to the nature of each family's contact at the destination; and second, according
to the basic and secondary objective sought by each family at the destination.
• The logic of this distinction lay in the fact that it isolated "the last straw"
as a principal reason.
6 A few families reported a complex reason in which the different factors were
not generically related as in the instance cited above. For example, a few families
reported that in addition to being unemployed, the health of some member was
injured by the climate at the place of settled residence. When such unrelated
circumstances were reported, the reason for migration which was classified does
not carry the implication of the additional reasons reported by the families.
However, a separate tabulation showed only 15 percent of the families reporting
this type of complex reason for migration.
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
4 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
REASONS FOR LEAVING SETTLED RESIDENCE
During the depression the transient problem led many newspapers
to express the fear that the country was being "overrun" by "deadbeats" who should be promptly "sent home" and made to stay there.
The same line of comment was usually accompanied by a special theory
that the motivation behind distress migration was the migrants'
moral incompetence to maintain stability. The families were said
to have left home because they enjoyed travel; and when the FERA
transient program reached full operation, the phrase "at Government
expense" was added to this explanation.
More realistic answers to the question of why the families migrated
are suggested in the 15 case histories. A number of families, as the
histories show, had no "homes" at which they could have stayed or to
which they might have been returned (see histories 10 and 15, pp. 24
and 25). Nearly all the families which started migration from a
settled residence reported frankly that the situation at their settled
residence, as far as their own prospects were concerned, had become
quite hopeless. 8
These 15 histories indicate several of the particular sources of this
dissatisfaction, such as unsuccessful search for work, inability to earn
a living on farms, inadequate relief, unwillingness to be a burden
upon relatives, and ill-health. A comprehensive view of the relative
importance of these and other basic reasons for leaving settled residence
is presented in table 1.
A Dlatreu Ml9ratlon
The charge that migrant families were out to see the country at no
expense to themselves had little basis (table 1). Nearly all the
families were in more or less acute distress at the time they left settled
residence. Only 6 percent of the families were in no particular
difficulties. Of these the majority had jobs that required traveling;
the remainder simply left their jobs and businesses and proceeded to
another place that appeared to have greater advantages.
Economic difficulty was by far the most important of the basic
reasons for migration. More than two-thirds of the families were
primarily in economic distress, chiefly through long unemployment,
inadequate earnings, the loss of farms or businesses, and inadequate ·
relief. The size of this group clearly stamps the movement as being,
above all, a migration of depression-stricken families.
About one-fourth of the families were in personal distress of varying
seriousness. The most important single difficulty listed in this group
was illness necessitating a change to a different climate or to a com• Migrant families usually protested vigorously against returning to the locality
of settled residence (see histories 5, 6, 9, and 11, pp. 22, 23, and 24).
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
REASONS FOR MIGRATION • 5
Ta&le 7.-Reason Migrant Families Left Settled Residence
Miµ-rnnt
ramilies
Rea.son for leaving settled resldenoo
4,247
TotaL _. ____ .... ___ . ___ -- ---- ..... - .. - . - . -- -- . . -- .... - . ---- --- ---- -- -- ---- ------------ ·
Peroont
dfstri but ion
Total __ .--------------------------· - . - . - . -- . __ •.. ______ ......... ______ .. ____________ ...
JOO
1---Economlc distress __________________________________ . _______ ._. _____ . _. __ ._. ____ .... _____ . __ ..
09
Unemployment'·--. ______________________________ . ___ . __ .. __ . __ .. _. ________ . _____ .. __ ...
40
lnade<iuate earnings'-- _____ ... ____ ...... --·--- .... _____________ ··-------------------··-·
7
Unable
to
work
In
particular
community'·-_.----------------------------------·--·-·--·
3
Farming rniiure 1 __________________ • __________ • _. _____ • ________ • _____ •• _____ • _. _ ••...• _. _.
8
Business failure'-------------------- ____ : _________________________ . ___ . __ . ______ ... _____ .
3
Inadequate relief. _________________ . __ . ______ .. ______ ._. ____ ._ ... _____ . ____________ .______
3
Unwilling to be on relle(l ____________________________ ---------·----·-·-· ____ ... __________
I
Evicted Crom home.----------------·------·---------·---------------------------··-·---2
Relatives
unable
to
continue
support
____
···------------------------------------·--------Miscellaneous economic difficulties .. ___ . ______________________ . ______________ .. __________
1I
Personal
dlstress.
-------------------- ---------------------. ____ . ------. ____________
.... ____ . _.. ._____
. _...
Ill-health,
________
. ______________________________________________________
.__
Domestic trouble'· ________________ ··-·· .... -------------------···-·---·-··-·---·---·____
Disliked separation Crom relatives or Crfends _________________________________ ... _______ .. .
Community disapproval 1... _ .• _ ----- ______ • ___ ---- ___ --- _. __________ --- .. _____ •. _ •• ___ •.
Personal dislike ol community'-----------------------------------------_________________
Miscellaneous personal difficulties ________________ _______ --------------------------------.
25
11
Not In distress ________ .------------------------------------------------------··------·--·---Job required traveling ________ --- .. _... --- __ -· ------. __ --- ____ ---- ______ . _________ . ____ . _.
Left job ______________ .. _.. ____ .. ____ ... -- . --- .. - _. -- -- -- . - -- -- _. ---· ... _____ . ___ _____ ___
1'eft farm ___________________________________________________ .____________________________
Left business _____________ ...... _. __ . __ -__ -· -- ---- -_- --- --- _------- ___ -- . _-· ___ . ___ . _____ _
Other _____ - -. --- .. - -.. --- .. -- ... -. - - . --- . - -- -· · - --- · - --- ·-- -- ----- --- ---- -- --- --- --- · - · - ·
6
3
2
6
4
I
2
I
•
• Less than 0.5 percent.
1 For detailed breakdown see appendix table I.
Nou.--81 ramilfes, whose.reason for leaving settled residence was not ascertainable, are not included.
munity in which medical care was available; and of somewhat less
importance were domestic trouble, the desire to rejoin relatives because of homesickness or because the relatives needed help, and the
desire to leave a community in which a member of the family had
died.
It should be remembered that the hard-and-fast division of the
families into those whose distress was primarily either economic or
personal of ten oversimplifies complex motives. Personal difficulties
doubtless lay at the root of the economic distress of many families,
especially of those which reported that they were ashamed to apply for
relief or that their relatives could no longer support them.
It is probable that to an even greater extent economic hardships
were the cause of personal distress reported by the families. Much
of the domestic trouble shown in table 1 consisted of quarrels between
a family and its relatives over the sharing of living expenses. All
the families which migrated because of dislike of the community were
also unemployed. The instances of desertion and divorce were often
directly related to the inability of the economic head to support his
family, and community disapproval was more often than not the
result of antisocial behavior growing out of unemployment.
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog IC
6 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Several of the classifications shown in table 1 reqmre detailed
analysis and clarification.
Unemployment
Unemployment was the most frequently reported reason for leaving
settled residence. Two-fifths of the families migrated primarily
because they saw no prospect of further work in the community in
which they had once considered themselves permanent residents.
Obviously the fact of unemployment does not by itself explain the
migration of these families. Most of the millions of American families
which were unemployed during the depression did not go to other
States in search of work. An equally important part of the explanation of the migration of these families lies in the advantages they
expected at their destinations.
The great majority of the families reporting unemployment as their
basic reason for leaving settled residence attributed their unemployment directly to the depression itself, rather than to long-time trends
in industry or accidental events (appendix table 1 ). Almost threefourths of them explained that they were unemployed because of
depression retrenchment at the place they usually worked (see history
5, p. 22) or because of the slack demand for their skill-usually
related to construction-in the community in which they had been
settled (see history 6, p. 23). The remainder was divided about
evenly into two groups. One group of family heads had lost their
jobs through events not directly related to the depression-through
discharge for cause, the retirement of managers whose favorites they
were, or through nepotism (see history 1, p. 21). The other group
attributed their unemployment to causes which would probably have
necessitated migration regardless of the depression-to the completion
of a job of definite duration in seasonal occupations, to the effects of
the drought, or to the migration of industry.
Inadequate Earnings
A number of families reported that they had been more or less
regularly employed until the time they left their settled residence,
but that they were dissatisfied with the amount of their earnings
(table 1). Most of these families added that they were actually
unable to live on the income their jobs provided. The cause of their
low earnings was attributed most frequently to a reduction to parttime work. Less important causes were seasonal employment,
lowered occupational status, and reduced wages (appendix table 1).
Unable lo Work in a Particular Community
This classification, although relatively unimportant among the
other causes of economic distress, is nevertheless significant in that
it isolates a special migration problem. The heads of the families
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog IC
REASONS FOR MIGRATION • 7
included in this group had been definitely eliminated from the labor
market in the community where they had been settled, but they were
partially or wholly employable in other communities. The greater
part of this group consisted of persons who had developed occupational
diseases which prevented further work at their usual occupation-of
copper miners, for example, who had left Butte because they had
developed lung trouble and had been advised by their doctors to try
to find lighter work in a warmer climate. A few families included
in this category left because the bad name of some member had made
it impossible for any of the family to find work (appendix table 1).
Farming Failure
Farm owners and tenants who had been displaced from the land
did not comprise a large part of the migrant families studied. As
against the 40 percent who reported unemployment, only 8 percent
reported displacement from the land as the basic reason for leaving
settled residence.
Only slightly more than one-tenth of the families primarily in
economic distress were farming failures. More than half of these
families were drought refugees. A very small number left farms
which had been ruined by floods. The remainder, constituting more
than a third of the families reporting farming failure, was made up
largely of evicted tenants; all the agricultural regions contributed
to this group in about equal proportions (appendix table 1).
Other Economic DifficuUies
Another group-slightly larger than the group reporting farming
failure as their basic reason for leaving settled residence-migrated
because of special problems growing out of all tho economic difficulties
that have been discussed (appendix table 1). These families were
separately recorded because of the fact that their unemployment,
failure as farmers, etc., would not have caused migration had it not
been for the added difficulties. The largest classification in this
group contained those families which reported that they either could
not get relief at all or were unable to live on the relief they received
(see history 9, pp. 23-24). A somewhat smaller group left settled
residence to avoid the embarrassment of being on relief in a community in which they were well known. The rest of this miscellaneous group was made up of families evicted from their homes (see
history 6, p. 23), those which had become too heavy a burden upon
their relatives (see history 7, p. 23), and a few which left because of
such reasons as pressing debts and the high cost of living.
Ill-Health
The psychological, case-work "solution" to the problem of aiding
needy nonresidents, as well as t,he more realistic approach in terms
□ig,t zc:d by Goog Ie
8 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
of economic readjustment, both overlook one extremely important
cause of the migration of destitute families. As table 1 shows, the
second largest single reason for leaving settled residence was illhealth. Approximately one-tenth of the families began migration
primarily because of the illness of some member of the family.
It is significant that so many health seekers participated in this
depression migration. As recovery began and as the numbers displaced by unemployment declined, the proportion of health seekerswhose distress is only indirectly related to depression-would be
expected to increase. Future efforts toward the solution of the
transient problem must take this important cause of mobility into
full account.
Only about one-eighth of the families reporting ill-health as the
primary cause of migration left settled residence to seek medical care
in another community. By far the greater part of these families
moved because of the climate in the place where they had been
settled (appendix table 1). Many families, containing tubercular
patients, had been advised to leave damp climates or areas in which
there had been severe dust storms. Frequently reported, also, were
persons who had to leave high altitudes because of heart trouble,
persons with asthma, persons who could not stand severe winters, and
families in which members were suffering from malaria.
Domestic Trouble
Domestic trouble was the basic reason for the migration of a
relatively small group of families, comprising 6 percent of the total.
The majority of these families migrated because of trouble between
husband and wife; of these, separations and divorces accounted for
nearly all, while desertion was a relatively insignificant cause. Among
the rest of this group quarrels between a family and its relatives and
the death of husband, wife, ·or parents were reported with about
equal frequency (appendix table 1).
Disliked Separation From Relatives or Friends
Approximately 1 family in each 25 reported that it left its settled
residence because of personal distress growing out of separation from
its relatives. Often the wife was homesick and wanted to be near
her parents. Other families had received word that their relatives
were destitute or were ill, and they had left settled residence to rejoin
their relatives and to help them.
Other Peraonal Dijfi.cultiu
A few families left settled residence for other personal reasons.
Some reported that they had been either directly compelled to leave
(see history 11, p. 24) or had been made so uncomfortable that they
□ig,t zc:d by Goog Ie
REASONS FOR MIGRATION • 9
wanted to leave. Another group, comprising 2 percent of all families,
reported that they personally disliked the climate, the foreigners,
or some other feature of the community. A handful of families
reported such other miscellaneous reasons as fear of earthquakes and
flight from the Cuban revolution and from vigilante terror in East
Arkansas.
REASONS FOR SELECTING DESTINATION
The fact that such a preponderant number of migrant families
left their settled residence in distress provides but half the explanation
of their migration. It is necessary to turn at this point to the second
and equally important half of that explanation contained in the
reported reasons for the selection of a particular destination.
Familia Whh No Datlnatlon
Actually, the families were seldom literally driven from their homes
by adversity. Their migration rarely resulted from a simple choice
between either leaving settled residence or facing utter disaster.
Despite the hardships which the families reported, only a very few left
settled residence without a particular destination in mind. Of the
families which began migration from a community in which they had
been settled and self-supporting, 92 percent intended to proceed to a
specific place (table 2). Only 8 percent set out with no destinations
at all or with such vague destinations as "the West," "eastern
Colorado," or "the cotton fields" in mind.
Ta&le .2.-Migrant Families With and Without Specific Destination and Reason for
No Destination
Migrant
families
Destination
4,328
Total--············-·······-···············································-···········
Percent
distribution
___
TotaJ __ .. ···- ··----· ·····-·· ..............•................................... ·--··...... ,
6pec111c dl!!ltinatlon._ •....•.... __ -----·---- _--·----- --·-- -·-·--·- -·- --·-- -·- _-·--- __ -··- -··-- _
No specific destination ______________________________________________________________________ .
Seeking work ______________________________ . __ .__________________________________________
Migratory occupation __ . ______ . _____ . ________________________ ---------------------------Other _____________ -··-- ____ ··- _____________________________ ._____________________________
Not ascertainable ________________________________________ -----------_____________________
100
92
8
4
2
I
I
As table 2 shows, one-half of the families without destinations set
out to travel from community to community in search of work (see
history 5, p. 22). A smaller group left settled residence to follow
migratory work, such as cotton picking, sugar-beet work, or carnival
and circus work. A third group-made up of health seekers without
D1911 zed by
Goog Ie
10 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
specific destination, those trying to find relatives, and those who
simply set out to wander with no particular purpose in mind--comprised only 1 percent of the families.
Type of Contact at Datlnatlon
Those families which did intend that their migrations should end in
a specific, predetermined place very rarely reported a capricious and
unreasoning choice of their destination. 7 Migrations based upon a
long and desperate gamble that conditions might be improved were
decidedly not the rule though they were sometimes reported. The
families studied showed a clear tendency to migrate only when the
probability of an improved status appeared to be reasonably high
(table 3).
Ta&le 3.-Type of Contact Migrant Families Had at Destination
Migrant
families
Type or contact at destination
TotaL _•. _.....•.••••••••••••••••• ·········-····-·········· ••••••••••••.••• ·-· ···-·-· ••
3,899
Percent
dlstributlon
TotaL •..•••..•••••••.•••••••••••.••.....•.•.••••.••••.•••• •····· •· •·· •········ •· • • • • • ·
100
Definite contact. _______ -·-·-·-···-·- ..... _....... -····•·····································Former residence or family or members or family .........•.....••....•..•..••............
Re.sidence or relatives or close friends __ ._._ .... _._ .......................•.......•...••• __
Particular skill or family head in demand at destination ...... _..................•.•..... _
Other definite contact'····· ......................•......•....•.......••..•..••••••••.... _
80
No definite contact. ..... ___ ____ .-··-. __________ .....•.•.•.•.•.. ···•·••···•··············- ...
Heard rumors that locality had advantages ..........••.•.•.•.....•................••....
Attracted by ndvertisin~- __ ........ _.. _....................••................••..•.•.... _
Chance selection of destination ' .... _..... _..........................•......•..••...•.. __
20
12
43
2
23
lfl
I
3
• Includes such contacts as letters of recommendation, job transfers, physicians' referral or health ca.ses.
purchase or trade of homes or rarms, etc.
• Includes families wLich happened to get a ride, which were driven to nearest place or refuge, etc.
NoTE.-429 ramilie.s, whose type or contact at destination or reason for selecting destination W88 not a.seer•
tainahle, which had no destination, or whose place or destination was not ascertainable, are not included.
That the family migrations were essentially cautious rather than
quixotic is indicated in table 3, which shows the types of contact that
attracted the families to the destination they chose. Slightly more
than half of the families chose a destination in which there were close
personal friends or relatives who were more or less obligated to assist
them (table 3). Friends or relatives lived at the destination of 43
percent of the families, and an additional 12 percent, returning to a
place in which they had formerly resided, probably had even more
valuable and numerous contacts at their destination.
' Several families driven out by dust storms reported that they had selected
particular places on the Pacific coast as their destinations because they wanted to
live at the greatest possible distance from the Dust Bowl. Such explanations
were very infrequently reported.
Dig rt zed by
Goog IC
REASONS FOR MIGRATION • 11
During the depression it was a common occurrence for the groups
most seriously affected by reduced earnings to double-up within one
household. Pooled resources increased the security of all, and the
crowding together of many people under one roof reduced the total
cost of rent and heat. The large proportion of migrant families moving
to places where they had relatives or close friends suggests that the
same expedient played a substantial part in setting into motion the
families studied. The principal difference between this particular group
of migrant families and the nonmigrants who pooled their resources was
that the migrants had to cross a State boundary in the process.
In addition to the families which returned to a former residence and
those which moved to a community in which relatives or friends
resided, a third large group of families also had a definite contact at
their destination. This group, comprising 23 percent of the families
with destinations, was made up of families which chose their destinations because of such specific entrees as letters of recommendation
to employers, the sight-unseen purchase of farms or homes, satisfactory
reports of employment opportunity through correspondence, and
employment office direction.
Finally, a small group of families with none of the three types of
specific contacts discussed had destinations in a community where
the special skills of the economic head would in all probability have
been in demand. This group included such people as foundry and
rolling mill workers who migrated from one steel town to another,
textile workers moving to another cotton mill town, and meatcutters
moving to Kansas City.
The total number of families with definite contacts at their destination comprised nearly four-fifths of the families. It is thus clear
that the families were generally neither foolhardy nor particularly
adventurous in undertaking the migration which involved assistance
from transient bureaus. Least of all were they intent upon seeing
the country at the Government's expense. Instead, they were, in
general, distressed groups which saw a reasonable solution to their
problems through migration to another community. The essence of
the migration studied is contained in this fact.
A minority of the families, comprising about one-fifth of the total
group, were an exception to this generulization. As table 3 shows,
20 percent of the families selected a destination with which they had
no definite links of any sort. The greater part of these families were
attracted by vague rumors that tin1es were good or that the climate
was healthful at the place of destination. A few of them were
attracted by advertised economic advantages. There were frequent
instances of migration to submarginal land that had been incorrectly
advertised to be rich, productive soil from which a good living could
D1g1t1zcd by
Google
12 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
be made. 8 After making a down payment on the land, the families
discovered that it was either worthless or that the cost of improving
it was beyond their means; and at the time the families were interviewed, all had abandoned the farms to which advertising had
attracted them. Finally, there was a residual group whose definite
destinations had been selected through sheer chance. These were
families which ''happened to get a ride" to a particular place (see
history 6, p. 23), those whose destinations were determined by special
bus rates, and those which selected their destinations for "no particular reason."
ObJectiva Sought at Destination
What the families hoped for at their destination was a solution to
the basic problems which had confronted them at their settled residence. Accordingly the particular advantages they sought were
generally the obverse of the kind of distress they reported as their
reason for leaving settled residence. The relative importance of the
different objectives reported by the families is shown in table 4.
Economic Betterment
Approximately four-fif tbs of the families selected their destination
primarily in hope of economic betterment. The greater part of
these-and indeed the majority of all the families-were seeking
employment. Second in importance was a destitute group made up
of a substantial number of unemployables (see ch. VI, p. 111) who
migrated to the homes of relatives or friends in the expectation that
they would be taken in and helped until they were able to support
themselves again. These families, together with those seeking employment, made up almost the entire group which reported that they
sought economic betterment at their destination.
All other kinds of economic betterment sought are conspicuously
small. Only 5 percent of the families intended to take up land as
either owners or tenants. About half that number planned to open
a small business establishment of their own. Although 4 percent of
the families left settled residence primarily because of distress related
specifically to relief, only 1 percent of the families had relief as their
basic objective at their destination. A handful of families selected
their destination in order to be in a place where living costs would
be cheaper, in order to look after property, to prospect for gold, or
to trap (see footnote 1, table 4).
8 For instance advertising circulars described submarginal land in the two
poorest agricultural counties in the State of Washington in this way: "Soil subirrigated, black, silt, and sand loam; abundant water supply; numberless trout
streams * * *· A farmer can start with small capital and work into a beautiful farmhome with all modern advantages close at hand." A letter in the files
of the Works Progress Administration Division of Social Research tells of one
farmer "remarking grimly that a certain lumber company [which advertised its
cut-over properties as productive farm land] was responsible for more bankrupt
farmers in eastern Washington and northern Idaho than the depression itself."
D1911 zed by
Goog Ie
REASONS FOR MIGRATION •
13
Ta&le 4.-0bjedives Sou9ht by Mi9rant Families at Destination
Mi~rnnt
families
Object!,·es sought at destination
Total._.·-- .•.•.•••.• ···-· •••••••••••••• ····-······-··--·-······-···· ..•••.••.••••• •• •.
4,005
Prrc,mt
distribution
Total __ ....... ··- ........ ····-··· .•......... . ..................... ·- · .............. . . . .
Economic betterment ••..•.•.•••.••..•••.•••.•.••••••••••••.•.••.••••..•....••.•••••••••••. .
Em~;t~:~rwork··.:::::::::::::::::::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::.
Hoped to ftud work ..•.•.••..•.•.•.. •.• ••••...•••..........•......•.•.•.••..•..• •••.
Farm ...................•................. . ................................... ..........
Bad arran~ed to se~me farm ... •... ..••••.........................••.•.....• . .• .. ...
If oped to secure farm_ •.•..••.......• ••••. ••. ....•..•.•......••.••..•....• . .••••• ••. .
Business ....... . .............. . ....... •.••. . •.•.•.............•.........•.......•.. . .. .
Bad arranged to open hmlness . ... •••.•. . ••....•...•.........•.•...........••••..• •..
;e1:li~~~~;t;';';cis:::: :: :::: ·: :::::::: :::: :::::. ::::::: :::::::::.::: :: ::::::::
Rel:-f~r;:1
Relief. . ................••.......... . ..••.•• •.. .•.....•.....•..................•.••. .• ...
Cheaper cost of living ..•............. ..••••••••..•.•............•......•.•.....••.•.•....
Miscellaneous economic objectives'········· · ······························· · ············
Personal objectives ...••..••............. . ...•••••................. . ......•.••••.••••••• ••••..
llealt.hf11l l'limnte or medical core ... .. ... •.•.........•..........• . .....••.•.• . •••• •• . .•.•.
To rejoin relatives .........•....... ..... . . •••••. .. ......• .... ..•.•.....•..........• •. •••. .
Sentiment . . .................... . . . .....•.•.••••••..•...••.•. . .•.. . ...••. ... ...... ··- .•...
Misoollaneous personal objectives '· •••. .•.•••... •... ..•.. ••. ..................• • ••••• . • ..
79
57
14
43
5
1
4
3
1
2
11
I
I
1
21
10
8
1
z
1 Inclmle such r8!\.sons "'" to take a,tvantage of ~pecial bus rate, to collect debt~. to look aftM property,
to buy fruit to peddle, to bet on horse rnco.s, to prospect for gold, to trap fur•bcaring nnlmnls, etc.
• Inclutle such reasons e.s: to srok safety from vig ilante mobs, to take a vumtion . li1<ppencd t o get a ride,
to foUow the ,·oioo ol Oo<l, to march in the bonus army, to seek revenge, to put children in school, etc.
NOTl!.~123 families, whose plaoo of destination or reason for selecting destination was not ascertainable
and which bad no d""Lination, are not included.
However cautious the families may have been, the specific economic betterment which they sought was more often hoped for than
promised. Table 4 shows how many families left settled residence
with the positive assurance that they would find employment, farms,
and businesses, and how many were only more or less vaguely hopeful
of securing them. While 43 percent of the families hoped to find work
at their destination, only 14 percent had been promised work; 3 percent hoped to secure a farm, as against I percent which had already
rented or bought a farm before reaching their destinntion; and 2
percent hoped to open a business, as against I percent which had
definitely arranged to open a business before moving.
Although this genPral view of the families' economic prospects
shows that few had a definite promise of work when migration began,
it must be remembered that the majority of the families had contacts
which appeared to promise them a measure of security at their destination. It is significant, moreover, that the families whose prospects
for work were least definite tended to migrate most readily to a destination at which they had close personal ties. A separate tabulation
showed that well over one-half of the families which merely hoped for
work, but only about one-fifth of those promised work, migrated to a
former residence or to the residence of relatives.
C1grtzcdoyGooglc
14 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
Personal Objedir•u
The chief objectives of 21 percent of the families were of a personal
nature. Nearly half of these families were health seekers who had
been advised by their physicians to move to a specific place for hospitalization or for a particular kind of climate. The only other important group, comprising 8 percent of the total, consisted of families
which wished to rejoin their relatives for personal reasons-because
of homesickness and loneliness, to nurse relatives who were ill, to
be with dying relatives, or to attend the funeral of a relative who
had died.
Sentimental reasons occupied an insignificant place among the reasons for selecting a particular destination. Such explanations as "tho
North always representPd frpedom and equality to us," or "we always
wanted to live in Detroit," or "we always wanted to see the West"
were reported, but not frequently. Such reasons were the principal
motivation of only 1 percent of the families. Approximately the same
number of families reported the usual remarkable assortment of nonclassifiable reasons for selecting destination: to take a vacation, to
follow the voice of God, to seek revenge, etc. (table 4, footnote 2).
REASONS FOR MIGRATION, BY STATE
The same pattern of causes which governed the migration of the
families as a whole was also operative in each of the individual regions
of the United States. Except in a few States where obviously peculiar
conditions existed, families emigrating from widely dissimilar States
reported the same reasons, distributed in much the same proportion.
The reasons for selecting destinations, while somewhat more varied,
also tended toward similarity in different parts of the United States.
The amount of variation in the reported rPasons for migration to and
from the different States 9 i~ shown in figures 2, 3, and 4.
Reasons for Leaving Settled Residence, by
State
Economic Reasons
Unemployment, the reason for fouving settled residence which was
most frequently reported by tho families as a whole, was also the
most frequently reported reuson in 2!} of the 30 States and groups of
States shown in figure 2. Its importance as the basic unsettljng force
was generally uniform, even among States with altogether dissimilar
economic and social characteristics. For example, in 14 of the 30
groups unemployment accounted for 38 to 43 percent of the emigrating families. Among these 14 groups were such widely diverse
9 Because of the small number of families moving to and from several States,
two or more contiguous States were sometimes combined in figs. 2, 3, and 4.
The same combinations used here are also used in ch. II, figs. 5-10.
C1grt zeo oy
Goos IC
ECONOMIC DISTRESS
Inadequate Inadequate
earnillQI
relief
Unemployment
-~-·....
Farm
failures
PERSONAL DISTRESS
Ill health
Domestic
Other
difficulties
Other
NOTIN
DISTRESS
Percent
0
10
20 30 40 5060
0
l020
!10 60
0
_ --
0
10
2030
0
10 20
0
10
2030
....----r---,
'"""
-Eotlolld
Po.ondN.J.
t'i:-...~~- C.
='::,nc1.
-
llllnols
MIM. ..iWII.
1 /a.olldN,C.
00. ..i s.c.
Tennn1N
Ala. 1111111 Miu.
Florido
Ml11011rt
Arllonue
Lout.. ono
OllloflCNIHI
1....
N. Dok . ..i S. Dok.
N..,,..llo
;0
~=-··
-
m
KOftHI
)>
0z
--•""Oret-
Ufotl on, New.
ArlJ. and N. Mta.
COllfornlo
V,
0
10
20
30 40
N
a(':)
1020
0
IO
20 30 40
!1060
Percent
0
1020
0
10
2030
O 1020
0
10
20 30
0
10 20
0
;0
G)
FIG. 2 - REASON MIGRANT FAMILIES LEFT SETTLED RESIDENCE
BY STATE OR REGION OF SETTLED RESIDENCE
"n.
~
0
0
I:
0
tg
CJ
50 60
Nate: Dolled lines represent
Source: Appendix table 2.
;0
)>
-4
0
z
averaoe far United States.
ar-21s1 1 WPA
....•
U'I
16 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
sections as New York, and Pennsylvania and New Jersey; Kentucky
and West Virginia; Georgia and South Carolina; Oklahoma, Arkansas,
and Utah and Nevada; and Arizona and New Mexico (fig. 2 and
appendix table 2).
The importance of unemployment as a displacing force was consistently below the average in the States of the cPntral and northern
Plains-Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana, and,
above all, North Dakota and South Dakota-where farming failurPs
were reported more frequently than elsewhere.
Inadequate earnings as a reason for leaving a settled residence
were also reported in a generally uniform proportion throughout the
country. Only one consistent regional variation may be observed in
figure 2; families leaving the Southern States-Tennessee, Alabama
and Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, and Oklahoma-reported inadequate earnings in slightly higher proportions than families emigrating
from other regions. In Alabama and Mississippi, where this cause
was most important, however, it accounted for only 13 percent of
the families leaving as against an average of 7 percent for the country
as a whole.
Regardless of how much relief standards mny have differed throughout the United States, inadequate relief 10 displaced about the same
proportion of families in each of the 30 State groups. Such variations as occurred had only a slight consistency by sections. In a
number of Southern States, for example, inadequate relief displaced
a proportion of families slightly above the average; the proportion
was highest in Oklahoma and was above the average in Kentucky
and West Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama and
Mississippi. Yet in other Southern States where in all probability
the same resident relief policies e:,dsted-in Georgia and South Carolina, in Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina, and in Texas-the
proportion of families reporting inadequate relief was below the average proportion in the country as a whole.
Farming failure displaced slightly more than half the migrant
families which had been settled in North Dakota and South Dakota.
In these two States the immediate cause of farming failures was in
nearly every instance a long record of agricultural depression climaxed
by total crop failure in the 1934 drought. It is significant, however,
that the drought dominated the movement from the Dakotas alone.
In no other State or region did the proportion displaced from the land
exceed one-fifth of the total number of emigrants. In five Plains
States-Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montanabetween 15 and 20 percent of the families which emigrated had failed
• 0 In fig. :I inadequate relief included the few families which were unwilling to
apply for relief in their borne communities.
D1911 zed by
Goog Ie
.J
REASONS FOR MIGRATION •
17
to earn a living on farms. But in Oklahoma the proportion of farm
failures was only 12 percent, and in Texas it was only 6 percent.
Other States which contain agricultural subregions lost an insignificant number of families because of farming failure. In Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin, in which the Lake States Cut-Over region
lies, the proportion of migrant families which were displaced from the
land was well below the national average. In both Arkansas and
Missouri farming failure accounted for only one-seventh of all emigrating families. And in the Cotton States the proportion of farming
failures varied from 4 percent in Virginia and North Carolina to
a high of only 10 percent in Alabama and Mississippi.
Other economic distress, as shown on figure 2, included business
failures, inability to work in a particular community, evictions, and
other forms of economic distress which were shown separately in
table 1. Accordingly, the rather wide variations which appear in
this column of figure 2 are the result of several unrelated forces. In
Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia the proportion of families
reporting other economic distress was increased by the emigration of
coal miners whose ill-health prohibited any future work in the mines.
In Montana there was a similar emigration of many copper miners.
The other economic distress in North Dakota and South Dakota
consisted chiefly in the bankruptcy of small shopkeepers ruined by
the drought. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey the bankruptcy of
small merchants, as in lunchrooms or delicatessens, and the high cost
of commutation from settled residence to a job once held were the
principal forms of other economic explusive forces.
Personal Reasons
In the East ill-health was not a frequently reported cause of migration except in New York, and Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where
tuberculosis necessitated a change of climate for many families. It is
particularly significant that all Southeastern States except Florida
reported a proportion far below the national average.
In the West ill-health was much more important as a reason for
leaving settled residence. It caused the migration of 20 percent of
the families leaving Wyoming and Montana, where ill-health resulting from severe winters was the chief complaint. The high proportion
of health seekers leaving Minnesota also resulted from the cold
winters. Health-resort States generally had a high proportion of
emigrants reporting ill-health. Nearly one-fifth of the families leaving Arizona and New Mexico were motivated by ill-health, and
approximately the same proportion left Colorado, where the high
altitude caused heart ailments. The health seekers who left Texas
were chiefly families from the urban areas or from the Panhandle
which migrated because of tuberculosis.
D1g1t zed by
Goos IC
18 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Domestic trouble was infrequently reported in all States. It displaced 10 percent or less of the families from every geographical
division except Georgia and South Carolina, where a high incidence
of broken families raised the proportion to 11 percent. Other personal difficulties, including a number of such separate categories as
absence of relatives, personal dislike of community, and community
disapproval, were about uniformly reported in the different sections
of the country.
Rea10n1 for Selecting Destination,
by Slate
Contacts at Destination, by State
In all the States combined, more than one-half the migrant families
selected as their destination a community in which they had close personal contacts, and in addition about one-fourth were attracted by
some other definite entree. Less than one-fourth had no definite
contact at their destination. Against this average, one broad regional
variation may be noted (fig. 3 and appendix table 3). Migrant
families with destinations in the States east of the Mississippi River
~bowed a more-than-average tendency to select as their destination a
community in which they had formerly resided, or in which they had
Former residence or home
of relot ives or friends
0
10
20
30 40 50 60 70 80
r--r-- ,
•
No definite
contacts
Other definite
contocts
0
Percent
10 20 30 40 50 60
0
10
20 30 40
0
10
20 30 40
United Stot n
Ne• [~land
New York
Po. and N.J
011.,Md, Ofl d O C
Kr and w Vo
MichiQon
Otuo orwt Ind
111.n~,
....
Minn. O'ld
w,,
va . and N.C
GaandSC
T1nne11e•
Ala and Mi u
Florida
Miuourl
A,11.onsa1
lo\tiliOftO
011.1ohofflo
T1101
=-~::,::-
S Dok * !777777:77'.--:'777'7".,.,.....,7!
Kontos
WJO. ond Mo.-.1
Colorado
ldoho
Wo1h 0nd O re9
Utoh end Nh'
Arl1. and N. Mo
Celifornio
0
10
20 30 40
50 60 70 80
0
10 20 30 40
Percent
50 60
FIG. 3-TYPE OF CONTACT OF MIGRANT FAMILIES AT DESTINATION
BY STATE OR REGION OF DESTINATION
• Bose too smoll for colculotion.
Note: Dotted lines represent overo9e for United Stoles.
Source: Appendix toble 3.
AF-1152,WPA
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
REASONS FOR MIGRATION •
19
relatives or close personal friends. Conversely, the importance of
rumor-indicated in the third column of figure 3-in attracting
migrant families was most marked in the West and played a very
small part in determining the movement of the families whose destinations were in the East.
As a result of special circumstances a few individual States had
their own peculiar variations of this pattern. In Florida and Louisiana the proportion of families migrating to the place in which they
had close personal contacts was far below ave1age and the proportion
attracted by rumor was very large. In Arkansas and Texas, with a
high proportion of families migrating to the oil and cotton fields
where seasonal work had been promised, the proportion reporting
other definite entree was far above average. Other contact was also
important for the families with destinations in Colorado, and Arizona
and New Mexico, where the most frequently reported en tree was a
physician's referral.
Of the families with California destinations, the proportion moving
to a community in which they had close personal contacts was 54 percent, approximately equal to the national average. The family
movement into California, rather than being unique, thus appears to
have been attracted by essentially the same general forces which
dominated migrant family movement in the rest of the United States.
Idaho, and Washington and Oregon, like California, reported about the
average proportion of families attracted to places where they had
relatives or close personal friends. It should be noted, however,
that in three of these States somewhat more than the average proportion of families were attracted ~y rumor.
Objectives at Destination, by Stale
Just as unemployment was the chief reason for migrant families
leaving settled residence in nearly every State, so a search for work
was almost uniformly the most frequently reported objective of the
families at their destination (fig. 4 and appendix table 4). In 27 of
the 30 States and State groupings shown in figure 4, employment
was the objective of the majority of the families.
Several States containing submarginal agricultural regions reported
more than the average proportion of families whose objective was to
secure a farm. In New England and Kentucky most of these families
came from urban centers hoping to secure a farm to tide them through
the depression. In the Mississippi Valley, on the other hand, these
families were sharecroppers (as in Missouri and Arkansas) or tenants
(as in Oklahoma and Nebraska) who were seeking to improve their
status as farmers. The families intending to secure a farm in Idaho,
and Washington and Oregon were made up of a heterogeneous group
which took up submarginal farms on logged-off land.
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES
To secure
farm
To secure
employment
~~I:" o ~u
To secure
help
Percent
'~'~0-.20_30~40~5~0 (
"""•"
Minn Of'ld Wtt.
lowo
!~,
PERSONAL OBJECTIVES
Heollh
To rejoin
relatives
Other
~
~-~-~~~~-~
m »
H
"°
0
uf I
Other
~ ~ E'
.. ---....~--~ _,p
/
ITI
\lo Ond N C.
r ,,..nenet
Alo Ot\d Miu .
rio,,do
Ml uov,i
A rk on101
,....
Loui,IQflo
Oltlot,omo
N Dok ond s Doll *
Nebro11to
CJ
Kon1cn
w ro. ond Mont
Co4or odo
i'?-
ldoho
ci
~ °:3 ~!!Q
a.
$I
C')
0
0• :·0
Atlt and N. M .. .
Coll for nio
0
10
20
30
50
60
70 80
0
10
20
30
40 50
0
10
20 30
0
10
0
10
20
30
40 50
~
~
FIG. 4- OBJECTIVES SOUGHT BY MIGRANT FAMILIES AT DESTINATION
BY STATE OR REGION OF DESTINATION
-
n
40
*Ba11 tao small for c:alculotion.
Note: Dolled lines represent average tor United Stoles.
Source: Appendix table 4.
G)
Cl)
1
CioondSC
\!S
•
~
lF-IHl,WPA
REASONS FOR MIGRATION •
21
In any case, however, the proportion of families seeking a farm was
generally very small. Only three of the ~ographical groupings shown
in figure 4 had more than 10 percent of the families reporting the
object of securing a farm at their destination, and only in Idaho 11 was
the proportion above 15 percent. The preponderance of families
seeking employment and the relative insignificance of those hoping
to secure farms reflect the essentially urban-industrial perspective of
the families which received assistance from FERA transient bureaus.
The proportion of families migrating to secure help from their
relatives was far greater in the East than in the West. In the Southeastern States these were principally broken families, and the large
proportion shown in figure 4 reflects the high incidence of domestic
trouble reported in the Southern States (fig. 2). In the Midwestern
States, on the other hand, the proportion of broken families was very
small, and the large representation of those seeking help from relatives
resulted from the doubling-up of complete families.
The destinations of health seekers made a simple and obvious
pattern. Although the need for hospitalization attracted a few families into nearly every State, only six States and State groupings
received more than the average proportion of these families. In the
East Florida stood out, and in the West almost all States from Texas
to California were above average. The highest proportion of all was
reported for Arizona and New Mexico, where exactly half the families
were health seekers. The next largest proportion was reported by
Colorado, with 33 percent. California was third, with 22 percent of
the families reporting that they had selected that destination hoping
that the climate would improve their health.
FAMILY HISTORIES
12
1. THE SLADE FAMILY settled in Dalhart, Tex., in 1932. A friend
had opened a coalyard there and had invited Mr. Slade to come and
manage the business for him. The job promised to be permanent.
After a yea.r had passed, however, the owner's destitute nephew arrived
in Dalhart, and the owner felt obliged to give him Mr. Slade's job.
A long search for another job in Dalhart was without success. The
Slades decided that it would be utterly impossible to find work there.
Accordingly, they packed their furniture and moved to Denver,
where they had formerly lived. Mr. Slade found occasional odd jobs
in Denver but could not support his wife and small son on his earnings.
11 In Idaho the sample study was made only in Boise and Sand Point.
Practically every transient bureau family under care at Sand Point had come to the
community to take up logged-off land. For that reason, Idaho is represented as
having a larger proportion of families which hoped to secure a farm at their destination than would have been shown had the migrant families in every Idaho
transient center been included in this study.
11 The names throughout this section are fictitious, and many of the places have
been changed to conceal the identity of the families whose histories are described.
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
22 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
When their savings were all spent, they came to the transient bureau
for help.
2. JIM KovicH went to work as a rough carpenter in the Youngstown, Ohio, steel mills in 1925. He had steady work until he was
caught in a general layoff in the spring of 1930. After that, his family
lived on short-time jobs and savings for 4 years. Finally, in 1934
they had to go on relief. Mr. Kovich was very restless on relief, and
when he heard from a friend that he might get work in Flint, Mich.,
he left his family in Youngstown and went to investigate the rumor.
Within a. month he found a job, and in March 1935 he sent for his
wife and three children. In August he was laid off again. He had been
unable to save any money on the job. In September the Koviches
came to the transient bureau for help.
3. RoY HARRIS had been a West Vrrginia coal miner for 30 years.
In the summer of 1934 the mine at which he had been working closed
down. He was too old to get a job in another mine, and there was no
hope of other work. The Harrises applied for resident relief but were
unable to live on the allowance they received. Mr. Harris had a
brother living in St. Louis. In the spring of 1935 Mr. and Mrs. Harris
and the two children moved to St. Louis to try to locate the brother,
who they thought could help them find work. When they found
Mr. Harris's brother, he was unable to help them, and the family
applied for transient relief.
4. HARRY LARSON worked out of Devils Lake, N. Dak., as a brakeman on the Great Northern. He lost his job in 1933. Since Devils
Lake is principally a railroad town, there was no chance of finding
other work there. Mrs. Larson had formerly lived on a farm in the
northern Minnesota cut-over region. The couple believed that the
best solution of their problem would be to return to Minnesota. and
take up a plot of land. This experiment soon failed. The frost ruined
their firnt crop and left the couple stranded. The Larsons then moved
to Duluth and went on transient relief.
5. GEORGE PASTOR, 40 years old, had been a cotton-mill worker in
the Piedmont for 25 years. In 1928 he found a job in Greenville,
S. C., where he remained for 7 years. In January 1935 the mill in
which he worked began to lay off workers. Mr. Pastor was first reduced to 3 days' work a week, then to 2. Because there was no prospect that the mill would run full time soon, the Pastors and their two
children set out to make the rounds of all the textile mills in the South
to try to find work. When they arrived in New Orleans, Mr. Pastor
was promised a job in a cotton mill as soon as it reopened a month
later. Afraid to risk losing the chance to work, Mr. Pastor would
not leave New Orleans. When they ran out of money, they came to
the transient bureau for help until the mill reopened.
o,g111lcd by
Goog Ie
REASONS FOR MIGRATION •
23
6. WILLIAM KRUGER had been working as a house painter in
Chicago for 10 years. Work became harder and harder to find, and
after September 1933 there was none at all. In the summer of 1934
the couple applied for relief, but while waiting for relief to be granted
they were evicted from their home. On the same day, learning that
a friend was preparing to drive to San Antonio, the couple persuaded
him to let them go along. Mr. Kruger was unable to find work in
San Antonio and the couple registered at the transient bureau.
After 6 weeks they moved to Shreveport, La., where Mr. Kruger
found a job driving a caravan of automobiles to Los Angeles. When
they registered at the Los Angeles transient bureau, they were
promptly returned to Chicago for resident relief. The Krugers were
by now completely dissatisfied with Chicago. In June 1935, after 2
months in Chicago, Mr. Kruger found another job driving a caravan
to San Francisco. They had been in the San Francisco transient
bureau for 3 weeks when interviewed and insisted that they would
not return to Chicago. Mr. Kruger had been promised a job as
painter, and the couple proposed to settle down in California..
7. MR. AND MRs. ROBERTS were both over 70. Since 1929 they
had been living in Kansas City on their small savings, on Mr. Roberts'
earnings from light carpentry work, and on the contributions of their
son. In 1932 they moved to Council Bluffs, Iowa., to help their son
build a house. They lived in Council Bluffs for 3 years. In 1935
the son lost his job and in order not to be a burden Mr. and Mrs.
Roberts moved back to Kansas City, where they owned a house that
could not be rented. Meanwhile, they had lost their legal settlement
status in Missouri, and when they needed relief they had to go to the
transient bureau.
8. THE JOHNSON FAMILY raised cattle in Clark County, Kans.
The dust storms of 1935 turned the farm into a waste of sand dunes.
Moreover, Mr. Johnson and two of the children contracted "dust
pneumonia." In desperation they wrote to a Spokane real estate
office to inquire whether they could secure a plot of land there with
little money. When they were informed that Washington had "good,
cheap la.nd and a pleasant climate," they decided to leave for Spokane
immediately. The very next day they sold all the livestock for whatever it would bring, pa.id the grocery bill, piled their furniture in the
the old Ford truck, and set out for Spokane. When they arrived
there in June, their money had run out. They were unable to get
any land and were forced to register at the transient bureau within a
week after their arrival.
9. THE MosHER FAMILY, consisting of Mr. and Mrs. Mosher and
their eight children, were Negro farm owners in Russell County, Ala.
Many of their friends and relatives had moved to Chicago in 1917
Digitized by
Google
24 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
and 1918, and the Moshers had long wanted to move North also.
After the depression they had an increasingly difficult time managing
their farm. By 1933, after they could no longer support themselves
on the earnings, they applied for relief. The relief offered them was
inadequate. In November 1934 Mrs. Mosher's brother died in Chicago, and she and two of the children were given a ride North to attend the funeral. When they arrived in the North they found it
much to their liking. They sent word back to Alabama for the rest
of the family to follow them. The Mosher children started North
one by one, and by September 1935 six of them had arrived. In
August 1935 the family had to apply for transient relief. Chicago
social workers were not successful in persuading them to return to
Alabama, and the family was to be dropped from the rolls on October 1.
Their plans were to try not only to stay in Chicago but also to bring
the rest of the family North to join them.
10. "DR." HUNT and his wife had been constantly on the road since
they were married in 1930. Dr. Hunt, a quack, had devised a cure
for all human ailments. He had been making a living by peddling
his nostrums from city to city, and by 1935 he had visited every State
with his cures. Feeling an urge at that time to settle down, he stopped
off in Pittsburgh. He planned to open a "foot clinic" in Pittsburgh
and to estt1blish permanent quarters in which to manufacture his
cure for varicose veins. Meanwhile, he applied for relief at the
transient bureau.
, 11. JACK CARSON lost his job as switchman in Nashville in 1931.
He and his wife then went into the bootlegging business. In 1933
they were caught by the police and were given a prison sentence,
suspended on the condition that they leave the State. In compliance
the couple set out on a freight for the Southwest, where they understood they could find work picking cotton. Since 1933 they had been
traveling about from place to place as migratory-casual workers picking cotton in Texas and New Mexico and picking berries in Arkansas.
They had become extremely dissatisfied with this_ work, and when
they were interviewed in Milwaukee, they declared that they intended
to remain there if they had to go to jail.
12. HAZEL SMITH had married Ed Smith in 1932, soon after he
arrived in Sand Point, Idaho, looking for a place to farm. The couple
moved out to a plot of logged-off land near Sand Point. For 2 years
they struggled to make the farm pay, but in 1935 they lost it. The
couple and their small child had no place to go except to Mr. Smith's
parents in San Diego. Upon arrival in San Diego they found that
Mr. Smith's parents were on relief and unable to help. The family
then proceeded to San Francisco, where they hoped to find work.
There they registered at the transient bureau. Mr. Smith looked for
Digitzco by
Google
REASONS FOR MIGRATION • 25
a. job for a month, then suddenly he disappeared. After 3 months
he had not been heard from.
13. JoE WATKINS had been a plumber in Tulsa, Okla. In 1934
his wife developed tuberculosis. The family physician told her that
she would have to have a change of climate immediately and arranged
for her to receive medical care in Phoenix, Ariz. Since Mrs. Watkins
was too ill to travel alone, Mr. Watkins quit his job in Tulsa to
accompany her. When the couple reached Albuquerque, Mrs. Watkins had a severe hemorrhage and was not able to proceed to Phoenix.
After 6 months in Albuquerque their savings were gone, and they had
to apply at the transient bureau for relief.
14. THE CA:MPBELLS had been living with Mrs. Campbell's parents
in Fort Smith, Ark., ever since they were married in 1933. The old
folks became more and more insistent that they leave. In February
1935 Mr. Campbell received word from his brother that there were
good chances for work in Los Angeles. Accordingly, the couple set
out with their baby for Los Angeles. When they arrived they found
work as farm laborers near San Bernardino, but when this work was
ended, they had to apply for transient relief. The couple insisted
that they be permitted to remain in California, which they greatly
preferred to Arkansas.
15. THE BISHOPS felt that they had never been settled since they
were married. Mr. Bishop had been a hotel clerk in New York, but
he lost this job 1 week after his marriage. The Bishops then set out
for Jacksonville, Fla., to visit an aunt. After a month in Jacksonville
they started toward the Pacific coast. When they were interviewed
in the El Paso transient bureau, they stated that they were on their
way to California because they had always wanted to see the West.
Digrt1zcd
b,-Goog1C
Digitized by
Google
Chapter II
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT
DISTRESS AT the pince of ongm nn<l r('osonnble expectation of
betterment at the place of destination were shown in the preceding
chapter to have been the motivation for the depm,sion migration of
most of the families studied. The geographical movements produced
by the action of these forces are traced in this chapter, and the general
trends are described .1 These trends are then com pared with the trends
revealed in the record of internal American migration prior to 1930
in order to show the relationship between this distress migration
and "normal" predepression population mobility.
Fortunately, there is available a record of the geographical mobility
of all migrant families under care by transient bureaus in the United
States, as well as those included in the representative snmple on which
this report is based. The origins and movement of the 29,885 interstate migrant families which were registered in FERA transient
bureaus on June 30, 1935, are presented in figures 5-10. 2
1 It should be noted that the States in which the families were registered in
transient bureaus were not necessarily the same States to which the destination
discussed in the preceding chapter refers. A family's destination was the place
to which it intended to migrate at the time of leaving a settled residence. The
correspondence between the State of destination and the State of transient bureau
registration was nevertheless large.
2 Every 3 months beginning September 30, 1934, each State transient director
reported the State of origin of all unattached and family transients under care
on the last day of the quarter (FERA Form 304). The Quarterly Census report
for June 30, 1935, rather than the sample on which this study is based, was used in
drawing the origin and place-of-registration maps (figs. 5-10), the trend maps
(figs. 11 and 12), and the rate-of-immigration and emigration maps (figs. 13 and 16).
Although tests showed that the origin and place-of-registration data derived
from the sample were almost identical with the data derived from the Quarterly
Census, in the sample the absolute number of families migrating to and from
certain States was so small as to make graphic illustration difficult.
27
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
28 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
The maps on the left side of these figures show the movement of
migrant families out of the several States or regions represented. The
corresponding maps on the right side of the page show the movement
of migrant families into the State or region represented. 3
MOVEMENT BETWEEN STA TES
Geographical Scatter
At first glance, these maps appear to show a chaotic geographical
scattering of families. The families leaving many States spread
broadcast across the map, and many States attracted families from
all parts of the country. This tendency is clearest on the maps
showing the movement to and from the Northeastern and Midw<"stern
States and is especially marked on the Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan
maps.
To a lesser degree the same tendency charn.cterized the movement
to and from all other areas. Families from nearly all Stau-s found
their way into a majority of the other States. On the average, the
migrant families in each State on June 30, I 935, included families
from 32 different States. At one extreme, families in New York,
Illinois, and California transient bureaus came from all the other
States. In the New Mexico transient bureaus, filled largely with
health seekers, there were families from all States except New Hampshire and Delaware. At the other extreme, the transient bureaus of
Maine had only 12 families under care, representing in all 7 States
but including families from as far as Oklahoma and Nevada.
Also represented in the broad geographical scatter were such movements as from North Dakota to Virginia, from Montana to New
Hampshire, Washington to Maryland, Rhode Island to Idaho. Inasmuch as about 30,000 families were involved, however, some longdistance migrations would be expected. The important fact, as the
next section will show, is that long-distance migrations represent the
extreme rather than the typical case of family migration.
Distance Traveled
Most of the migrations were confined within the general vicinity of
the State in which they originated (figs. 5-10). On the maps this
tendency is revealed by the clustering of the largest circles about the
particular State represented. It is especially noticeable on the maps
showing migration to and from the Eastern, Midwestern, and Southern
States.
1 Because space does not allow all States to be individually represented on the
maps, two or more States are sometimes grouped on one map. When such
combinations are made, the interchange of families between the States within
the group is shown in the lower left corner of the map, as "Interstate, intraregional
movement."
Digitized by
Google
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT • 29
FIG.5-STATE OR REGION OF ORIGIN AND OF TRANSIENT BUREAU
REGISTRATION OF MIGRANT FAMILIES
MOVEMENT OUT
MOVEMENT IN
NEW 'l'ORIC
PENNSYLVANIA- NEW JERSEY
DELMME-MARYUND-D. C.
ICIENTUCICY -WDT VllltlNIA
Nwnberof
fafflllN
............ 111111$.
Ar •111&4, Wl'I\
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
30 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
FIG. 6-STATE OR REGION OF ORIGIN AND OF TRANSIENT BUREAU
REGISTRATION OF MIGRANT FAMILIES
MOVEMENT IN
MOYEMENT OUT
OtllO·INDIMol
IIIINNOCITA•WIICONSIN
Digitized by
Google
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT •
31
FIG. 7-STATE OR REGION OF ORIGIN ANO OF TRANSIENT BUREAU
REGISTRATION OF MIGRANT FAMILIES
MOVEMENT IN
MOVEMENT OUT
YIRGINIA•NORTH CAROUNA
ftORt&A • SOIITH CAAOUNA
TENNf:Sst£
AUIIAMA • IIISSISSIPPI
FLOIIIOA
Af•UH, WPA
Digitized by
Google
32 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
FIG.8-STATE OR REGION OF ORIGIN AND OF TRANSIENT BUREAU
REGISTRATION OF MIGRANT FAMILIES
MOVEMENT IN
MOYEMENT OUT
Ml980URI
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
Source: .....,_. lablt 5.
AF•21li7, WPA
Digitized by
Google
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT • 33
FIG.9-STATE OR REGION OF ORIGIN AND OF TRANSIENT BUREAU
REGISTRATION OF MIGRANT FAMILIES
MOVEMENT OUT
MOVEMENT IN
NORTH DAKOTA-SOUTH DAKOTA
NEBRASKA
WYOMING-MONTANA
COLORAOO
Numb« of
lamillff
&oun:.: A_,.rix table 5.
AF-2858. WPA
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog1C
34 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
FIG.1O-STATE OR REGION OF ORIGIN AND OF TRANSIENT BUREAU
REGISTRATION OF MIGRANT FAMILIES
MOVEMENT OUT
MOVEMENT IN
IDAHO
WASHINGTON •OREGON
UTAH • NEVADA
ARIZONA-NEW MEXICO
CAI.IF"ORNIA
Number of
fomiliet
-IOOO
[,~-500
-- - -10
Sourco, Appondia loblo 5
Af•21~1, WPA_
Digitized by
Google
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT •
35
Statistically this tendency may be measured by a count of the
families migrating within the boundaries of uniform zones set up
about each State, representing progressively greater distances traveled.
Table 5 shows the proportion of families migrating within four such
zones, based upon the distance between the geographical center of
each State and the geographical center of all other States.'
Ta&le 5.-Distance 1 Between State of Origin and State of Enumeration of Migrant
Families I and of Persons in the General Population 1930 1 Residing in a State
Other Than State of Birth
Dlstan""
Total...............................•..... . ..................... . ....•....
Migrant
families
General
population,
29,885
Jij:I()
25,388,100
Per....,nt dlstributlon
100
TotaJ ____ .• _____ ·-- ·-. ·- -----·---· ---· .. ____ ·--. _. ·--· ·-- ·--·--· ---------1
Zone I (to States 400 miles or l~•s from center of State oforlgln) .. -••···--··-·-··· ---38-l
Zone 2 (to States 401 to 1,600 miles from center or State 01<,rigln). ... ___ . ·-· __ .. -·
40
Zone 3 (to ~tat es 1,501 to 2,100 miles from center of State of origin) ..... ··-·-·-·-·
19
Zone 4 (to States wore than 2,100 miles from State or origin).·------···-··----·-3
100
53
31
13
3
1 Dlstance is measured In term., of straight line distance from t:1e geographlcnl center of the State of origin
(or State or birth for the general population) to the geographical renter of the State in which lnmilies were
r.,gistered in transient bureaus (or State or 1930 residence for the general l?opulation), Oeologirnl Survey,
"The Oeographic Centers or the Continental United States and or the Several States," wiwoogruphed
rele,sse No. 22164, U.S. Department or the Interior, Washington, D. C., rn:l8.
• Divisiono!Translent Activities, Quarttrlll l'mauaof Tramimt., Undtr Cart, June 30, 1935, mimeographed
report, Federal Emergency Reller Administration, Washington, D. C., lll35. 41~ ramilles!row t;. S. puss""sions or from foreign countries are not Included.
oftht United Sia/ta: 1930, Population Vol. II, U.S. Department
, Bureau of the Censu.,, Fiftttnlll
of Commerce, Washington, D. C., JV33, llh. 4, tableo 32-a-t.
c,,,.,,.
The first zone includes all the families migrating to a State whose
geographical center is within a 400-mile radius of the center of the
State in which they originated. Measuring from South Dakota, for
example, this zone includes the States of North Dakota, Minnesota,
Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming, but it does not include Montana. 6 On
the average seven neighboring States are included within the 400-mile
'The United States Geological Survey's calculations of the center of each
State's area were used as the basis for measuring the distance between centers of
States.
Distance-traveled tables based upon the distance from State centers were the
most practicable of the several that were tried. Zones based upon contiguity of
States were abandoned because of the extremely wide divergence in the size of
the areas covered. States contiguous to Maine, for example, comprise an area
only one-seventieth as great as the area of States contiguous to Oklahoma.
It is interesting to note, however, that the Fifteenth Census classifies birthresidence data according to whether those moving were living in States adjacent
to State of birth or living in other States. Of the 25,388,100 persons who, in
1930, were living in a State other than their State of birth, 48 percent were in
adjacent States. For migrant families, on the other hand, only 40 percent were
registered in States adjacent to States of origin.
1 When the geographical center of a State comes within a particular zone, the
entire State is included in that zone.
D1g1t zed by
Goos IC
36 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
radius around any given State. For the next zone, where the radius
is 1,150 miles, on the average 23 States are added to those in zone 1.
Measuring from South Dakota again, the radius of 1,150 miles includes Virginia on the ea.st, Texas on the south, and California on the
west. The third zone includes families migrating within a radius of
from 1,151 to 2,100 miles, and adds, on an average, the next 15 States
in order of distance. Finally; the most distant zone includes the
States whose geographical centers are more than 2,100 miles from a
given State, and comprises an average of the three most distant
States from a given State.
.
Each decennial census of population records the number of persons
who are residing on the census date in a State other than their State of
birth. Although obviously not strictly comparable with the data on
migrant families, the census data do reveal the long-time mobile
behavior of the American population. Using the census data as a
basis for rough comparison, it may be seen that migrant families
traveled somewhat greater distances than the persons in the United
States population of 1930 who were residing in a. State other than their
State of birth (table 5). The distance between the State of origin
and the State of transient bureau registration was less than 400 miles
for 38 percent of migrant families; but the distance between State of
birth and of residence was less than 400 miles for 53 percent of the
mobile United States population. On the other hand the same proportion (3 percent) of migrant families and of the mobile United States
population traveled more than 2,100 miles.
The numerical differences in the two sets of figures, however, should
not obscure a general similarity between the mobility of migrant
families during the depression and the mobility of the population as a
whole. According to the censi1s data short-distance moves greatly
outweighted long-distance moves in the birth-residence movement of
the total population up to 1930.6 The same kind of movement,
though to a somewhat less extent, · was characteristic of migrant
families.
The migrant families' tendency to move relatively short distances
reflects the fact that a large proportion of families, despite the desperate predicament in which they found themselves at the time of
moving, did not venture far beyond the region with which they were
familiar. The preponderance of short-distance moves places the
1 It is impossible to reproduce here for comparison a series of maps parallel
with those in figs. 5-10, representing the movement of the total population as
recorded in the birth-residence data. of the 1930 Census. See Galpin, C. J. and
Manny, T. B., lnJerstate Migrations Among the Native White as Indicated by DiiJtJT•
ences between State of Birth and State of Residence, U. 8. Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Wa.shington, D. C., 1934. Ga.lpin's and
Manny's technique for depicting mobility has been incorpora.ted into the maps
in figs. 5-10.
o,g111lcd by
Goog Ie
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT • 37
much-discussed depression movement to the West coast in a new
perspective. Although the transcontinental migrations of families
were by far the most spectacular, they were actually much less
important numerically than the short migrations. Moreover, the
tendency of migrant fumilies to remain within the region with which
they were immediately familiar shows the error of the frequentlyrepeated statement that they were chiefly unstable wanderers.
Trends and Reciprocated Movement
The reasons for migration which were reported by the families
themselves usually implied no consistent direction of migration.
With the exception of the drought, the forces which displaced families
from settled residence were generally prevalent everywhere. Although
its intensity varied, unemployment-the principal reason for leaving
settled residence-was serious in all States; and ill-health and domestic
difficulties, among the other reasons, have little relation to geography.
The forces which attracted families were even less localized. Only
the migrations of families seeking cheap land and a healthful climate
implied migration to particular States to the exclusion of others.
Migrations to localities where work had been promised involved
many geographically meaningless cross currents of mobility. The
large number of families which chose as their destination a community
where there were relativeR or friends would obviously scatter widely
over the country.
As a result, a considerable amount of migrant family mobility consisted of a balanced interchange between the States (figs. 5-10).
Very rarely was there a hirge movement from any given State to
another without a substantial counter movement. For example,
New York gained 283 migrant families from New Jersey and in
return lost 148 migrant families to New Jersey; gained 81 from
Florida and lost 57; gained 71 from Ohio and lost 110 {appendix
table 5). There was much of this kind of reciprocated geographical
mobility, with the result that net population displacement was only a
fraction of the population movement.
East of the Mississippi the reciprocated movement of families
formed the greater part of all movement. Except for a pronounced
net emigration from Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi, and
West Virginia, the movements in and out of the Eastern and Southern
States tended to balance each other. Figures 5, 6, and 7 do reveal two
trends of migration in the region east of the Mississippi-one flowing
from the South to the industrial North, the other from the Northeastern States westward-but these trends made up a small part of the
total movement of the region. West of the Mississippi (figs. 8, 9, and
10) the movement in and out of each State was less evenly balanced.
The movement out of the Great Plains States, for example, greatly
D1g1t1zcd by
Google
38 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
exceeded the movement in; and the family gains of the Pacific Coast
States were far in excess of their losses.
For all the States combined the number of families which were
involved in reciprocated migration between States was much greater
than the number whose migration resulted in a net population displacement. On June 30, 1935, the number of families in FERA
transient bureaus was about 30,000. The population displacement
resulting from the movement of these families amounted to 10,524
families, representing the net gain of 16 States and the District of
Columbia from the other 32 States. In other words, about twothirds of all movement resulted in the balance of losses and gains
within each of the States and, in terms of net population displacement,
was canceled. The remaining one-third of the movement was net
displacement (table 6 and appendix table 6).
Ta&le 6.-Net Population Displacement and Reciprocated Movement Resulting From
the Movement of Migrant Families 1 and of Persons in the General Population 1930
Residing in a State Other Than State of Birth
M lgrnot
ramllle.s
Type of movement
Total. __ ___ -- -· ·· · ·- ·· ······ · ·-··-·············· · ········- ·· ··- ··-- - - __ ___.
29,885
1
Oeo,,ral
popubtiun,
11130
2h, 388. 100
Percent distribution
Total ••••• - ••• _••.•••••••• ····- ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••• __•• _. __ . _
JOO
100
Net dfsplBCement •- . . . . . ... · ···-·-·····-···········-····· · ··- · ·· ·· ·· -- --·--· · - __
Reciprocated movement• ... -- ---· · · · ···--··------·-· -· --- --- --· -· --····· -- __ . . .
35
29
fl.~
71
c,,..,,,
of Tra11ai,11t• Fndtr Car,, June 30, 111.'l.~, mimeographed
1 Division or Transient Actlvit it>s , Q11art,r/p
report, ~' ederal Emer~ency R elier Administration, Wa.sh ington, lJ . C ., rn:15. 4111 families rrom t;. S .
possessions or forniRn couutrlp.s are not included.
• Bureau or the Census, Fift«nth ('ffl1111 o/ lht Fniltd Ria~,: lfiSO, Population Vol . JI, U. S. Department
of C'ormnerce, \\"a.shinKton, b . C ., 19:1:1, cb. 4, tables 31-34.
• Net displacement is the sum or tbe net gains or Stat.es gaining population (or net losses ol States losing
populat ion). lc'ee apJJ<>n<li x tu hle fl.
• Reciprocated mo\"ement ls derived by sum min~ (I) the numher or mo,·ers to all the oet·loss States and
(2) tbe oumoor or muver,i lruru .. 11 the net-gain Stlite.s. See "lll"'ndb l1ible 6.
The Significance of Reciprocated Movement
The high proportion of reciprocated movement had an important
bearing upon the question of public responsibility for transient
relief. Local communities are usually well aware of newly arrived
migrants in need of relief, while those distress migrants who depart
from the same community are likely to be forgotten. Accordingly,
local relief officials are commonly inclined to believe that transiency
is a one-way movement in which all other communities are contributors and their own community is recipient. This belief is
frequently put forward in defending a policy of extending no aid to
nonresidents. Actually, however, the influx of needy migrant
fnrnilics into a majority of the States was either roughly balanced
Digitized by
Google
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT • 39
by the movement out or was substantially less than the movement out.
A large overbalance of immigration was recorded only for six far
Western States and Louisiana, New York, Ohio, and the District of
Columbia.
In a limited sense the reciprocated movement is a symptom of mistaken purpose lying behind the mobility of many of the families which
eventually turned to transient bureaus for assistance. In the belief
that they were moving toward regions of greater opportunity, many
of the families actually moved into communities from which families
like themselves were at the same time departing because of a lack of
opportunity. Thus, it would appear that a large part of the movement studied dissipated itself in "waste" motion. Such a conclusion
is not without value in demonstrating the disparity between desirable
social goals and the realities of uncontrolled social behavior. Yet, in
terms of the concrete realities facing the families in 1934 and 1935,
this conclusion is somewhat academic. As figures on relief turnover
and duration of unemployment show, it would be difficult to maintain
that, by and large, the families would have been wiser had they never
undertaken to relocate where conditions seemed better (see chs. IV
and VI).
The proportion of net and reciprocated mobility shown in table 6
overemphasizes the confusion of the movement. It does not take
rural-urban mobility into account. Moreover, if the trends for each
State were measured in terms of interchange with each other individual
State, rather than in terms of interchange with all States combined,
the proportion of net movement would be shown to be greatly increased. For a particular State a small net gain or loss may conceal
large net gains from certain States and large net losses to others.
Thus, Illinois had a net gain, from all States combined, of 251 families.
But the sum of its net gains from interchange with Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana, New York, and other individual Eastern and Southern
States was 665 families; and from interchange with Missouri, Kansas.,
Colorado, California, and other Western States, it lost a net of 414
families. In table 6 the eastward net gains and the westward net
losses of Illinois are not included and only tho difference between
the two (251 families net gain) is represented. 7 Because of a general
tendency for each of the chain of States from east to west to gain
families from its eastern neighbors and to lose families to its neighbors
on the west, the method used in table 6 for calculating net geographical
change somewhat understates the net geographical displacement of the
migrant family population.
In any case it is significant that the rate of net geographical displacement for families registered with transient bureaus was slightly
'In fig. 11 the net gains and losses are shown on the basis of each State's interchange with each other State individually.
D1g1t zed by
Goos IC
40 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
higher than that for persons in the general population who were living
outside their State of birth. In so far as this comparison is valid it
suggests that, small as the net trends in migrant family movement
were, they were nevertheless more pronounced than the trends in the
movement of the total population up to 1930. In other words, the
migrant families moved more consistently northward and westward
than did the total population.
Direction of Movement
The reasons for migration reported by the families rarely showed
any awareness of the broad geographical significance of their moves.
The many families which told in detail why they had migrated seldom
gave explanations that went beyond the immediate reason for the
move. Most of the families simply left a community in which they
could no longer earn a living and proceeded to another community because of the rumor or hope-usually based upon the presence of relatives and friends--that they would be less insecure. One effect of the
unguided action of these families was the seeming geographical confusion which manifested itself in the extent of the scattering of some
of the families and in the relative importance of the reciprocated
movement of families among the States. When the balanced interchange is canceled and the remaining net movement is traced upon
the map a somewhat different picture is revealed. Despite the chaos
that might naturally have been expected from the independent and unguided action of the 30,000 families, there were consistent trends of net
population displacement (fig. 11 ).
The flow maps that have been developed after eliminating reciprocated migration show, first of all, that the net movement of migrant
families was predominantly westward. 8 The westward fl.ow of
families into California, Colorado, Washington, Kansas, Idaho,
Oregon, and New Mexico far exceeded all other net movement; and
the general direction of the net movement for the entire United States
with the exception of the southeast.em region was toward the west.
Although there was some eastward movement from the Great Plains
into Minnesota and Iowa on the north and into Arkansas and Louisiana on the south, by far the greater part of the emigrant.a from the
Great Plains moved westward. Even within the region north of the
Ohio River and east of the Mississippi, the States tended to gain from
eastern neighbors and lose to western neighbors.
1 The trends shown record the net gain or lose of every State from every other
individual State, rat.her than from all States combined.
In order to avoid a confusing maze of small lines, all net gains and losses of
less than 15 families are excluded. This adjustment eliminated approximately
one-fifth of the net movement. Although some of the r eject()d moves ran counter
to the chief lines shown in fig. 11, the majority of them were also net northward
and westward moves.
Oig1t1zcd b,
Google
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT• 41
FIG. II-NET DISPLACEMENT OF MIGRANT FAMILIES*
June 30, 1935
NORTH-SOUTH DISPLACEMENT
EAST-WEST DISPLACEMENT
Number l1f famlllll
15
eo
100
500
-
I~
-
2000
2~
-
1000
-
■
*Net lnterchanCJ• of fewer tl\an IS fomlliea
between Stat.s excluded.
Source: Division of Transient Activities.
Quarterly Census of Tronsienls UndM Care,
June 30, 193S, Federal Emerqenc:y Relief
Admslillralion, Walhinqton, D. C.
D1g1t zed by
Goos IC
42 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Only the families in the Southeastern States failed to follow the
prevailing westward tendency (fig. 11). The contribution of the
entire South to the Pacific Coe.st States was insignificant. Within
the southern region itself, there was a slight movement from Georgia,
Alabama, and Mississippi into Louisiana.. But the greater part of
the net loss of the Southern States moved northward into four industrial States-New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan.i
This movement, in which Negroes played an important part
(appendix B), flowed north along four parallel lines: the first moved up
the Atlantic see.boa.rd to the District of Columbia., Maryland, and New
York; the second moved from Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky
to Ohio and Michigan; the third moved from Mississippi, Alabama,
and Georgia to Illinois; and the fourth, starting from Arkansas, culminated in Illinois and Chicago. Within the South, only the movement toward Florida ran counter to the general northward trend.
Figure 11 also shows that the greater part of the net displacement
flow of migrant families not only culminated west of the Mississippi
River but also originated there. The excess of outflow over inflow
for Oklahoma alone was nearly as large as the total excess that moved
westward across the Mississippi River from all States to the east of
it. Moreover, the net loss of Texas, Missouri, Kansas, and South
Dakota each exceeded the net loss of any State east of the Mississippi.
The greatest single net movement was westward from the two tiers
of States immediately west of the Mississippi.
This fact emphasizes an essential difference between the mobility
of the migrant families originating on the two sides of the Mississippi
River. In the first place, families in the West moved very much
more readily than those in the East. Although the region east of the
Mississippi contains 70 percent of the total population, it contributed,
out of the approximately 30,000 families registered in transient bureaus
on June 30, 1935, only about 13,000 families, while about 17,000 originated in the States to the west. Moreover, the net population displacement in the West was, as figure 11 shows, even more dispnr
portionate. In other words, the movement of the ea.stem sections,
despite the flow out of the Northeast to California and out of the
Cotton States into the industrial East, consisted in the balanced
interchange of families among the States to a much greater extent
than did the movement in the West, where special conditions prod uced an exodus into Colorado and the Pacific Coe.st States.
The Directi011 of MOt1ement· Migrant Families Compared With the General Population, 1920-1930
A comparison between the displacement flow of migrant families
and the flow of the general United States population in the decade
9 There was practically no interchange between Pennsylvania and the Southern
8iates.
Dig rt zed by
Goog IC
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT • 43
from 192~1930 reveals a striking general similarity. 10 The chief
feature of both movements was the predominating westward drift,
and the chief destination for both was California. The movement
northward out of the Cotton States follows the same general routes
in both instances; in both, this movement is distinctly less important
than the westward movement. In both, there is a net movement
out of the less industrialized Eastern States into the more highly
industrialized States: from Arkansas into Mis.-,ouri and 1v1ichigan;
from Kentucky into Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio; and from West
Virginia into Ohio and Pennsylvania. Other similarities-such as the
net movement from Georgia to Florida, from Pennsylvania and New
England to New York, and the movement down the coast from the
Pacific Northwest into California-might be traced at length.
Within the general pattern of similarity, several important differences between the movement in the twenties and the movement of
migrant families appear. The distress movemC'nt of migrant families
from the Great Plains States was much more pronounced than the
general population movement out of these States during the 1920's. In
particular, the migration from the southern Plains States to California formed a greater part of the net displncemmt of migrant
families than of the movement of the general population; and two
entirely new movements, (1) off the northern Plains into Washington, Idaho, and Oregon, and (2) off the southeastern Plains into
Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona, assumed an important place in
the depression migration of families. Moreover, instead of the
normal westward infiltration into the Plains States, many migrant
families left these States, especially the Dakotas and Oklahoma, and
moved eastward, reversing the trend of the 1920's.
In the northeastern industrial States other differences appeared.
The migration of the 1920's into Michigan, following the automobile
boom, reversed itself for the families studied; and Michigan lost
families to both Illinois and Ohio, though it continues to gain from
the States south of the Ohio River. Between 1920 and 1930 Illinois
gained large numbers of migrants from Iowa and Missouri, probably
through rural to urban migrations. For the families studied, however,
this trend disappeared.
10 Thornthwaite, C. W., Internal Migration in the United State,, Bulletin 1,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1934, Plate V-A, Plate VI-A (D),
and Plate III-A.
The trends in the movement of migrant families (fig. 11) includes the movement of both white and Negro families. Thornthwaite's trend map for 1920-1930
[Plate VI-A (D)) shows the net movement of the native-white population only.
The size and direction of the migration of all Negroes born in the South and living
in the North in 1930are shown in Thornthwa.ite's Plate V-A; and the growth of this
migration during each decade beginning with 1890-1900 is shown in Plate III-A
C1grtzcdoyGooglc
44 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
In the South two States show marked differences. Tennessee lost
population to many States in the 1920's and gained from none; but
from the interchange of migrant families it gained from Texas,
Arkansas, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and
Kentucky. North Carolina, on the other hand, gained population
in the 1920's from Georgia and South Carolina; but the trend in the
movement of migrant families was away from North Carolina to not
only Georgia and South Carolina but also to Tennessee, Florida, and
Virginia..
Though these differences are important, they should not obscure
the close parallels between the displacement of the families studied
and the displacement of the genera.I population in the 1920's. The
most significant tendency shown in figure 11 is the similarity of
migrant family movement to the recent drift of the genera.I population.
Rate of Emigration
The foregoing discussion has considered the interstate movement
of migrant families in terms of the absolute number of families moving to and from each State. In order to determine the regions from
which the families emigrated most readily, these absolute numbers
must be considered in terms of the number of families residing in
each State and therefore theoretically likely to migrate.
On June 30, 1935, throughout the United States as a whole, 1 interstate migrant family was under care in FERA transient bureaus for
each 910 families in the total population, or 1.08 migrants per 1,000
resident families. 11 Because of the wide variety of social and economic conditions in the various regions of the country, in many States
the ratio of families leaving the State to families living in the State
fell exceedingly fur above and below this national average.
To cite the high and low extremes in the rate of emigration, Nevada
and Arizona, which contributed to other States 1 migrant family for
each 160 to 200 families in their populations (6.41 and 5.07 families
contributed respectively per 1,000 population families) had by far
the highest rates (appendix table 7). At the other extreme were
New Hampshire and Massachusetts, which contributed only I
migrant family out of each 5,500 to 3,500 population families (.18
and .30 families contributed respectively per 1,000 population
families).
The geographical distribution of the States with high and low
migrant family contributions per 1,000 population families is shown
in figure 12. This map reveals that the States from which migrant
families were most likely to leave were practically all Western States
11 The population data refer to multiperson families as reported in the Bureau
of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Population Vol. VI,
U. 8. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1933, p. 36.
Digrt1zcd
b,-Goog 1C
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT • 45
FIG.12-RATE OF MIGRANT FAMILY EMIGRATION
MIGRANT FAMI LI ES L EAV ING EACH STATE PER
1,000 RESIDEN T FAMILIES IN 19 30
Un,ted Slates overage • I.OB
Source: Appendix table 7.
AF·2861•WPA
and that, excepting only California, the entire western United States
from the Great Plains to the Pacific Coast States contributed migrant
families at a rate above the United States average. All the States
with exceptionally high rates were in this region. 12
Migrant families also tended to emigrate from several States in the
South at a rate somewhat above the United States average. This
tendency was most marked in the States on the fringes of the South,
especially in Arkansas and Florida. In the deep South the rate of
emigration was either slightly below the United States average (as in
Alabama and the Carolinas) or only very slightly above (as in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee).13
Migrant families emigrated least readily from the densely populated
northeastern and north central regions of the United States. All the
Midwestern States from Minnesota and Iowa to Ohio were well below
the average, and the industrial East from Pennsylvania to Maine
contributed fewer migrant families in proportion to its resident
population than any other section of the United States.
11 Appendix table 7 presents the rate of migrant family emigration from the
\·arious States in terms of the number of families contributed by each State per
1,000 resident families. The table also shows the rank of each State beginning
\\;th the highest: Nevada firet, Arizona second, and so on through the entire list
of States to New Hampshire, the State with the lowest rate.
In fig. 13 the "highest one-fourth" represents the States with rankings from
1st to 12th, the "second highest one-fourth" represents those from 13th to 25th, etc.
11 Against the national average of 1.1 migrants contributed per 1,000 population
families, the rate for Arkansas was 2.8; for Mississippi, 1.4; for Georgia and
Alabama, 1.1. The rate for five Western States, on the other hand, was above 4.0.
See appendix table 7.
o,g111lcd by
Goog Ie
46 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Emigration and Relief Jnten,ity
The preceding chapter emphasized the basic relationship between
distress and migrant family mobility, and it would be supposed that
the varying rates of emigration reflect regional differences in the
severity of the depression. But if one compares the rate of emigration
from the States with the highest percent of unemployed gainful
workers-such as Michigan or Pennsylvania-with the rate of migration from the less severely stricken States, the inadequacy of this
explanation is quickly revealed. A given degree of adverse economic
pressure did not produce the same rate of emigration in all sections of
the United States.
Figure 13 shows how the severity of the depression, as measured by
the average intensity of general relief during 1934 (excluding rural
rehabilitation and other special programs), varied among the States.H
FIG. 13- INTENSITY OF RELIEF IN 1934
PERCENT or TOTAL POPULATION
ON GE NER AL RE LI EF
lln1'cd Sloles o,..e,ogc
s
12 9
Sou,ce Smit h , Mopheus, lnrens,ry of
Rel, el, Ju ly 193 3 - June 1935, Reseorch
Bulletin. Series I, No. 18, Division of
Social Research, Works PraQrtH Administration,
ar•tau,w,•
Washin9tan, 0. C., 1936, p. 4.
Despite obvious limitations these data do after a fashion provide an
index of the varying extent of destitution throughout the United
States. It is recognized that the intensity of relief is affected not only
by the extent of need but also by the availability of funds for relief
and by local policies in the administration of relief. The low intensity
of relief in the South, for example, is doubtless an inaccurate representation of the actual extent of destitution in that region, and the
data for the Southern States must be considered in the light of that
1' See Smith, Mapheus, lntentn.ty of Relief July 198!J-June 1985, Research
Bulletin Series I, No. 18, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Adminiatration, Washington, D. C., March 25, 1936.
Digit,zea oy
G oog Ie
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT•
47
qualification. For most of the United States, however, the index used
is reasonably trustworthy. If it be assumed that the intensity-of-relief
data represent the varying force of economic pressure in each State,
a comparison of figures 12 and 13 will reveal the responsiveness to
that pressure among the States.
It will be observed from a comparison between figures 12 and 13
that there was no consistent Nation-wide relationship between relief
intensity and the rate of family emigration. It is true that several
States with a high relief intensity also had high family emigration
rates. Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, for
example, fell into the highest quarter-group in both figure 12 and
figure 13. Likewise, Connecticut and Maine appear in the lowest
quarter-group on both maps. But Nebraska, Wyoming, and Nevada,
for example, had extremely high family emigration rates and a very
low relief intensity. Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Minnesota were well
above average in relief intensity, but all had very low family emigration rates. 16
The Western States in general had high emigration rates regardless
of varying intensity of relief. The Midwestern and Northeastern
States, in contrast, contributed in relation to their population few
migrant families to other States, even though the intensity of relief
was frequently very high. Within the South, also, there appeared to
be no consistent relationship between the variations in relief intensity
and the rates of family emigration.
Rate of Emigration: Migrant Famil-ies Compared W·ith the General Population
Figure 14 shows the rate at which the general population born in
the various States had emigrated to other States, according to the
birth-residence data of the 1930 Census. 18 A comparison of each
State's rank in figure 14 with its rank in figure 12 shows that migrant
families tended to emigrate most readily from those States which had
normally been contributing the greatest proportion of their native
population to other States.
It has been pointed out that the West contained the States with
the highest rates of migrant family emigration. The West also con11 The coefficient of rank correlation between intensity of relief and family
emigration rate was (pc:.334).
11 Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Population
Vol. II, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1933, ch. 4, tables
32-34.
In fig. 14 the States are divided according to the magnitude of their emigration
rates into 4 groups of 12 States each. Those 12 States which had the highest
percent of their native population living in other States are represented as the
"highest one-fourth" of the States; the 12 States with the next highest percent of
natives living elsewhere are represented as the "second highest one-fourth"of
the States, etc.
D1g1t1zcd by
Google
48 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
F1G.14- RATE OF EMIGRATION OF NATIVE UNITED STATES POPULATION
PERCE NT OF EACH STATE"S NATIVES LIVING IN
OTH ER STATE S IN 1930
United Stot • s overog• , 2 3 5
Source: Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth
Census of the United States: 1930,
Population Vol. n, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, O.C., 1933, p. 14a
AF-ta•4,WN
tained most of the States which had contributed the highest proportion of their natives to other States before 1930. Nine of these States
had the same high quarter-group ranking on both maps. In all
States in which the quarter-group ranking was not identical the family
emigration rank was consistently higher than the emigration rank
derived for the genera.I population. Thus, emigration from the
Western States, normally very high in comparison with the other
sections, became relatively higher among families studied.
In North Dakota. and South Dakota, and to a lesser extent in Nebraska, the increase in the relative importance of migrant fa.mily
emigration resulted from the agricultural depression and the 1934
drought. In all other Western States, however, the direct effect of
these two forces was small, inasmuch as the migrants came largely
from the urban unemployed. 17 The increased importance of the
emigration of migrant families in other Western States appears to
have resulted more from the greater susceptibility of newcomerswho form a large part of the population of these States 18-to unsettling
forces intensified by the depression than from the action of any one
particular localized force.
In the Midwestern and Northeastern States the relationship between
migrant family and general population emigration ranks is the oppo11 See ch. I, fig. 2.
Farming failure was an important cause of emigration only
for the families leaving the Dakotas. Only 12 percent of all the migrant families
from Oklahoma and only 6 percent of those from Texas were farmers who had
failed.
11 See fig. 16, which shows the rate of immigration of the native-born population
into these States as recorded in the 1930 Census.
Oigit1zcd by
Goog IC
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT •
49
site of that found in the Western States. The Midwest and Northeast
as shown in figure 14 have contributed a relatively slight proportion
of their native population to other States before 1930; and, as figure 12
indicates, this region also contained most of the States with the lowest
rates of migrant family emigration. Eight of these twenty-one States
had identically low quarter-group rankings on both mnps. In only one
State, Michigan, the migrant family emigration rank was higher than
the general population emigration rank by one quarter-group, reflecting
in all probability the depressed state of the automobile industry after
1930. The rank of each of the remaining States and the District of
Columbia was consistently lower in tem1s of its relative rate of migrant
family emigration than in terms of the contribution of its native population to other States before 1930. In other words, the Midwestern and
Northeastern States, most of which normally have low emigration
rates, were by comparison with the other sections of the country even
less important as the source of migrant families.
Chief among the Midwestern and Northeastern States in which
the rank in terms of migrant family emigration was lower than
the rank of native population emigration were Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri. The low
intensity of relief in the New England States offers a possible explanation for the low rate of family emigration by reflecting the lesser
pressure of adverse economic conditions. In the Midwest the normal
movement to the Great Plains was cut short by the agricultural
depression; and Iowa, like the New England States, was less affected
by the depression, as its low intensity of relief shows (fig. 13).
A substantial movement of the general population from the States
on the fringe of the South was a normal occurrence up to 1930. Tho
relative position of these States in terms of migrant family emigration
was much the same as in the emigration of the general population.
The relative importance of emigration from Arkansas increased
slightly 8Jld that from Virginia decreased slightly; while Kentucky
and Tennessee maintained the same quarter-group rank on both maps.
In the lower South, on the other hand, the rate of emigration of the
general population before 1930 was small in comparison with the other
States. In all the States from Louisiana to North Carolina, and
including Florida, the general population was comparatively immobile
notwithstanding the high birth rnte of the region, or, indeed, the
northward migration of Negroes between 1910 and 1930. These same
States became relatively much more important as contributors of
migrant families. The rank of :Mississippi, Georgia, and North
Carolina was raised by one quarter-group and the rank of Louisiana.
and Florida was raised by two quarter-groups. Although these
changes are in pa.rt a reflection of a relative decrease in emigration
from the Northeast and Midwest during the depression, they neverthe-
D1g1t zed by
Goos IC
50 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
less suggest a growing tendency toward mobility within the lower
South. The increase in mobility is particularly noticeable in Florida,
where the high rate of migrant family emigration doubtless represents
the backwash of the Florida boom.
Rate of Immigration
The constant westward movement of migrant families brought large
numbers into California, Colorado, Idaho, and Washington; and a
somewhat less marked northward immigration flowed into New York,
Ohio, and Illinois. The total number of migrant families in transient
bureaus was by no means uniformly distributed in absolute numbers
throughout the various States. In terms of relative numbers expressing the transient bureau case load of each State as a proportion of its
family population, the variation among the different States becomPs
even greater.
Appendix table 8 shows the number of migrant families in each
State on June 30, 193!i, per 1,000 resident families in the State. The
table revPnls an even wider gap between the State with the highest and
the Stnte with the lowest rate of immigration than was discovered to
exist betw<'en the two extremes in the rate of emigration. Idaho, thc>
State whose rate of immigration was highest, had 1 migrant family for
each 100 fnmilies residing in Idaho; 111 whereas South Dakota at the
other cxtrPme had less than 1 migrant family for each 10,000 resident
families (.03 families received per 1,000 resident families).
Inasmuch as the rate of immigration relates the number of destitute,
newly arrived families to the size of the resident family population, it
providPs a rough measure of the varying seriousness of the migrant
family rPlief problem from the point of view of the residents in each
State. It is interesting to observe that in June 1935 the problem was
most serious in Idaho, followed, as appendix table 8 shows, by New
Mexico and Colorado. California, with less than half as many fnmiliPs undPr care pPr 1,000 population familiPs as Idaho, only rankrd as
the fourth highest State. Appearing in order slightly below Califomia
were Washington, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.
Figure 15 shows the migrant family immigration rank of each of the
States. In bri<'f, the map reveals that most of the States with the
highest rates of immigration and more than half of those in the second
highest quarter-group were located west of the Mississippi River. In
the East only the District of Columbia and Florida had immigration
ratPs in the highest quarter-group, and 19 of the 26 States 20 had immigration rates in the lowest or second lowest quarter-groups.
IQ The migrant family case load of Idaho transient bureaus was not reported in
the Quarterly Census of June 30, 1935. Accordingly, the figure reported in the
Mirlmonthly Cen.ms of Transient Activities of June 15, 1935, was used.
to ln<'l11rling the District of Columhia but excluding Vermont which had no
trnnsil•nt program.
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog1C
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT•
51
F1G. 15- RATE OF MIGRANT FAMILY IMMIGRATION
MIGRANT FAMILIES REGISTERED IN EACH STATE PER
1,000 FAMILIES RESID ENT IN 1930
United Stoles ove ra ge • I 10
Source · Append ix ta ble 8 .
~F • 2110 1 WPA
lmm1gralion and Relief lntemity
A comparison between the rate of immigration map (fig. 15) and the
intensity-of-relief map (fig. 13) reveals that there was no consistent
relationship between migrant family immigration and relief intensity.
Five States had very high relief rates together with very low rates of
migrant family immigration; these States were North Dakota and
South Dakota, to the west of the Mississippi River, and Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, and Kentucky, to the east. At the same time, four
other States with very high relief rates-Florida, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Arizona-also had very high rates of migrant family
immigration. Moreover, some of the States with the lowest intensity
of relief had low rates of immigration (for example, Maine, Maryland,
and Iowa), while some had high rates (for example, Wyoming, New
Hampshire, and Delaware). Clearly there was no general connection
whatever between these two factors. 21
Rate oJ Immigration: Migrant Families Compared With the General Population
Migrant families did, however, show an extremely great tendency
to seek out those States into which the population had largely been
flowing during the lifetime of the persons enumerated in the 1930
Census. Figure 16 shows for 1930 the proportion of the residents of
each State who were born in other States, in terms of quarter-group
rankings. A comparison between figures 15 and 16 reveals very little
change in the relative positions of the States.
11 The coefficient of rank correlation between intensity of relief and family immigration rates was (p= .086).
D1grt zco oy
105197"-S&---e
Goos Ie
52 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
FIG. 16- RATE OF IMMIGRATION OF NATIVE UNITED STATES POPULATION
PERCENT OF RESIDENTS IN EACH STATE IN 1930
BORN IN OTHER STATES
IIIIII
Second quarter
~ Third quorte,
11881
HiQhest qvarter
Ro nQe 7.9 - 64.4
United S1o1es overoge • 2 3 5
So urce Bureau of lhe Census , F,fteenlh
Census of the Uni ted Stores: 1930.
Populolion Vol II. US. Oepor1men1 of
Com merce , WoshinQ!on, 0.C., 1933, p. t4a
,,_2••·· .....
In the West the only marked dift'erences on the two maps are for
North Dakota and South Dakota. The 1930 population of these two
States contained a relatively high proportion of the natives of other
States because of the comparative newness of their development as
States and the normally high population turnover in the Plains States.
Migrant families, on the other hand, avoided these two States, doubtless because of the drought.
In the Midwest and Northeast the majority of the States had the
same low quarter-group rank on both maps. The principal changes
are the increased relative importance of Illinois, Ohio, and New York
(the States in which the movement of white and Negro migrant families from the South terminated) and the decreased relative importance
of Michigan and of the satellite States close to New York.
In the South the States whose 1930 population contained the highest
proportion of natives born in other States were Florida and Arkansas.
The rate of migrant family immigration into these States remained
high, and Tennessee and Louisiana were added to them. In Alabama,
Georgia, and South Carolina the proportion of 1930 residents born in
other States was extremely low, but the migrant family immigration
rates in these States were somewhat higher. This change suggests
an increase in the mobility of the southern population during the
depression.
RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION
The Quarterly Census of Transient Activities, which permitted the
foregoing analysis of the movement of families between the States,
recorded for each family only the State from which migration began
Dig1llzed l:>y
Goog Ie
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT • 53
and the State in which transient bureau registration occurred. It
does not supply information about the intervening movement; nor does
it distinguish between the families which were at their destination at
the time of registration and those which were still en route to their
destination. Furthermore, no information was supplied concerning
the rural-urban mobility of migrant families. In order to fill in these
gaps, it is necessary to tum again to the migrant family interviews
upon which the other chapters of this study are based.
An Urban Ml9ratlon
The origins and destinations 22 of migrant families were both
predominantly urban. By and large, the families moved from city
to city, rather than from the farm to the city or from the city back
to the farm. Urban places, that is, places of more than 2,500 population, were the origin of 70 percent of the migrant families with
settled residence; and villages and farms were the origin of 30 percent of the families. 23 Upon leaving settled residence, 76 percent
of the families had urban destinations, 17 percent had farm and
village destinations, and 7 percent set out with no destination in
mind (see table 7).
Tal,le 7.-Rural-Urban Origins and Destinations of Migrant Families
Migrant
families Im•
Rural·urban Interchange
migrating
Total..................................................................................
4,084
Percent
distribution
___
Total.................................................................................. ,__
To city•.....................................................................................
100
rr~:
rr~: ~fif.;ges ·.:n,1 funru,.~:::: :: :: ::::: ::::::::::::::::::: :: :::: :::: :::: :: :::::: :::::: ::::
76
To no destination............................................................................
From city................................................................................
From villages and farms..................................................................
7
6
~i~es and farms 1 •• •••••••••.••••••• ••••••••••• •••••••••••• •• •••• •••••••• •• ••••••
~
To villages and farms........................................................................
17
:
2
• Places 0!2,000 or more population.
• Places o!less than 2,500 population.
NoTE.-244 !amllles, for which size of place of destination or settled residence was not ascertainable, are
not Included.
n It is necessary to distinguish between the place of destination, recorded only
for the families interviewed, and the place of registration, recorded both for the
fe.milies interviewed and in the Quarterly Census.
21 As against this 70 percent urban composition, 58 percent of all multipereon
families in the United States as a whole lived in urban places in 1930 and 42
percent lived in rural places. See Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the
United States: 1990, Population Vol. VI, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1933, pp. 13-15.
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
54 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
A majority of the families moved from city to city. As table 7
shows, 56 percent of all families had both origins and destinations
in urban places and only 8 percent of the families had both origins
and destinations on farms or in villages. For 29 percent of the families the first moves from settled residence involved an interchange
between urban and rural places. These were composed of 20 percent which left farms and villages for cities and of 9 percent which
moved from cities back to villages and farms.
The Baclc-to-the-Land Movement
The growth and decline of the back-to-the-land movement among
migrant families are shown in figure 17. A total of 9 percent of the
DESTINATION
0
TO CITIES
10
20
30
40
Percent
50 60
70
80
90
ALL YEARS
Before 1929
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
TO VILLAGES ANO FARMS
ALL YEARS
Before 1929
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
NO DESTINATION
ALL YEARS
ORIGIN
1B From
cities
~ From villages and farms
Before 1929
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
FiG.17 - RURAL-URBAN MOVEMENT OF MIGRANT FAMILIES
BY YEAR OF MOVE
Source: Appendix table 10.
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
100
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT• 55
first moves from settled residence were from cities to farms and
villages. Of the families which left their last settled residence before
1929, only 8 percent moved back to the land. As the depression
grew worse, this movement increased until in 1932, 23 percent of the
families leaving settled residence moved from cities to farms and
villages. Thereafter, as recovery began, it declined rapidly; and in
1935 only 6 percent of the urban families leaving settled residence
moved back to the land.
The movement from farms and villages into the cities showed
exactly the opposite trend. An average of 20 percent of the moves
were from rural to urban areas. Before 1929 the movement was
slightly below average size, comprising 17 percent of all moves from
settled residence. In 1929 it declined to 9 percent, and in 1932 it
was 11 percent. It rose rapidly to 20 percent in 1933, then to 25
percent in 1934, the first serious drought year, and dropped to 24
percent in 1935.H
A more detailed classification of rural-urban mobility is presented
in appendix table 10. This table shows that the predominant urban
movement was itself made up chiefly of movement between the cities
of more than 100,000 population, rather than between smaller cities.
It also shows that the rural origins and destinations were both about
equally distributed between open country and village and that the
back-to-the-land movement was thus a movement into villages as well.
Rural and Urban Emigration by Slate
Recognition of the fact that the movement of migrant families was
largely one of city dwellers migrating to other cities is necessary for
the proper interpretation of the data on interstate movement presented earlier in this chapter. The predominance of urban over rural
migration is characteristic not only of the movement in general but
also of the movement involving most of the individual States, even
those containing chronically distressed rural areas.
Figure 18 shows for each State by quarter-groups the proportion
of the multiperson families which were living in places of less than
2,500 population at the time of the 1930 Census. When this figure is
compared with figure 19, which shows the proportion of the migrants
who emigrated from places of less than 2,500 population, it may be
seen that the proportion of rural families was almost universally low.
14 The rural-urban interchange shown in table 7 and fig. 17 applies only to the
moves from settled residence to destination. Accordingly, it includes only one
move for each family. But many migrant families changed residence after this
first move, and the one-fifth of the families which had no "settled residence"
nevertheless changed their "residence." A tabulation of the rural-urban interchange involved in all these moves shows practically the same characteristics
of those described in fig. 17, except that the back-to-the-land movement constituted 15 percent of all moves, as against 9 percent of the moves from settled
residence.
D1g111zcd by
Goog 1C
56 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
frG.18-PERCENT OF FAMILIES IN THE GENERAL POPULATION
RES IDING IN RURAL PLACES , 1930
E3
Less than II
IIIIll
II - 30
~ 3 1- 50
BBS
51 - 1 0
■ More than 70
Unite d Stol es overage • 42
Source: Append" loble 9 .
Af • HIZ. -
Practically all States contributed a smaller proportion of rural
migrants than the rural composition of their population would have
warranted. In several States the discrepancy is particularly apparent.
In most of the Southern States, including Texas and Oklahoma, there
was an exceedingly high proportion of the population living in rural
places, yet the proportion of rural emigrants from these States was
relatively low. Despite the acuteness of the rural problem in this
entire area, the families which did leave States within this region tended
to come mainly from urban, rather than rural, places. Only in two
Southern border States, Kentucky and Arkansas, did the proportion
FIG. 19-PERCENT OF MIGRANT FAMILIES WITH ORIGINS
IN RURAL PLACES
United Stote5 overage • 30
Source App end" loble 9 .
AF - 2 9 6 1. WltA
Dig11ized l:>y
Goog Ie
ORIGINS AND MOVEMENT• 57
of rural family emigrants approximate the proportion of rural families
in the population.
The northern Plains from Kansas to Montana formed the only
regional group in which the proportion of migrant families leaving
rural places was consistently high. It is significant, however, that
even within this region, despite the drought and the long-established
tradition of rural mobility within the region, in South Dakota alone
were the families leaving rural places overrepresented in terms of the
rural-urban composition of the State population (appendix table 9).
Rural and Urban Immigration by State
Figure 20 shows for each State the proportion of the families whose
destinations were in rural places. It is obvious from this figure that
the proportion of families going to rural places was far less than the
proportion leaving rural places. In nearly three-fourths of the States
the proportion of families with rural destinations was less than 30
percent of ail the families migrating to the State (appendix table 9).
Family movement was predominantly urban, not only into industrial
States, such as New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, but also into
many basically agricultural States, such as Kansas, Nebraska, New
Mexico, and most of the Southern States. In eight States the proporlion of families with rural destinations was from 30 to 50 percent
of the incoming families. The only States in this group which had a
large number of incoming families were Arkansas, Oklahoma, and
Montana. In only five States did the proportion of families with
rural destinations exceed 50 percent; of these, Idaho and Mississippi
were the only numerically important States of destination for migrant
families.
FIG. 20-PERCENT OF MIGRANT FAMILIES WITH
DESTIN ATIONS IN RU RAL PLACES,
Uniled Stoles overage • 18
So,,rce: Appendix table 9 .
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
58 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
MoYC111ent Beyond Datlnatlona
It is important to bear in mind that figure 20 is based upon the
State of destination of the families rather than upon the States in
which families were registered in transient bureaus. Figure 20 thus
records only the proportion of the families which intended, when they
left settled residence, to take up residence in rural areas in the States
specified. By the time these families were interviewed, practically all
of them (86 percent) had moved on 26 from their new rural residences
and were registered in transient bUl'eaus in urban places. Two-thirds
of them were registered in transient bUl'eaus in a State other than the
State of destination (appendix table 11).
· In contrast, the families which had reached destinations in Ul'ban
places tended to remain at their destinations. At the time the families were interviewed, 61 percent of those with urban destinations
were still in the city to which they had originally set out, and an additional 8 percent were still within the State of their destination. Only
one-third of the families with urban destinations were registered in
transient bUl'eaus outside their State of destination.
21 Most of this group bad arrived at their destinations in rural places and sulr
sequently departed. Of all the families which set out for definite destinationsonly 8 percent bad not yet reached their destination by the time they were interviewed in September Hl35.
Oigit1zcd by
Goog IC
Chapter Ill
THE BACKGROUND OF MIGRATION
IN ANALYZING depression mobility from the point of view of
public relief policy, a distinction between wandering and migration is
necessary. In so far as public assistance furthers permanent economic
adjustment at the same time the.t it relieves immediate needs, it
works toward a solution of the problems growing out of distress
migration. Plainly, this end is more easily achieved in assisting
migrants than in assisting chronic wanderers.
The essence of the distinction between migration and wandering is
the difference in the value that the individual on the road attaches to
mobility. At one extreme there is the aimless, "just to be moving"
kind of mobility characteristic of persons and families to whom
stability has become either impossible or unattractive. Migration,
at the other extreme, is the purposeful and socially necessary type
of mobility that has stability as its immediate object.
Determining the degree of mobility characteristic of the familie3
studied requires a thorough analysis of the background of the families
which turned to transient bureaus for assistance. If the families
had developed a long established habit of frequent change of community, or of travel so constant that a residence 1 was seldom estab-lished in any community, the evidence would point to the purposeless
transiency sometimes observed among nonfamily persons. 2 Con1 The term residence is used throughout this chapter to mean a stay for at
least 30 days in one community without receipt of transient relief. As used here,
residence has none of the special and technical connotations that the term frequently has in statutes and legal writings; e.g., legal residence, voting residence,
or relief residence. Nor is residence used as a synonym for domicile; i. e., a permanent home. For this later purpose, the term settled residence has been adopted
to represent the particular residence that the family regarded as its last place
of settled abode.
2 See Webb, John N., The Transient Unemployed, Research Monograph III,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
1935, pp. 64-74.
.
59
□ig,t zc:d by Goog Ie
60 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
versely, if the families had only recently been dislodged from a community where they had maintained a settled, self-supporting existence
for a considerable period of time there would be a strong presumption
that their mobility was of the nature of purposeful migration.
In order to derive this distinction, the history of these families
during the 6 years preceding this study is divided into two periods.
One of these periods includes the time between each family's first
application for relief at a transient bureau and the date of interview.
The mobility of the families during this period is discussed in chapter
IV. But family mobility began before that period; otherwise, the
families would have been assisted by the resident rather than the
transient relief program. Examination of the history of the families
during this earlier period will provide information about the mobility
of the families during the years preceding their first stay at the transient bureaus. It is the purpose of this chapter to examine this earlier
background period. The period under examination begins on
January 1, 1929, for all families formed before that date, and it
extends forward to the date when the families left the last place of
residence prior to their first application for transient relief. For
families formed since January 1, 1929, the date of marriage is substituted for the arbitrary predepression date in 1929.1
SETTLED AND UNSETTLED FAMILIES
When classified according to their background prior to the period
of transient relief the 5,489 families observed in this study disclosed a
range from unbroken residmre at one extreme to unbroken mobility
at the other extreme. By far the larger number of families, however,
had few or no changes of residence prior to their transient relief
history. A small number had a record of frequent changes of residence, and a few had never had a residence for even as long as 1 month
in one locality. Between these two extremes there was a marginal
group whose longest stay in one community was less than a year.
The proportions of stable, unstable, and marginal families have first
been measured in terms of the length of residence in a community;
and, second, these proportions have been compared with a report of
families' opinions as to whether they had ever maintained a "permanent" settled residence.
Length of Residence
Families Wuhout Residence
To facilitate a detailed examination of the background of migrant
families, they were divided into two groups on the basis of whether
or not they had, at any time since January 1, 1929, a reside11,U as
I
The relationship between year of family formation and degree of mobility ia
discussed on pp. 68-70.
1
o,g111lcd by
Goog Ie
THE BACKGROUND OF MIGRATION• 61
defined in this study; i.e., a continuous stay in one community for a
period of 1 month or more without relief from a transient bureau.
While the existence of a residence according to this definition reveals
little about stability, the absence of any residence obviously indicates
instability. The classification adopted thus separates from the total
group these families which were most highly mobile prior to their
transient relief history. The distribution of the families according to
whether they had ever bad a residence is presented in table 8. Only
4 percent of the families bad never maintained a residence of as long
as 1 month. The remaining 96 percent had one or more residences
of durations that represent a wide range of mobility.
Ta&le &.-Residence Status of Migrant Families
Migrant
families
Residence lliatus
Total ................................................................................. .
6,tsll
Percent
distribution
__100_
Total_.................................................................................. ..._
Residence or I month or longer since 1929 or slnl'e formation If subsequent to that date..........
No residence or 1 month or longer since 19'8 or since formation If subsequent to that date.....
116
•
Although the small group with no residence appears to have been
almost completely adrift, consideration must be given to the length
of time during which it was possible for them to have had residences.
Tal>le 9.-Year of Formation of Migrant Families Having No Residence of 1 Month or
Longer Since January 1 , 1929 1
Migrant
families
having no
Year or formation
resldenl'e
or I month
or longer
Total ................................................................................. -
240
Percent
distribution
Total..................................................................................
100
!----
Prior to 1929 .••....••..•.••.•.•....•.•..•.... _.... ·..... ...•. •.. . .•• ... . ...• •. .• . .. .•. . . .•• • . .
11
1929 .•.•••..•..•.•.•......•....•...• _. .•. . . • . • • _.•. _•......•.•.• -·· _.......•.....•••.. -. .• ..
1930 .....•....••....•. ·•·· ..•..•............. _..................•..•...•. -. . .. .. .... .. . • .. . ...
1
1
2
2
II
24
6G
1931..........................................................................................
1932_··············································•··•···········-·······················•···
1933..........................................................................................
193' .• ••••••• ••••• •••••••• .••••.•.•.•••..•••••.•••••••••••••••••••.•••.••••••. ·•·· .• •• . •• •••••
1935......•..........•••....••.••..•.. ···•·• .•.•••...•••.•.••. ·••·•· •..•.• ••·•·· .• ••..••..•• ••
1
For families formed since Janwary 1, 1929, the period under consideration begins with date or mar'riage.
NOTJ:.-2 ramJlles, wh099 year or formation was not ascertainable, are not included.
D1911 zed by
Goog Ie
62 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
About one-tenth of the families with no residence since January I,
1929, were formed prior to 1929. A closer approach to absolute
instability than that represented by these cases is difficult to imagine.
But more than one-half of the families with no residence were formed
sometime during the 9 months between January 1935 and the date of
interview, and an additional one-fourth were formed during 1934
(table 9). Thus, while the existence of families without residence
histories implied the presence of a habitually unstable group, their
habits in a majority of cases had not been formed over a long period of
time.
Famdiea With Remdence
When the duration of residences is examined, it is found that between January 1, 1929, and September 1935 over half (56 percent) of
the families included among their residences a stay of at least 3 years
in one community (table 10). An additional one-fourth (26 percent)
had remained in one locality from 1 to 3 years. In judging this evidence, it is necessary to consider that nearly half of all the family
groups were formed since January 1, 1929, and that 1 to 3 years would
account for all of the time since marriage for many of these families.
In addition to the fact that 82 percent of the families had lived in
one place for at least 1 year since the depression began, it should be
noted that over 20 percent of all residences other than the longest
also lasted at least 1 year. These residences were necessarily maintained by families among the 82 percent whose longest residence was
of equal or greater duration.
Ta&le 10.-0uration of Residences of Migrant Families Since January 1, 1929 1
R~idenl'('S
Duration or rl't'idrnce or I month or JnnRl'f
Othrr tb1111
longest re!!i•
dences •
Lon~t'St
resi•
denoe •
TotaJ. __________________ . _. ___ . _. _----· _. _______ . _______ . ___ . ____ ..... __ ...
!1.181
11,211
Percent dlstrlbutbn
TotaL ... ··------·-· .. •-··-··· ··-··· .... ··-·---·- ......... ·-··· ... ·-......
Less than 1 yPar. ··························-·········-·····•··········•··•· ......
1-2.9month•--·····-·•······················································
lh'i.9months.-.............................................................
6-11.9 months_.···-···········-·-·-·-·-···-·············-······· ........... _
1-2.9 years......................................................... .. . . ..........
3 years or more ............. _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100
100
18
3
~
'IV
21!
27
10
a4
26
19
2
1-----f----
541
1 For families formed since January 1, 11129, the period under consideration begins with dat~ of msrriagP.
• 308 families, which bad no residence or 1 month or longer since January 1, 11129, or since formation if
subsequent to that date, and those for whom the duration of longest residence was not ascertainable, are
not Included.
• 208 resldeoces, for which duration was not ascertainable, are not Included.
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
THE BACKGROUND OF MIGRATION • 63
There remains, however, a minority group of families (18 percent)
whose longest residence lasted less than 1 year. These families were
clearly marginal as to stability. About half of these families had
never remained in one locality longer than 6 months and must be
considered more mobile than stable. Some of these families, however, were formed during the year the study was made.
It is now possible, in the light of the data. that have been given, to
establish tentatively the proportions of families having backgrounds
of stability. The families clearly unstable do not constitute a large
group. They are represented by the families which had no residences
at all, plus those whose longest residence was of very short duration.'
These two groups, comprising one-fifth of all families, were actually
unstable or marginal as to stability. But the other four-fifths had a
stable background of a residence lasting from 1 to 3 or more years
since 1929.
Stability Memured In Tenu of Family Opinion
The arbitrary basis upon which the characteristics of stability and
instability were measured was realized at the time the study was
planned, and a means of verifying or rejecting length of residence as
a measure of stability was included. In addition to an account of
the duration of their residences, all families were asked whether they
had ever had a residence which they considered to be a permanent
settlement 6 for the family group. The distinction between length of
stay in a community and the families' attitudes toward the permanence
of their stay is clearly illustrated in the history of the Allen family:
The Allens lived in Boston, M888., from 1924 to 1930 where Mr. Allen was
steadily employed as a machinist. In 1930 slack work and reduced earnings
caused Mr. Allen to take a job as a traveling representative for a mill machinery
company. The Boston home was abandoned and the family traveled with the
head. After a year the job failed and left the Allens stranded in Memphis.
For 2½ years Mr. Allen supported his family in Memphis by working 88 a
painter. But the Allen family did not consider their stay in Tennessee to be a
settled residence because Mr. Allen could not get work at his real trade. The
Allens left Memphis at the first opportunity.
Because of situations similar to the one just described, it would be
unwise to attempt final judgment about ft1.mily stability without considering whether or not the families felt that a stay in a particular
community represented settlement. To a certain degree, attitudes
toward settled residence are independent of time and provide a check
upon tentative conclusions based upon length of residence.
4 The high mobility of the group is qualified in so far 88 some of the families
were so recently formed that a "longest residence" of less than a year would
include most of their residence history periods.
• Settled residence is used to convey the idea of seeming permanence in contrast
with the more or less temporary nature of a residence. See footnote 1, p. 59,
D1g1t1zcd by
Google
64 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
In the discussion of the reasons for leaving settled residence (see
ch. I), it was noted that about four-fifths of all the families interviewed
had, according to their individual standards of judgment, thought of
themselves as permanent residents of some community at some time
since 1929. The remaining one-fifth of the families, which considered
that they had not been settled since 1929 (or since the date of marriage
if the family was formed after that date), were excluded from the
tabulations of reasons for migration. 8 According to the opinions of
the families themselves, four-fifths thus had a residence that they
considered a settlement and one-fifth lacked this evidence of prior
stability.
In order to collate this subjective test of stability with the test
based upon length-of-residence records, a comparable time-period
must be established. The table below provides the basis of comparison by showing when the families which had once considered themselves settled in a given community had left that community.
Ta&le 17.-Year Migrant Families Left Settled Residence
Mignmt
Year of leaving 1111ttled residence
families
Total ...•..............................................................•....•..........
Percent
dlatributlon
Total...................................................................................
No settled residtmce.............................. .. . .... .. ... ....... .... ................. ....
With settled residence........................................................................
100
t---21
79
f:n Fnr1f~ !~:::::: ::::::::::: :::: :: :: :: ::: ::: ::::::::::: :::: :::::::::::::::: ::::: :: ::
Left in 1930 .•.•.................... ····· ............. .. . .. .... .. ..............•........ ..
Left in 1931 .. ···································•·· ····•··· ..............................
Left in 1932......................... ...... ........ ..... ..................................
Left in 1933. •• •••••.•••.•.•.......... .. ... •.. ... . ..... . . ....•.....•.....................•
Left in 1934... .......................................... ......... ... ... ..................
Left in 1935..............................................................................
:I
I
6
11
:11
%1
Nou.-10 families, for which date of leaving 1111ttled residence was not ascertainable, are not Included.
Accepting as a measure of stability the existence of a settlement
considered by the family to have been permanent, it mo.y seem at
first that the results here are almost identical with those obtained
from the data on length of residence. There it was found that 82
percent of the families had lived in one place for 1 year or longer since
1929; but further considerations show that before direct comparison
can be made, two adjustments are necessary. In the first place not
all of the families which had at one time had a settlement were stable
by habit. It seems logical to exclude in table 11 the 3 percent of all
families whose la.st settlement had terminated before 1929, inasmuch
• See p. 1, footnote 1.
Digrt zed by
Goog Ie
THE BACKGROUND OF MIGRATION •
65
as the lapse of time indicates the rootless type of existence found
among chronic wanderers. In addition the 3 percent who left their
last settled residence during 1929 should also be excluded in the interest
of comparability since few of these families would have maintained a
residence for as long as 1 year since January 1, 1929.
li this 6 percent is deducted from the proportion of families which
had a settled residence, the original 79 percent (table 11) is reduced t.o
73 percent; and it is this proportion that may be used t.o check the
earlier provisional estimate of the size of the stable group (82 percent)
based upon length of residence. The difference (9 percent) in stability
as determined by these two measures is logical. Length of residence
as a measure requires that families be considered as stable if they
remained in a community for 1 year or more, even though they establish no permanent ties; at the same time, families' opinions as t.o last
place of settlement requires inclusion of those which intended t.o
remain but had no means of establishing lasting ties.
The important point t.o be noted is not so much the difference as
the agreement between the results determined by the two measures
of stability. Over half of the families left their last place of settlement
in 1934 and 1935 (table 11), and about the same proportion (table 10)
had a residence of 3 years or more between 1929 and 1935. It seems
possible to conclude from the two sets of data that about threequarters of the families in the study of transient bureau cases had the
characteristics of stable, self-supporting families prior t.o their transient
relief hist.ory.
MOBILITY BEFORE TRANSIENT RELIEF
In deriving measures of stability from the residence history prior
to application for transient relief, family mobility has been implied
as the complement of stability, but has not been fully described. It is
worth while to consider the backgrounds of migrant families from the
point of view of moves rather than, as heret.ofore, from the point
of view of residences.
To distinguish periods of mobility from periods of immobility, use
will again be made of the arbitrary definition of a residence as a
stay of 30 days or more in one community. The application of this
definition immediately classified 4 percent of the families as extremely
mobile, since it has been shown (table 8) that this proportion of families had no residence since January 1, 1929. Nothing is to be gained
from further analysis of this small group, and they will be excluded
with the warning that their high mobility is in part attributable t.o
recency of formation. The degrees of mobility represented by the
remaining 96 percent of the families will be determined by indicating
(1) the continuity of residence and (2) the number of residence
changes.
Digit,zea oy
G oog Ie
66 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
Continuity of Residence
An unbroken sequence of residences, even though there are changes
of community over a period of years, may reflect no more than the
occasional move that is a commonplace in American life. A break in
the sequence, however, specifically indicates periods during which no
residence was maintained and consequently reflects some degree of
instability. For the purpose of the present discussion, a continuous
residence history is defined as one in which the time elapsing between
terminating a residence (of 1 month or more) in one community and
establishing a new residence (of 1 month or more) in another community did not exceed 30 days. A noncontinUO'US residence history is
one in which there is a period (or periods) of 30 days or longer between
quitting a residence in one locality and establishing it in another. 7
The results of applying this definition of residence continuity to all
families which had a residence history are presented in table 12.
Nearly four-fifths of these families had continuous residence histories
for upwards of 6 years between January 1, 1929, and the date of
quitting their last residence prior to application for transient relief.
A break of 30 days or more in the residence histories of the remaining
one-fifth indicates the existence of one period or more of protracted
mobility.
To&le U.-Nature of Residence Histories of Migrant Families Since 1929 1
Migrant
families
Nature of residence histories
TolaL ..•.................... -- -......•......•. -···- ···•···••·•····-· -· -· · ·· ···- · -·· -
5,247
Percent
distribution
Total. .•.............. _.............•........••••................••••...•.•.•.•.•... __
Continuous __ _
Noncontinuous __ _
JOO
7\l
21
• For families formed since January I, 1929, the period under consideration begins with date of maniage.
NoTE.-2◄2 families, which had no residence of I month or longer since January I, 19211, or since formation
If subsequent to that date, are not included.
It must be noted, however, that the distinction between families on
the basis of the continuity of their residence histories is incomplete as
a measure of mobility. The families with continuous residence histories which had moved from one locality to another several times
were obviously less stable than those whose changes of residence were
few. Likewise, varying degrees of mobility would be represented
among families with noncontinuous residence histories. The fore7 The same distinction applies to families whose formation occurred after
January 1, 1929. In such cases a lapse of 30 days or more between marriage and
first residence constituted a break in residence continuity
Dig111zed by
Goog Ie
THE BACKGROUND OF MIGRATION • 6 7
going information, therefore, must be supplemented by data on
the number of residence changes made by families with continuous
and with noncontinuous histories.
Number of Residence Changes
Approximately half of the families had either not changed their
community 8 of residence at all or no more than once prior to the
migration that led to transient relief (table 13). An additional 18
percent changed their place of residence twice only during the same
interval. Thus, according to this measure, the mobility of a large
majority of families was clearly restricted during the period examined.
Actually, only the very few families which had changed their community of residence five or more times could be considered to have
been highly mobile.
Ta&le 13.-Residence Changes of Migrant Families Between January 1, 1929,1 and
First Transient Bureau Registration
Migrant
families
Residence changes
Total .•..•...••.....•.•......•........•......•••.•.•.......••....•......•.•••.••......
5,218
Pereent
distribution
Total •••••.•.•....•.•••••••.....••..••..•.•.•••....••••.•••••••••••••.•••.•.•••.•••....
100
No change •••..............••••.•.•.•.••............•..•.....•••...•...•.•...•..•..•.........
1 change ..••.........................•......•........•.........•.••...•......................
2
changes ........................•...••....•....•.....•.•...•.•.•.•.•...•.•...................
3 changes
___ • ________________________ • _______________________________________________ • ______ _
30
4 changes ................. . ...•...........•....................................•..............
5 changes or more ........................................................................... .
21
18
11
6
14
• For families formed since January I, IY29, the 1,>eriod under consideration begins with date ol marriage.
NOTE.-271 lamilies, which had no residence of 1 month or longer sinee January 1, 1929, or since formation
W8" not a:;cert11in11ble, are
If subs,,quent lo that date and those for which the number of r•sideure clumges
not included.
The analysis of the number of community changes leads to the same
conclusion about the mobility of migrant families during the residence
history period that was indicated by the previous examination of the
length of residence within a community and by the families' opinion
as to whether they had a settled residence.
However, some of the families which had changed their residence
no more than one or two times also had noncontinuous residence histories. Since a noncontinuous residence history indicates that the
process of changing communities involved periods of mobility lasting
at least as long as a month, and perhaps much longer, these families
were actually more mobile than the tabulation of number of com1
Changes within a community are uot included among changes of residence.
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog1C
68 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
munity changes shows. The presence of such families does not, however, materially alter the conclusions suggested in table 13. Only 10
percent of the families changed residence no more than twice but had
a noncontinuous residence history. This group is more than balanced
by 20 percent of the families which moved three times or more and
still had continuous residence histories (table 14).
Ta&le 14.-Type of Residence History and Residence Changes of Migrant Families Since
January 1 , 1929 1
Mifi!TSDt
families
Residence changes and type of residence history
Total ............. _.................. - ................ -- .. ·-·-·-- .. ---·-···-·---·-···..
Continuous history .................. _............................. -............. _... __ •.•. _.
Noncontinuous history ••••••••.•••••••••.• __ .•.•.• _...•.•.....•••.•••••.•....•.•••.•.•.• -·...
---5,218
4,145
I, 073
Percent
distribution
Total .•.••.•.•••.••••..••.•.•...•••••••• _.•••.....•.•••••..••.•.•••..••.•••••..•••••...
JOO
Continuous history ........ ······- __ ..... --····--·· ........ __ ... --· .. -·--····· ............. _.
No change •.. __ ...... __ . _______ . __ .-·- ..... __ ...... ·-.-·· ____ .. -·-- .. __ .. -·--- ... __ ..... .
I change_ .•. ··- __ ..... ----·- .. _. __ .....•.. _.............. ·- ..... -···· .... _.. ·-.-- ... -.. ..
2 changes_ ........... ___ .. _. __ .... __ ............... _.. ··-··· ...... - ... _... __ .. _.... --·-_ ..
3 changes...... __ ..... ____ .... ____ ..• __ ............ __ . __ ...... __ ...... . ... _.. _... _... _... .
4 changes ........ _... _... _____ . __ .. _-· ____ .. ____ -· __ ..• ____ -··-·· .. _.... _________________ _
5 changes or more.··-· ............ _···-···· ...... ··- __ .. -······· ..... _.... _........... ___
79
19
Noncontinuous history .. __ ...... _.... -·-··· .... _............ -····--··_ ...................... .
No change ..• ___ ._ ..... ____ •... _._._._ .•.•... _._ •.... _._ .......... __ ._ .. __ ...... _.•. _... .
I change ...... -· ....... _.. __ .. __ .. _.. -· ..... _.. __ .... _............. _.. _..... ___ .. ____ .. _
2 changes ....• _........... _.. _....... ··------·--- ................. _........... . .... _.. _.. _
3 changes........ _.... -·- .... _.... ··- ... --··· ..... _....... _..... -· ................. _.. ___ _
4 changes __ . ____ .............. __ ................. . ........ . ..... . ....... .. ........... _.. ..
6 changes or more ___ .. _-··-· ___ ........... __ ..................... ____ .. ___ .............. .
21
2
26
H
8
4
8
4
4
3
2
e
• For familles formed since January I, 1929, the period under consideration begins with date of marriage.
Non:.-271 familles, which had no residence of 1 month or longer since January I, 1929, or since formation
If subsequent to that date, are not included.
·
MOBILITY AND YEAR OF FORMATION
Throughout the preceding discussion there have been frequent
reminders that nearly half of the families included in this study were
formed after January 1, 1929, the date selected for the beginning of
the residence histories. The fact that so large a proportion of the
families was exposed to the forces causing mobility for less than the
full period under examination raises a question as to the validity of
number of residence changes in measuring mobility. It may well be
asked, for example, whether the large proportion of families-69 percent-which changed community of residence no more than twice indicates a low degree of mobility or simply a short period of existence as
families.
The conclusion that at least a substantial majority of the families
had a background of stability can carry little weight until the time
Dig rt zed by
Goog IC
THE BACKGROUND OF MIGRATION •
69
factor has been examined. It becomes important, therefore, to discover the relationship between mobility and year of formation. The
families with residence histories were distributed by year of formation
as shown in table 15.
To&le 75.-Year of Migrant Family Formation
Migrant
families
Year or formation
Total _______ ----- - ------------········-·-·····- --· -· -···-·······················-· -·- -Percent
distribution
Total •••••••• __ • ··- __ ••••••• _••• _••••••••••••• __ •• -· •••• -··· ••• -···· ···--· ___ • ___ • ___ • _
100
---67
Prior to 192IL ______ ------------------ _________________ ----------------------- ______________ . _
1929
-------------------------- _______________ •------·-----------------------__
I 930 ________________
_________________________________________________________
______ ____ ______ _____ ___ ________
1111
1931 _____
------------------------------------------------------------------·------------------1932
________________________________
--------------------- ________ __ __ __ ___ __ ______ __ __ __ ___ ___
lO'J3__________________________________________________________________________________________
1111
8
19'!4 __ -- - - - --- - - - -- -- - - - -- - - --- - -- ------ - ----- ----- - - - -- ------ --- - ---- -- --- - ---- -- -- -- ---- -- __
8
193.5_ -- - -- -- - - --- - -- ---- ----- - - - ---- ----- ___ -- - - -- - - -- -- _-- -- --- --- --- ---- ---- _-- ----------- --
3
NOTE.-293 families, which bad no residence of 1 month or longer since January 1. 1929, or since formation
II subsequent to that date, and those whose year ol lormatlon was not ascertainable, are not included,
The next step is to examine the number of moves made by families
formed in each of the years to discover the source of the large proportion of families with no more than two changes of residence between
1929 and 1935. The results of this examination are presented m
table 16.
To&le 7d.-Year of Formation and Residence Changes of Migrant Families
Total
Residence changes
Year of formation
Number
Percent
None
2
5ormore
4
3
--------- ------------------21
100
30
18
II
13
7
Total------·------------6,167
---•---+---- -7 - - -15
Prior to 1929_,_________ ·---·-·2,928
31
100
15
20
12
1929 __ --- ----------------------
315
1910 __ -- -----------------------
1931. -------------------------1932
--- -----)OXJ____ -__ --_ __ ----------____________________
330
304
319
388
111.'!4_ -------------------------]1135 __ ----- ---- ------ -- --------
423
160
100
100
JOO
JOO
100
JOO
100
13
15
18
19
29
47
79
26
20
29
33
34
37
18
17
21
20
17
19
10
3
16
15
13
10
8
3
Q
20
8
9
21
11
10
4
I
11
II
2
NOTE.-322 families, which had no residence ol I month or longer since January 1, 1929. or since formation
If subsequent to that date, and those whose year of formation or the number ol residence changes was not
ascertainable, are not included.
It may be seen that both the number and percent distributions of
moves made by families formed in the years 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932
were much the same. More important, the percent distribution of
moves made by families formed in these years was closely parallel to
that for all families formed prior to 1929. Referring again to table 15,
it will be noted that families formed in years up to and including 1932
comprised more than four-fi.f ths of all the families studied.
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
70 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Families formed in 1933, 1934, and 1935 did, of course, make fewer
moves than families formed in earlier years (table 16). But the difference becomes pronounced only among families formed in 1934 and
1935; and these families make up too small a proportion of all families
to bias the results unduly. It follows, then, that the conclusion concerning relatively low mobility of all families is not invalidated by the
presence of families so newly formed that they have not yet had time
to make more than one or two moves.
Mobility Rate of Recently Formed Families
Table 16 suggests that families formed after 1929 were relatively
more mobile than families formed prior to 1929, inasmuch as the percent distribution of moves was about the same, while the time of exposure to mobility was less. In order to measure this increasing tendency to mobility, the moves made by families formed in each of the
several years must be adjusted to take into account for the period of
exposure. Families formed prior to 1929 can be excluded because they
existed during the full period, and the particular year of formation
prior to 1929 is not reported. Likewise, the families formed in 1935
must be excluded because they were interviewed before the end of the
year (September).
When the mean number of moves made since formation for each
year-of-formation group is adjusted for length of exposure-by dividing by the average number of years since formation 9-a significant
trend in mobility is disclosed (table 17).
TaMe 77.-Avera9e
I
Numbcu of Residence Chan9es Made per Year by Mi9rant
Families, by Year of Formation
Average
Avern~e
numberof number of
residence years since
rormachan~es
since forlion to
mation
1935
Y~ar or rormstlon
1929...........
rn:m............
······-···--·•-·--···
. .................... .
1931. ..•....... -·
. _. . _ . . ...... . . _.. -- ---- · • -- ..... .. .... .
IU:i:? .
_____ _•. _ • . . ·- •-- . . _
.•. ____________________ .••
111:13 . -··-·-•·-·· --· .•.....
iu:14 .... ---· ----- . . . . .
2.85
3. 08
2. 28
2.08
I. 4i
o. 8:1
fl.2"
5. 25
4. 25
3. 25
2.25
1.25
Average
number or
n>sidence
ch11nies
per y~...0. 46
0. 511
0. 5-i
0.64
0.6.S
0. 61.1
1 Arithmetic mean.
The more recently a family was formed, the more mobile it was in
relation to the length of time it had been formed. The trend disclosed indicates that family mobility tended to be greatest soon after
marriage and before the families could gain a foothold in a community. 10
9 The average number of years since family formation was computed with consideration to:(]) the fact that families formed during a given year had an average
exposure of half of that year, and (2) the year of interview was three-quarters
completed when this study was made.
10 The coefficient of ra11k correlation betwee11 mean number of moves and year
of formation i.1i (p= .94) a llignificant value.
D1g111zcd by
Goog 1C
THE BACKGROUND OF MIGRATION • 71
MOBILITY OF SETTLED AND UNSETTLED FAMILIES
When changes in community of residence are reduced to annual
rates of change, 11 it is found that the rate for all the families as a group
increased progressively from 1929 to 1934 (table 18). However, the
1929-1934 trend in the annual rate of change differed significantly
according to the families' background during the years preceding their
application for transient relief.
Ta&le 18.-Yearly Rate of Residence Change of Migrant Families by Family Settlement
Status and by Year of Change
Migrant families
Year of residence change
With
Total
Tot.al. .............................. -· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
?-ettll'd
residence
&,036
With no
settled
rcsidenro
4,210
826
25
29
29
31
42
57
M7
Yearly rate of residence change per 100 familil'.s
)'l'.'11 ..•••••.•.•••••••.•••.•••••••••••••••.•••.•••••.•••••••••••••••••
30
W!O ..•••••••••••••.•••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••
)9'11. ••••••••.•••.•••••••••••••••.•••.••••••••••.•••.•••....••.•.••••
l!l:l' .....•.....•..................••...•...•...••................••..
35
38
193-4 ..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..
40
63
1\1:~1 .....................•...........................................
3,)
96
94
93
9~
94
Non.-453 families, which bad no residence of I month or longer since January 1, W:tll, or since formation
ii subsequent to that date, those formed in 193,>, and those whose year of formation, year of residence change,
or number of residence changes was not ascertainahle, are not included.
The yearly rate of residence change was calculated according to:
,-R-t\c X
100, In which
A-the number of rf'Sidence changes made in a given year.
H=the number of families !orm,•<I prior to that year.
c-1 be number of familil'.s formed during that year. ThLs value is rli,·i<led by 2 because the avel"Rlte exposure
of these families was for H of the year in which they were formed.
It will be recalled that when the families' opinion as to whethPr they
had maintained a settled residence was used to measure stnbility,' 2
the families were divided into two groups of unequal size: four-fifths
had a residence they considered as settled and one-fifth had no such
residence between January 1, 1929, and the receipt of transient relief.
Among the first group, families having had a settled residence, the
rate of community change was 25 per 100 families in 1929; it rose to
31 per 100 in 1932; and reached 57 per 100 families in 1934 (table 18).
11 The frequency of the mobility of family groups for any given year was
determined by considering the number of community changes made during the
year in terms of the number of families in existence that year. It is expressed as
an annual rate of community change; that is, as the number of changes during
each year per 100 families involved.
The calculation of the yearly rate of residence change is somewhat involved
because nearly half of the families were formed during the period under consideration. See note to table 18.
12 Sec discussion of Stability Measured in Terms of Family Opinion (pp. 63-65).
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog IC
72 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Among the families which had no settled residence, the rate showed
no such progressive increase. It remained close to 95 for each 100
families and showed little variation throughout the period 1929 to
1934. The comparatively high mobility of the families in this group
cannot be explained in terms of the prolongation of the depression,
since their rate of residence change was almost as high when the
depression began as it was 5 years later.
In part, the consistently high mobility of this group resulted from
the nature of the occupations followed by many families. Migratorycasual work, necessitating frequent change of residence as a normal
part of the process of earning a living, accounted for many of the
families which had never maintained a settled residence.
Doubtless other reasons also played a part in the mobility of this
group. Personality defects, alcoholism, and similar conditions, if
characteristic of the economic head of a family, affect the ability of a
family to maintain itself permanently in a given locality. Many of
the families with persistently high rates of residence change presented
such problems and could only have been rehabilitated by extremely
careful social direction.
By far the larger group of families, however, were displaced by
adverse economic pressure. It would seem, therefore, that normal
readjustment for such families would require, first of all, the correction of the factor which had been primarily responsible for their
migration. Adequate employment would have solved the transient
problem presented by the great majority of the families which received
assistance from transient bureaus.
The information in this chapter on the background of migrant
family mobility leaves little doubt that the majority of the families
had been habitually settled and self-supporting in the past. Granted
an increase in opportunities for employment, there is no reason for
supposing that they would not have shortly resumed their normal way
of living.
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
Chapter IV
MIGRANT FAMILIES AND THE TRANSIENT
PROGRAM
FROM THE point of view of the citizens of each community, the
out-of-State and out-of-town needy who asked for relief during the
depression were not their responsibility. It was soon evident, however, that refusing to assist migrants was of little effect; it neither
"prevented" migration nor solved the problem of immediate and
pressing need. The fact that the out-of-town applicant may have
been the legal responsibility of some other community was of little
help, for there were no means by which this responsibility could be
invoked. AB a result there was a widespread demand that the
Federal Government take responsibility for the nonresident in need.
The initiation of a relief program for what came to be known as
"transients" was, therefore, a logical development when the Federal
Government, through the Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
took the leading role in providing direct relief for the unemployed.
The FERA first established throughout the United States a uniform
requirement of 1 year's State residence for general relief. Then, in
cooperation with 47 States and the District of Columbia 1 transient
bureaus were established to aid those who could not meet this I-year
requirement. On this basis, the transient program continued in
operation from the fall of 1933 until the intake of new cases was
closed on September 20, 1935. During this period the transient
program assisted approximately 200,000 different families containing
some 700,000 individual members, 3 in addition to an even larger
number of unattached individuals traveling alone.
Vermont did not operate a transient program.
Thie estimate ie based upon the total family intake during the operation of
the FERA transient program (in the neighborhood of 300,000 families), adjusted
to account for the families registering more than one time. The mean number
of etays per family under care was 1.5 (table 22).
After the close of intake the transient program continued to give assistance
for well over a year to thousands of cases under care at the time intake was
closed. A limited number of cases, principally former registrants, were admitted
to care after the intake of new cases was stopped.
1
1
73
Dig rt zed by
Goog IC
74 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Throughout its life the merit of the transient program was the
subject of much dispute. To a considerable extent the controversy
was based upon the unavoidable confusion that attended the initiation and operation of a totally new relief program. Although the
debate over the merits of the program has not completely died away,
the confusion has, and it is now possible on the basis of this study to
provide some factual analysis of the transient program in relation to
the depression migration of needy families.
THE MIGRATION THAT LED TO TRANSIENT RELIEF
·· Before turning to the record of migrant family mobility within the
transient program itself, it is necessary to examine the mobility of
the families immediately prior to their first transient bureau registration. Their last residence could have been terminated only under
two conditions: 3 either (1) upon departure from the community or
(2) upon application for transient relief in the community of last
residence. Table 19 indicates the proportion of families whose last
residence was terminated by migration and those terminated by
application for transient relief in the community of last residence.
Ta&le 19.-Place of First Transient Bureau Registration of Migrant Families
Mil!J'8nt
families
Place of first transient bureau registration
Total .••••.•.••••..••.............•..•.•••.•••..••••.••••••••••••••••••.••••.•••.•.....
5,237
PerCt'nt
distribution
___100_
Total.................................................................................. ,
Reg,isterorl in place of last residence.... .... ...... .. . . .... .. ...... ........... ...............
Registered in place other than last residence ................................................
39
61
1
NoTE.-2.'i2 families, which had no re.sidence of I month or longer since January I, 1929,orsincelormation
ii suhsuquent to that date, and whose place of first transient bureau registration was not ascertainable, are
not included.
The first transient bureau registration of 61 percent of all families
was in a community other than the community of their last residence.
For these families registration was immediately preceded by mobility.
A variety of circumstances necessitated the first registration of these
families. Some had run out of money en route to their original destination. Some had reached and departed from their original destination, and had first registered on their way to a subsequent destination.
Others, upon arriving at their original destination or at a subsequent
destination, immediately found themselves in acute distress when
anticipated help did not materialize.
1 The definition of a residence specified (a) that the family stay at least 1
month in a community and (b) that it receive no transient relief.
D1g1t zed by
Goos IC
MIGRANT FAMILIES AND THE TRANSIENT PROGRAM •
75
Obviously, an essential function of the transient relief program was
to relieve this sort of distress. It would be expected that the families
which never had a residence and those which were not at their last
place of residence would make up most of the cases to whom transient
relief would be necessary. In fact, these two groups combined did
comprise a substantial majority of the migrant families. But table 19
reveals the existence of another group whose first stay at a transient
bureau was in the place of their last residence of 30 days or longer.
In view of the popular concept of transient relief cases as consisting
of needy persons en route, it may seem odd that 39 percent of a representative sample of families under transient bureau care should have
obtained assistance in the same community in which they had maintained their last residence. Moreover, very few of these families had
traveled to other localities and then returned (table 20). For most
of them no mobility whatever intervened between last residence and
transient relief.
Since a residence was by definition a stay of 1 month or more
within a given community, these families did not register for transient
relief until they had already lived for at least 1 month in the community where they applied. Actually, a substantial proportion had
lived in the community for 6 months or more. Thus, even though
these families had been mobile at some time in the past, they had
completed their migration at least temporarily before they applied for
transient relief.
Time Elapsed Betwnn Last Residence and First Re9i1tration
The intervening period between the last residence and the first
transient relief involved a lapse of less than 1 month for 73 percent
Tot.le 20.-Time Elapsed Between Leaving Last Residence and First Transient Bureau
Registratlon of Migrant Families, by Place of Fir1t Registration
Time elapsed
Total .............................................. ·......... .
Registered
in plat'O
Re~ist.eroo
other than
in place
last resi•
of last
dence
residence
Total
5,170
2,964
2,200
Percent distribution
Total.........................................................
Less than 1.0 month................................................
1.0-l.9months......................................................
2.0-2.9
months______________________________________________________
3.0-5.9 months......................................................
6.0 months or more.................................................
100
100
100
73
56
143
4
22
6
7
g
116
3•
-----1----1----
6
•Less than 0.5 percent.
Non.-319families, which hllll no residence of I month or lon~er sin"" Jam,ary t. 1929. or since lorm,.tion
II subsequent to that date, and whose place of first 1.r,,nsient hureau regislrntion or lime elapsed between last
residence and first transient bureau registration was not ascertainable, are not mciu<led.
Digil1zcd by
G oog IC
76 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
of the families (table 20). Practically all of the group which first
registered at their place of last residence had done so within a month
of the termination of their last residence. Because the last residence
of these families ended by definition with their first transient relief,
the transition in most cases did not involve any lapse of time whatever. The 4 percent of this group that registered for relief afu-r
1 month had passed represents those who, migrating from their community of last residence to seek employment or help, eventually
returned to their last residence and applied for transient relief.
Those families which first registered for transient relief in a. different
community from their last residence were generally mobile for only
a. short period of time before applying for relief. Well over half of
these families had registered for relief within 1 month, and nearly
four-fifths had registered within 2 months of leaving their last residence. On the ·other hand, 16 percent of these families did not receive
assistance at a transient bureau until more than 3 months had passed.
Although they may have remained in one locality, or in several, for a
short time before moving on to another place, this entire interval
must be considered one of wandering, since the stopovers were in no
case for as long as 1 month. Inasmuch as these families were ineligible
for resident relief and did not seek transient relief, they had other
means of support-either reserve funds or, more frequently, migratory work-during this period of wandering.
THE EFFECT OF THE TRANSIENT PROGRAM UPON MOBILITY
"Uncle Sam's Hotels"
The transient program was frequently charged with "encouraging
transiency." According to one commonly expressed opinion the
transient program subsidized large numbers of undeserving people
who were wandering aimlessly about the country. Transient bureaus,
it was held, provided free and convenient accommodations for sightseers touring the country. Two editorials illustrate this fairly common
point of view:
The Times has not cared for the transient bureau idea nationally. It has
aggravated, not mitigated the nuisance of wandering, jobless boys, many of them
touring the country for the fun of it, and of professional hoboes doing the same.
This applies to the families also.'
In the past two years, transients have been able to travel in comparative comfort
through the aid of "Uncle Sam's hotels" scattered from one end of the nation
to the other. Most of the itinerants make no pretension of staying at one place.
They blithely skipped from one camp to another, seeing the country while the
government footed the bills.•
The acceptance of such opinions is not difficult to understand.
A small part of the migrant family population did consist of chronic
'El Paso Times, El Paso, Tex., September 16, 1935.
5 Pueblo Chieftain, Pueblo, Colo., November 8, 1935.
Digit,zea oy
G oog Ie
MIGRANT FAMILIES AND THE TRANSIENT PROGRAM• 77
wanderers. Although these families were few in number, their
seemingly aimless mobility and frequent requests for aid called attention to themselves so forcibly that it was natural, though erroneous,
to consider them representative of migrants in general. A small
group among the unattached was even more important in creating this
impression. An earlier study has pointed out that 7 to 8 percent of
the unattached transients receiving aid from the transient program
during 1935 reported that a desire for adventure was the reason for
their migration. 0 Thus, the extreme case, because of the attention it
attracted, was accepted as proof that all needy migrants were irresponsible and undeserving.
Hostility toward all needy migrants was nonetheless the prevailing
attitude in most communities. This attitude served to perpetuate
or to initiate the "passing on" policy; i.e., overnight care accompanied
by an order to leave town the next day, in dealing with these unwanted
guests. Indeed, this policy was the only solution, in most communities, that could find support among citizens harassed by the
mounting needs of the resident unemployed and the threat of increased
taxation to meet these needs. Thus, the attitude of the resident
population toward the migrant was in part responsible for the aimless
"wandering" that aroused so much criticism.
On the basis of the information obtained in the present sample
study, it is possible to test the validity of this criticism.
Tumover Rates
Turnover among migrant fnmilies in the transient bureaus can be
considered as having two forms. The first consisted of turnover
between the different transient bureaus within the national system
and is measured by the extent to which families moved about from
one bureau to another. The second type of turnover consisted
of the process by which the migrant fnmilies under care in the entire
program were renewed. This type is measured in terms of the rate
at which families entered and left the transient program, regardless
of moves they may have made from one bureau to another.
The records of the Division of Transient Activities report both
types of turnover without distinguishing between them. They report
total cases opened, total cases closed, and the number of families
under care during a 24-hour period on the 15th day of each month
(fig. 21 ). It is possible to determine from these figures the trends in
both types of turnover combined. The migrant family openings rate
(the number of cases opened throughout each month as a percent of
cases under care on the 15th day of each month) is shown in table 21
1 See Webb, John N., The Transient Unemployed, Research Monograph III,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
1935, p. 60 and table 24A.
D,g11lzcd by
Goog Ie
78 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
-
40
40
I
I
I
MIGRANT FAMILIES
;v-k
30
/.nder core on
V
.,..
3e
\
0
/
u
-'
Y1,-~r~
/
,,, ~
.
10
.,. _ ·;/·/
~
I'
'
Opened \
I0 -
\
Closed
.........,··
0
Jon
Apr
Jul
Oct
Jon
Apr
Oct
Jul
Dec O
1935
1934
400
400
I
I
I
UNATTACHED CASES
, __LI
fi\- r~TT
l \lJ
300
300
I
100
-
C~-~ .....
-:J-J::f
0 Jon
Apr
Jul
1934
'.
.
=
15th
Oct
'
~
Jon
Apr
Jul
Oct
I00
Dec: O
1935
FIG. 2I-NUMBER OF TRANSIENT BUREAU CASES OPENED AND CLOSED
DURING EACH MONTH At-0 NUMBER OF CASES UNDER
CARE ON THE 15 th OF EACH MONTH
February 1934 through September 1935
Source: Appendix tcble 12,
Digrt zed by
Goog Ie
MIGRANT FAMILIES AND THE TRANSIENT PROGRAM•
19
for the period February 1934 through September 1935, together with
the closings rate (the number of cases closed throughout the month
&EJ a. percent of the cases under care on the 15th day of each month).
Ta&le .27.-FERA Transient Program Openings and Closings of Migrant Family and
· '" Unattached Transient Cases During Each Month per 100 Cases Under Care at Midm~nth, February 1934 to Septeff\ber 1935
Migrant ramilles
-
Openings
Year and month
per 100
II
. '
under
care
11134
February ..••••.••••••••...••.............. , .......... .
March ...•.....•...••••....•..........................
~I::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.
June .•••••••••••••••••..•....••...•......•....•....•...
1uly ....••..••................•.........................
. August ......•.....•........•...........................
September.,•......••....•.•...........................
October ...........•..•.................................
November ..•..........................................
December...•. ·················•·.··- ......••..........
1835
January .••••••...••••••...•.•....•••••.••...•.•.••.... _
February •..••.....•..••.••...•........................
March .•••.•.••..........••.........•....•... ·•········
tf..~L:::: :: :: ::: :: ::::::::::::::::: :: ::: :::::::::::::::
June .•••••.•......•.•.•..•........•••......•..........
July...••.•••..•....••..•..•.....••.••.•....•....•.•....
August ......•.•.......•.•.............•................
September 1•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••...
-
Unattached transients
Closings
per 100
casee
C&.'188
under
care
under
care
56
38
57
51
59
43
47
52
52
53
118
53
49
60
M
72
118
118
61
42
30
32
37
40
45
46
53
51
3ll
Openings
per 100
39
37
34
31
3Y
40
46
ro
56
53
62
153
1111
234
265
279
301
Closings
per 100
cases
under
care
143
184
'O'I
255
268
2116
3211
321
280
256
2-16
211
156
203
1118
154
211
23.'\
2118
264
269
262
140
286
100
IM
155
214
242
264
273
271
268
162
• Intake or new casee cl-1 on September 20, 11135.
8olll't'8: Dlvlalon or Transient Activities, Federal Emeriiency Relief Administration. See a1"o appendix
table 12 or this report.
A little consideration will show that if the result of the transient
program had been the encouragement of transiency, a progressive
increase in mobility would be revealed in the rate of opening and
closing cases. This point can be demonstrated by reference to table
21. In 1934 the rate of opening family cases at transient bureaus
rose from 59 per 100 cases under care in May to 72 per 100 cases in
August. Clearly this is a. significant increase in mobility, but one
that is explained by the fact that the weather during the spring and
summer is favorable to mobility. In 1935 a similar seasonal increase
in mobility occurred, but it started at a lower point (45 per 100 cases)
in May and reached a lower point (51 per 100 cases) in August. The
number of families under care increased during this period. Discounting the seasonal factor there is evidence that the rate of openings for migrant families actually declined, whereas the rate would have
risen if the transient program had encouraged irresponsible wandering.
The behavior of the rates at which families applied for assistance
(cases opened) should, by themselves, provide sufficient indication
that transient relief was not the cause of increased mobility. But
additional evidence is available from the rates at which families left
C1grt zeo oy
Goos IC
80 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
transient bureaus. If families wandered about aimlessly, using the
bureaus simply as convenient stopover points, the closing raws
should have risen as rapidly as opening rates and there would have
been no such piling up of cases as is shown by the midmonthly count
of cases under care. That this was not the case is shown by the
behavior of the closing rate which did not equal or pass the opening
rate until April 1935 when the peak of the case load had been passed
and a voluntary liquidation of the migrant family population had
begun.
It is interesting to compare, in figure 22, the opening and c!osing
rates for migrant families and unattached cases. The higher transient bureau turnover of the unattached person moving about the
country without dependents is immediately apparent. Moreover,
the rates at which unattached cases were opened and closed increased
much more rapidly during the summer than the family rates. From
February to August 1934 the opening and closing rates for unattached
transients almost doubled. This tremendous increase in mobility is
shown by the almost vertical rise of the two curves in figure 22. During the same period of time the opening and closing rates for families
rose less than half as much.
For the unattached the marked increase in openings was accompanied by only a slight increase in cases under care on the 15th day
of each month (fig. 21). For the families the increase in openings
was much less, and the proportionate increase in cases under care
by the 15th of each month was much greater. In other words, despite
the wide swings in the rates of openings and closings among the unattached transients, the two rates moved together much more closely
than the same two rates for family groups.
These comparisons show that there was a decided difference in the
transient bureau turnover of the two groups receiving care. The
unattached moved more frequently than the family population. It
should be noted, however, that the pronounced changes in the mobility of the unattached are associated with the seasons of the year.
For neither the unattached nor the family groups is there any evidence
that opening and closing rates tended to increase with time; the rate
curves did not start at a higher point or reach a higher peak in 1935
than in the preceding year.
The Number of Stays In Transient Bureaus
The use of rates to measure the mobility and turnover of migrant
families receiving aid from transient bureaus has the disadvantage of
lumping together those who moved within the transient bureau system with those who entered and left the system. Thus, an opening
rate and a closing rate of 50 per 100 cases under care could mean that
the same 50 families left one bureau and registered at another during
Dig11ized l:>y
Goog Ie
MIGRANT FAMILIES AND THE TRANSIENT PROGRAM•
81
100,---,.-----,----r---..-----.-----~-----1 00
MIGRANT FAMILIES
I
50
'
0
Clos
Jan
Apr
.lll
1934
350
Jan
Oct
Oct
Jul
Apt
Dec O
1935
350
I
I
I
UNATTACHED CASES
f
8
300
-j \
~
f
!
8
~ 250
i
C:
-
,-
:•
ClosincJS,.,,.,-_A
8
IY
,/
250~
I.
i
I
\
\I)
f
I
i
1
\
I
I
100
I 00
so
50
Jul
1934
Oct
~
:,
I
J
...
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
Dec O
1935
FIG. 22 - RATE OF OPENING AND CLOSING TRANSIENT
BUREAU CASES
February 1934 through September 1935
Source: Tobit 21.
Oig1t1zcd b,
Google
82 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
the month, or it could mean that 50 new families came to transient
relief and 50 different families left transient relief through private
employment or some other adjustment.
The inherent shortcoming of rates as an index of mobility can be
overcome, in part, by examining the number of stuys at transient
bureaus made by the migrant families included in the representative
sample of this study. The record for 5,489 families is presented in
table 22.
The average (mean) number of registrations per family was 1.5;
i. e., at the time this study was made each 100 families under care
had a record of 50 previous transient bureau registrations in addition
to the registration initiating the stay then in progress. Moreover,
nearly three-quarters of the families studied had registered for care
under the transient program only once, and this stay was still in progress. An additional 16 percent of the families had registered twice.
Thus, 9 out of every 10 of the families showed no tendency to use the
facilities of the transient program for "seeing the country while the
Government footed the bill." Among the remaining 10 percent of the
families there were some whose migration was aimless and purposeless; but there were others-the migratory-casual workers-who used
the transient bureaus repeatedly in getting to and from areas in which
short-time seasonal work was available. For the latter group, transient relief served as a supplement to earnings that were generally
inadequate.
To&le 22.-Number of Transient Bureau Registrations Made by Migrant Families
Migrant
families
Number of transient bureau registrations
TotaL ___ .....•.......... __ . __ . ____ .. _.• ___ .... _____ .... _.. _____ ... __ . _.... ____ . _____ ..
5,489
Perrent
distribution
Total _____ . ____ - --- -- . -- --- - . ---- -- -- - --- --- -- -- --- ---- -- --- --- -- -- -- · --- --- · -- -- --- - - -
im~;i~i!~~::
74
UI
=:
or 5 registrations
___________________________________________________________________________
==:::
==:: = ==: ==:: =: == ==: ==: ==: =:: ==: =:: =====: =: =========== ======: ========:::.
6 or 7 registrations .. __ . _____ .. _. _____ .. _______ . ______________________________________________ _
8 registrations or more ________________________________________________________ . ______________ _
4
Average I registrations per !Rmily _____________________________________________________ _
1
JOO
5
3
I
1
1.5
Arithmetic mean.
An interesting test of the immobilizing effect of transient relief
is available from an examination of the stays made by families which
had the most unstable backgrounds before the period of transient
relief. There were 242 families which had no residence of as long as
30 days in one community from the time of marriage (or January I,
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
MIGRANT FAMILIES AND THE TRANSIENT PROGRAM•
83
1929, if formed before that date) until they made the first application
for transient relief (ch. Ill). Despite this indication of high mobility,
nearly two-thirds of these families had stayed in 011ly one transient
bureau and were still under care at the time this study was made
(table 23).
Ta&le 23.-Number of Transient Bureau Registrations Made by Migrant Families Which
Had No Residence of 1 Month or Longer Since January 1, 1929 1
Migrant
fawilitlS
with no
r~idence
Number of transient bureau registrations
Total .................................................................... . ....... .
242
Percent
distribution
Total ................................................................................. .
100
M
36
• For families formed since January I, IY211, the period under COIL<iderntion begins with date of ww-riage.
The stabilization of this group of families is especinlly significant.
The transient relief program provided these families with their first
opportunity to get off the road; and the result, as table 23 clearly
shows, was for the majority of this particular group the first period of
stabilization they had known since their formation into families.
Duration of
Stay In Transient Bureaus
Three-fourths of all families had registered only one time for
transient relief (table 22). Over one-half of this group had been
under care for 3 months or longer (table 24). The medinn length of
stay for families which registered only once was 4 months.
Because the sample study on which tnble 24 is based was conducted
toward the close of the transient program, the proportion of families
which had been under care for a year or more was greater than could
have been possible earlier in the history of the program. Otherwise,
the length-of-stay data may be considered typical of the situation
that existed from month to month after the full operation of the
program. It is significant that somewhat over one-third of the families with only one stay in transient bureaus had first registered for
transient relief within 2 months of interview. This fact explains the
relatively high turnover (opening and closing rates) discussed earlier.
For at least this proportion of the families, transient relief was needed
for only a short time to assist in achieving the purpose of the migration.
About one-quarter of the families obtained assistance from transient
bureaus two or more times. The proportion of these families staying
D1g1t1zcd by
Google
84 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
Ta&le .24.-length of Time Migrant Families Spent at Place of First and Last 1 Transient
Bureau Registration
Migrant families regisMlgrant
tered 2 or more times
families
which registered 1 time At plsoe of At place of
only •
first regis- last registration •
tration •
Time spent at transient bureau
1,UO
Total ••...•...•.••.••....•.....••••..•• ·•····•··········••····
Percent distribution
Total.........................................................
Less than 1.0 month................................................
1.0--1.9 months......................................................
2.0--2.9 months......................................................
3.0--5.9 months......................................................
6.0--lJ.9 months.....................................................
12.0 months or more................................................
100
100
100
22
37
15
JO
20
H
4
311
Ill
1----~----l----
12
10
18
'J:7
11
l====I===='
Average• (In months)........................................
4. o
1. g
10
1/i
13
<l
1. 6
• Place of last registration was at place or Interview.
• 36 lamllles, for which the time spent at transient bureau was not ascertainable, are not Included.
• 19 families, for which the time spent at transient bureau was not ascertainable, are not Included.
for which the time spent at transient bureau was not ascertainable, are not Included.
!~~'l':'."'•
less than 1 month was distinctly higher than among families which
had only one contact with transient relief. In part, this difference is
the result of families using transient bureaus as stopover points en
route to a particular destination, but the group also includes the
families whose migrations represented either a regular attachment to
migratory-casual work or purposeless wandering.
Table 24 reveals that the last registration of this group of families
was of slightly shorter duration than the first stay. 7 This fact does
not, however, indicate a progressive increase in mobility between
transient bureaus, since the last stay had not yet been terminated at
the time this study was made.
The Meaning of the Tumover Rates
With all the evidence in, the effect of the transient program on one
aspect of depression mobility may now be seen. The case for the
transient program appears clearly in the record of migrant family
turnover; i. e., the rates at which families entered and left the transient bureaus.
It has been pointed out that turnover among migrant families was
of two kinds. The first consisted in turnover within the national
system of transient bureaus or in movement from one bureau to the
7 In measuring the duration of stays in transient bureaus for families receiving
aid more than one time, consideration was given only to the first stay and the
stay which was still under way when this study was made, since only about 10
percent of the families had more than two stays.
C1grt zeo oy
Goos IC
MIGRANT FAMILIES AND THE TRANSIENT PROGRAM• 85
other. The second form consisted in the process by which the
migrant family population as a whole was renewed.
As far as the first form of turnover is concerned, the data on the
number and duration of stays in transient bureaus permit a definite
judgment. This form of turnover was small and was, in so far as it
appeared at all, the result of the presence of a small number--not in
excess of 10 percent of the total-of highly mobile families. The
transient program did not encourage families ''to blithely skip from
one camp to another"; on the contrary, the program had a stabilizing
effect on families, even on those without a prior residence.
As to the second form of turnover-the renewal process-the pertinent data are those showing the rates at which cases were opened and
closed at transient bureaus between February 1934 and September
1935, and the duration of stays in transient bureaus by families with
only one transient bureau registration.
Monthly opening and closing rates of 30 to 60 families for each 100
under care could mean, over a period of 20 months, only one of two
things: the same families were wandering from bureau to bureau, or
the migrant family population was continually in process of rapid
renewal. Since the evidence from this study is clear that the amount
of bureau-to-bureau wandering was small, it must be concluded that
the migrant family population was constantly changing in membership. It has been shown that the average number of transient bureau registrations per family was 1.5. If this figure is used to adjust
the total opening and closing rates, it may be seen that roughly 20 to
40 percent of the family case load entered and left the transient relief
program each month. In contrast, the monthly closings rate on
urban resident relief in 1935 was only 5.6 percent. 8
It is true that some of this turnover resulted from the transfer of
family cases from transient relief to resident relief. However, the
reports of the Division of Transient Activities show that only 8 percent of the 198,039 family cases closed between July 1934 and September 1935 were transferred to resident relief. Accordingly, allowing adjustment for these cases, and even allowing for the possibility
that many other families may have received resident relief later, the
turnover of transient relief cases through normal economic adjustment would still appear to be many times higher than the turnover
rates on resident relief.
In summary, then, the case for the transient program stands as
follows: Transient relief was a stabilizing influence upon families uprooted by the depression. It did not encourage wandering. On the
contrary, it prevented aimless wandering by relieving the needs which
• Unpublished data in the files of the Division of Social Research, Works
Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.
Dig11ized l:>y
Goog Ie
86 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
are its cause. Stabilization, however, did not imply unlimited dependence upon the transient program for support. Transient relief
provided necessary but interim assistance to migrants who in most
instances had definite objectives and who were frequently only
temporarily in need.
The transient program was set up to fill a gap in the relief system,
and its first purpose was to relieve distress. That it also assisted in
the relocation of families is beyond doubt. Although the rate of
turnover of migrant families from transient relief back into private
industry cannot be conclusively determined, it is obvious from the
data on number of transient bureau registrations and on total cases
opened and closed that the rate must have been very high. Probably
it was many times higher than the turnover in the resident relief
population. In so far as families were enabled to resettle in an environment more favorable to them than the one they had left, transient relief was beneficial, though this effect was in a sense incidental
to the basic purpose of the program. The value of the transient
program was that it not only provided immediate relief to a distressed
group but also assisted materially in working out a solution of the
problems that gave rise to the distress.
LEGAL RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERAL RELIEF
Finally, in judging the value of the transient program, it is necessary to bear in mind that transient relief took over the no man's
land which had been created by the legal residence requirements of
the various States.9 The extent of the responsibility which the transient program thus assumed-and the extent of the needs which would
have otherwise been largely unmetr-can be inferred from a review of
the various legal restrictions governing eligibility for resident relief.
The requirements in each of the States and the District of Columbia.
as of January 1, 1936, are set forth in summary form in table 25.
This tabulation presents the situation as it existed at about the time
the study was made. Two years later-January 1, 1938-the general
picture had changed somewhat and a notation of the changes by States
are to be found in table 26.
It should be noted that the provisions shown in tables 25 and 26
have exceptions of two kinds. Some State statutes permit or require
temporary aid for the needy nonresident. In practice, however,
this type of aid seldom amounts to more than emergency medical
care for those in ill-health and overnight care for the able-bodied.
• Legal settlement is a technical term meaning a residence under circumstances
which entitle a person in need to assistance from a political unit. Legal settlement, which is based on State poor laws, must be distinguished from the uniform
residence requirement of 1 year in all States established under the FERA and
from special State regulations governing eligibility for emergency relief.
Digitized by
Google
MIGRANT FAMILIES AND THE TRANSIENT PROGRAM• 87
Tat.le .25.-Residence Requirements for General Relief, January 1, 1936
State
StRte requirement
A lahama_ •.•..........•..• --··-·-··-····-··•· ... ·····----.
Local requirement
R
months in county Immediately preceding application.
Arkan.SR.s .. ·-·· ........... ·--·-··----·-·-·--·····-·-·--·-·---
Callfornla....... 3continuous years without receivinii relief.
Time spent in public institution or on
parole not counted.
I year In county Immediately preceding
application.
Colorado. --- . . . . I year lmmediat,-ly preceding appllcation
and actual physical pre.sence 350 days.
Applicant must be self•supportlng or the
husband, wife, or minor child of a self·
supporting person; otherwise, require·
ment ls 3 years immediately preceding
application with actual physical pres•
ence for 30 months.
6 months in county immediately precedin1t
becoming chargeable.
Connecticut ....... ········---······---·---··············---· 4 years In a town or 1 year If owner of $500
worth ol real estat.i. A liens entitled to
relief only hy vot-0 of inhabitants or by
majority ,·ote ol selectmen and Justices
olthe fll'areand inhahitants. The4yeara
must he sell•supporting.
Delaware........ Legal residence .....•.•• --········-·····•··
Florida 1•••••••.. f'ountle.• ootween 9,700and 10,r,oo, 2 years. I year In counties between 9,700 and 10,.IOO
or ol J.'i,S,OCXl population.
Gilol'l?ia ........ _.
Idaho ......... .
I year immediately preceding application. 6 months In county lmmodint-0ly preceding
application.
Illinois •••....... ···········-····--·-··-··--·------------···· 12 months Immediately preceding application.
lndiaDB-----·--· ··--·-··-·-·--····-··----------------------· Uninterrupted residence ol l year in township. If supported by government-RI
agency during first 6 months, such time
Is eliminated In computing residence
period.
Iowa·---·---·--· ·····-··----·-·-----------·--·-·-----------· 1 year continuously in county without re•
ceiving support lrom public lunds or care
In any charit'1ble Institution and without
being warned to depart. If warned to
depRrt applicant may ho con~irlPred re~i~
dent within I year of filing affidavit that
he Is not a pauper.
Ke.nsas .. ·-······ --·····--·----·--·-·--··--·------------·-··· I year In county.
Kentucky .•..... ··--. ····- ·---··-· ..••.• ·-·. --·------------·
Louisiana __ ··-···-·······-···-----·-·········-------------··
Maine·--·····-·· ·--····-··-·-··-·-····-··---·----··-·-·-···· 5 successive years In town without receh·•
Ing supplies as a pauper.
Maryland ..•.•.• ······--··•-------·----·----··-···--·--·-·-· In Baltimore 11nd Prince Oeol"J!es <'ounties
applicant must he a re.sident. In .-\nae
Arundel County 1 year·s residence is
required.
M1111S&Chusetts ... ·-•···------··-·-·---·------·---·---··--···· 5 successive years In a town withotit
receiving public reliel
Michigan •• ·-···· ···········-·-·--·-·--··-·-··-·-·-··········
I year in township, city, or county without
receiving public reliel.
Minnesota---···. I year. Time spent In public Institution
or under commitment to guardianship
of State Board of Control, or while
receiving relief, Is excluded in determin•
in1t residence.
I No State-wide law In Florida.
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog1C
88 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Tcr&le .25.-Residence Requirements for General Relief, January 1, 1936--Continued
State
State requirement
Local requirement
MlsdlllppL _____ --------------------------···-------------·· 6 months In county.
Mlalourl-----··· TorecelveemergencyrellefappllcantmW1t I year In county next preceding time of any
be citizen or State.
order for relier. County court may In
Its dlacretlon grant relier to any penon
without repr<1 to residence.
Montan&--·----· --·-----------------------·---···-····-····· I year In county Immediately preceding
application.
Nebraska........ I year excluding any period dnring which
person received care or relle(.
6 months In county excluding any period
dnring which person received care or
relief.
Nevada ••.•..•.. 3 YMn•-····-···-············-·······-···· 6 months In county.
NewHampshln,. ···-····-···-······························· 6 comecutlve years In town. Counties
mW1t aupport any person for wbo8e aupport no penon or town In the State Is
chargeable.
New Jen,oy .... _. ···-·-······································ 6 years uninterrupted stay In county or
municipality.
New Mexico ..•.. I year .•....•.••.••..... ·--·-·-·--···--··-· 90 days In county.
New York.·-···· ···-·-·······-··-·····-·· ··----·········-··- 1 year contlnuoW1 residence In town or
city without reoelvlru! public relief.
Certain counties in whfch speci&d hospitals and veterans' homes are loeated
require 6 years residence for Inmates of
the specified inst! tutlons.
North Carolina.. 3 years, unlet!s at time or entering State
person was able to support hllDB81r.
Time spent In any Institution or on
parole therefrom Is not counted.
1 year contlnuoualy In county.
North Dakota... I year contlnuowdy without receiving
public relief. Time spent In charitable,
oustodlal, or correctional Institution
excluded.
1 year In county or If leral resident or State
residence In county In which applleant
spent major part or preceding :,,,u-.
Time spent In charitable custodial, or
correctional Institution exciuded.
Ohlo ••• -···-·-·· ·············-·············-···········--··· County, 12 oonsecutlve months town or
city, 12 consecutive months In coanty,
a consecutive
months In town or city
without receiving public relier.
Oklahoma._ •.•• _ ·-··--·· ·····-·-··-····-····--·-···········. 6 months In county.
Oregon •• ·-······ • years. To receive emergency relief appllcant must be citizen or State.
6 months
In county without receiving
pu bllc relief.
Penmylnnla •.. ··-····•··•······················-·········· 1 contlnuOWI year In poor district with
Intent to establlsb permanent abode.
Rhode lalaDd.... 2 years. For home relier or work relier
nnder State financed and State super•
vlaed program endl11g June 30, 1939.
State Unemployment Relief Commls•
slon may waive these requlnments In
special c&IIIIS.
6 months In to.,.n ror home relief or work
relier under State ftnanoed and State
supervised program ending June 80, JG.
State Unemployment Reller Commls•
slon may waive these requin,ments In
special cases. For local relief 6 years In
town without aid; or have estate or In•
heritance or freehold In town and yearly
Income or $20 clear ror a years.
8oatb Carolina •• ···············-·--······-····-···-········· 3
:~a!: ~~M!1e:'~%i: i~ ~
must ba ve maintained self and family
during 3-year period.
South Dakota •.. I year __ ·-·-···········-··················· 90days In county.
Teun-····--· ··········-·········-······················· I year In county (applies to poorhouse care
only).
Texas_ ......•... I year. Funds derived from the sale or
State bonds ror emergency relief, used
only for aid of a person resident 2 years
Immediately precedhJs application.
6monthsincounty.
D1g111zcd by
Goog 1C
MIGRANT FAMILIES AND THE TRANSIENT PROGRAM • 89
TvlJle 25.-Residence Requirements for General Relief, January 1 , 1936-Continued
State requirement
Local requirement
Utah·-··· - · · ··-- 1 year (applies only to oounty permanent
poor rellef prosram).
4 months In oounty; minors 1 year.
Vermont __-- --·· State provides for nonreeldents of to'll'tls
who have realded ID State 1 year or mon,.
3 :,ears In town.
(Applies only to ooUDty permanent poor
rellet prosram.)
Vtrglnla.. _______ _ 3 :,ears anlem at time of mll!'lltlon J)«80n 12 001111eCUUve months In 0011Dty, town, OI'
wasabletosupporteell'; otbenrlae, lyear.
~~thoot reoelvtns pobllc OI' private
Wasbmlton-·- · · · ·· · · ·---··--· ···-··-··-·-- -·-· - ·- -- ·· · ·--·· 8 months ID ooanty lmmedlately in--cllng
date or application.
Weet Vlrltnla••. a yean unl- mlpaut entered State selfsupPOl'tlng.
1 :,ear ooatfnuously In COUDt:,.
Wlso)nafn. ____ __ -------------·-···---···- ·····- · · · ·--·--···· l
=~
~?J~or;~~
any asylom or lnstltotlon, etc.
Boorce : Bee Lowe Robert C. and Aaloclates, Dlful of Poor &lkf lAw• oft/le &oerat StatH and Tmitorlu cu of Ma, 11 /~,. Division of Boclal ~ c h , Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.
Additional maserw ww appear In Lowe, Robert C ., Blau Public Wtlfare Lqi,latlon, a lortboomlng mono-
graph.
TalJle Jd.-Chan9es in Residence Requirements for General Relief as of January 1, 1938
State
State requfn,meut
Local requirement
Arizona ... ... . _. 3yearslmmedlatelyprecedlngappllcatton.
Temporary absence for a total of I year
does not affect the right for relief.
Gmonths In oounty, Immediately preceding
Montam ._ ______ 1 year. Allena illegally In the United
Btatee not eligible.
II months In oounty. 1 year's oounty residence for care at poor farm or workhouse.
Newl«MY----- · I year wltboot Interruption Immediately
~ May 4, 111:M!. 6 yean without
lnterrupfloa for person• not qualifying
UDder tbe preceding provision. Time
spent la charitable, custodlal, or oorreoUoaal Institution ucluded.
I year In munlclpality or tr le.gal resident
or State, munlc1pallty In which applicant
spentma)orpartotp.-iinf.l'.ear. Time
appllcatlon - 12 months lmrr.edlately preceding app1
!cation to receive bospltallzatlon or medical care from oounty board
or aupervlsors, except for emergency
cases.
it:1:1 ~.~Pt~f::~~cl~~ '
or
comio-
Oklahoma. __. •. • I year for State funds •. . ... · ·- •..• • •. • ___ __ 1 year for State fUDdl. Gmonths for OOUDty
funds.
PIIDDIJ'lnnla___ . 1 year Immediately preceding application.
Wublnlton • .•. • --·----····-··-·--·-· · ··---·· ··-· ······ -·--·
West Vlrgfnla_ .. I yearwhenfundsarespecUlcallyavallable Actually residing In OOUDt:,.
for that purpoee, relief may be granted to
thole who have not been resldenta or
State 1 :,ear.
W:,umlng ___ __. . 1 :,ear without receiving public relier, proTided applicant has not been aoaent
from State for a period of l :,ear or more
Immediately precedln1 appllcatlon .
1 year In OOUDty without 1-lvlng publlo
relief, proTlded applloant bu not been
abeent from oount:, for a period of 1 :,ear
or more Immediately preoedln1 app!lcatlon.
Boaroe: Lowe, Robert C. and Staff, Division of Boctal Research, Works Pl'OINlll8 Admlnlatratlon, Wash•
IDston. D. C. Additional
lortbcomlnl IIIOIIOll'APh.
mal«1al wt!! appear In Lowe. Robert 0., StaU Publk W elfa1 IA,Watloll, a
o, ,,,z
dbvGoogle
90 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Secondly, by January 1, 1936, about two-thirds of the States had
passed special emergency relief legislation which altered, in practice,
the poor law provisions listed in tables 25 and 26. The majority of
these emergency acts did not contain specific residence requirements,
and the requirements of the poor laws were applied in some States
but not in others. As a result there has been a vast amount of confusion over the meaning and application of residence requirements,
and the provisions set forth in tables 25 and 26 may not represent.
the actual practice of some of the States. These provisions should,
however, convey a fairly clear idea of the difficulties which confronted
the nonresident family in need of relief.
The requirement for relief eligibility is often much more stringent
than the residence requirement for voting purposes. · In a majority
of States residence of some specified minimum of time has always
been a condition for relief eligibility. Laws prescribing a period of
residence either in the State or locality, or in both, as a condition for
relief eligibility were on the statute books of 43 States and the District
of Columbia on January 1, 1936. In the other five States residence
requirements were imposed in actual practice.
In 23 States the laws imposed a local (county, town, or city) residence requirement, and in 18 States they prescribed periods of residence in both State and local units. In the latter case, the required
period of State residence was usually greater than the required period
of local residence. In general, it may be said that the purpose of
dual State residence requirement is to provide State-wide "protection" to the local subdivisions against an influx of indigent interstate
migrants, while the purpose of the local residence requirement is to
establish the responsibility of communities for persons who meet the
State requirements. The less stringent residence requirements of
the localities, once State requirements are satisfied, permit some
intrastate migration without loss of eligibility for assistance in some
specific place in the State.
Several States have two sets of State residence requirements. North
Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia had (on January 1, 1936) State
residence requirements of 1 year with this interesting exception:
a 3-year State requirement was to be imposed unless at the time of
migration to the State the applicant was able to support himself.
Texas and Rhode Island make one residence requirement for one
relief fund and another requirement for other relief funds. Such
requirements are clearly intended to disqualify needy interstate
migrants from regular State assistance.
Settlement laws in typical States provided that a migrant would
not be eligible for local relief unless he had lived within the State
continuously, with intent to establish permanent residence, and
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog1C
MIGRANT FAMILIES AND THE TRANSIENT PROGRAM• 91
wit,hout public assistance of any sort for at least 1 year; and in 10
States the residence must have lasted from 2 to 5 years.
Residence statutes as of January 1, 1938, do not, on the whole,
reveal much progress toward more consistent and equitable laws than
those which were in effect on January 1, 1936, though there have been
changes in
few States (table 26). Washington hns repealed its
rPsidence requirement, while Arizona has enacted a statute which
prescribes 3 years' residence in the State. Pennsylvania and West
Virginia have repealed their local residence requirement and enacted
a I-year State residence law. Montana, Oklahoma, and Wyoming
have added State residence requirements to their already existing local
requirements. New Jersey has amended its statutes so as to require
n. 5-year State residence if an applicant has not lived within the State
for 1 year immediately preceding May 4, 1936; the earlier New
Jersey statute prescribed a 5-year local residence.
The migra.nt's legal status was further complicated by statutes in
19 States providing for loss of legal settlement in the State of origin.
In most of the States making definite provision, legal settlement was
lost (as of January 1936) after 1 year's absence regardless of whether
it has been acquired elsewhere or not. In two States it was lost after
absence of 30 days. These provisions for the loss of legal settlement
often caused migrants to lose residence status in one State before
acquiring it in another. An earlier study 10 showed that 40 percent
of migrant families in transient bureaus in June 1935 were without
legal settlement in any State. It is evident, however, that the large
proportion of such cases does not reflect any particular degree of
mobility among the families so much as it demonstrates the efficiency
with which the settlement laws of the States operate to cancel responsibility for needy migrant groups.
When the 48 States are viewed as a whole the complexity of
residence requirements for general relief is immediately evident.
Not only is the individual migrant family unaware, in most instances,
of these requirements but State relief officials are also constantly confronted with borderline cases where judgment must be exercised, as
well as official interpretations of the statutes, and a variety of practices that depart from the letter of the statute. A period of selfsupporting residence that in one State makes a family eligible for local
assistance is completely inadequate in another State. A family which
has resided for 1 year without relief in one State is eligible for assistance; in another State the same family would he a transient family,
excluded from local benefits.
a
10 Webb, John N. and Bryan, Jack Y., Legal Settlement Status and Residence
History of Transients, Research Bulletin TR-9, Division of Research, Statistics,
and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935.
Digitzco by
Google
92 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
General relief involves an expenditure that is borne in whole or in
part by the community granting aid, and legislators have not been
disposed to add to this expense the cost of caring for those who do not
"belong" in their community. Whether or not severe residence
requirements do protect a State from an influx of needy nonresidents
is still a debatable question. But in many cases, the only reasonable
solution of distress is emigration. At this point residence requirements and economic forces meet in a head-on collision that can be
avoided only by broadening or abolishing the concept that people
actually do belong in a particular place regardless of the fact that the
place may not provide the means of making a living.
The more rigid requirements for acquisition of settlement status,
especially when coupled with provisions making settlement quickly
lost (as in California, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and
South Dakota, where specifically less time was needed in 1936 to lose
settlement status than to acquire it), were clearly designed to send
to other States more needy migrants than are received. Obviously,
however, since the other States either try to do the same thing or
have at least usually protected themselves against those who do try,
the gain arising out of the stringency and confusion of the laws is only
at the expense of the migrants in need.
Dig111zcd b'y
Google
Chapter V
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
A
DESCRIPTION of the families which received assistance from the
transient program has been deferred until their mobility could be
fully explored. Having discovered why and where the families
migrated and having examined their mobility before and while receiving transient relief, it is important at this point to consider the families
in terms of the standard descriptions of population. As part of the
search for factors that explain why some distressed families migrated
while others did not, it is particularly important to measure the extent
to which migrant families were like or unlike families in the general
population.
The comparisons to be presented here show that there is a relationship between particular personal characteristics and migration. For
example, the comparative age distribution of economic heads of
migrant families and of families in the total population reveals a close
relationship between youth and mobility; and an examination of the
color and nativity of migrant families indicat~s that native-born
white families are more likely to migrate under adverse circumstances
than are foreign-born white or Negro families. Data on the personal
characteristics 1 of migrant families make it possible to show further
that still other characteristics are not necessarily connected with the
fact of migration. Domestic discord, for example, or failure to possess
such basic social resources as a common school education were characteristic of migrant families to no greater extent than with families
which did not migrate under the same economic stress.
1 An account of the personal characteristics of the heads of migrant families
receiving aid from transient bureaus was given in a previous study-Webb,
John N., The Transient Unemployed, Research Monograph III, Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935. But because
the data there were drawn from a smaller and less representative sample based on
13 cities instead of the 85 cities sampled for this study, this study supersedes the
earlier description.
93
Digil1zcd by
G oog IC
94 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
COMPOSmON OF MIGRANT FAMILIES
Migrant families were complete family groups in the great majority
of cases. That is, most family groups on the road 2 were identical in
membership with the family group before migration. Less than
one-tenth of the families had one or more members absent from the
relief group, and in only a very small proportion of cases was the
economic head 3 of the group among the absentee members (table 27).
Tcrble 27.-Migrant Families Reporting Absence of Members Normally Part of Family
Group
Miirrant
families
Composition
Total.··························•·······•·-·-··-•·-----·---------·············-········
Per.,.,.nt
d istribu lion
Total---··-·--·-·········-·······••·•·········•······-··············•·······----- · · .
Report.in!! no Rhsentoo.s_ ... ·-. -·· ................... _. ; __ .... ·····-·· .... ·-····· --·· ........ .
Report.ing ahsentoos __ ............... --•···· ........ . .... ··········--·-·--·· ··-----· .. ·-·•· .. .
Economic head present. .. _........... _...... __ ...... . . . .. _....... ___ ... _... _. _.. ....... .
Economic head absent. ................................ ·-···- ..... ··-·· ........... -··· .. .
100
91
9
,;
3
Since most of the families left no member behind at the place of
last residence, it is suggested that the severance from that community
was both complete and final. The small proportion of absentee
members is also significant in connection with the families' occupational resources. Because of the fact that nearly all families were
complete, their stabilization on a self-supporting basis was dependent
upon the human resources of the group at hand.
Not only were most migrant families complete in the sense that all
members usually a part of the group were present during migration,
but they were also normal 4 family groups. Approximately four-fifths
of the migrant families studied consisted of husband and wife (28
percent) orof husband and wife and one or more children (51 percent);
and in addition, there was a small proportion (3 percent) of normal
families that included some other related or unrelated person (table28)_
2 Throughout this chapter migration refers to the period between leaving the
last place of residence lasting 1 month or longer and September 1935.
a Because of the presence of incomplete family groups on the road, it is necessary
to distinguish between the "economic head" and the "present head" of the group.
If the economic head of the family was absent, the present head was some member
of the family group other than the person usually responsible for the economic
welfare of the group.
' Families composed of husband and wife or husband and wife and their
children are commonly called "normal families." Families composed of a man
and his children or a woman and her children are called "broken families." The
terms normal and broken arc used with these specific meanings in this chapter.
Dign zed by
Goog Ie
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS • 95
Ta•le 28.-Composition of Migrant Families Before and During Migration and Composition of Families in Resident Relief Population, October 1933
:\ti11:rant ramilies
)~a mit y t·umpi0sitlon
Dnrlni
migrn1inn
llernr~
migration
5,489
5, t89
Total __ - --------. -- - -- .. ·- - -- - - -- . . - . - .. . .. . -- -- --- -- .. -- - · - .
1
Re.siclent
relier
families
Oct. IU:13
2, 726, 2'11
Percent clistrlhutio n
Total. _____ ______ __ ______ _. . ___. _________________ __ _______ ___ _
Normal Camille.• . - -. . . .. _. __ ___ ________ . . . _____ . ___ .. ___ .. __... .. . . . .
Jf u_.;;hsnrt an<! wire ... .. .... _. __.. __ _. ____ _____. ___ ___ ____ __ __ __.
l111shanrl. wile, an<! children _____ _____ __ ___ _______ _________ ___ __
Kormal with others ___________ ____ ______________________ ____ . . .
Broken families .. . . . . . . ··---- - - -- . __- - -- --- - ----------·-··-··-·--- . .
Woman an<! chilrlren .. -·--· - -·· --- - - - · . . _____ ____ __ ______ __ __ .
:\fan nnd <'hil<lren .... _. _.... . ..... _.. _. _....... ____ . ___ ....... . .
Broken with others .. .... . . ____ _ -----···------···--··-·-·---- · ·
Other types _________ _____ ___________ ___... .
100
. -
100
100
- - - - - ·1 - - - -
82
28
51
85
:.!ti
55
3
4
18
14
15
2
2
2
2
11
81
14
eo
7
14
y
3
2
• Less than 0.5 1,ercent.
t Division or R•~""art'h , Atatlstl<>!, ancl Flnan,-e, !',umpl"flmt11/ R,lirf C'rmu•. Ot:tob<r l!J.1,1, Report:-,. umber Three, Ferleral ~:mergency Helie! A<lministrbtion, Washington, l). C ., IY35, p . 35. I-person lamllies
are not lnclu<le<I.
It is important to observe from this comparison that the proportion
of broken families on the road was only slightly larger than before
migration, and that no particular type of broken families showed an
appreciable increase. The small increase in the proportion of broken
families of the woman-children type (from 11 percent to 13 percent)
after migration indicates the extent to which male family heads were
absent from the relief group. This reflects the small importance of
domestic difficulty as a reason for leaving settled residence (table I).
Moreover, the proportion of migrant families which left their children
behind was small, since the proportion of families consist.ing of only
husband and wife increased from 26 perce11t before to 28 percent during
migration. Broken families in which the wife was abse11t (mu.11children type) from the relief group did not increase at all.
The composition of migrant families receiving ai<l from transiPnt
bureaus did not differ m1irkedly from that of families in the totnl
resident relief population (table 28). The proportion of "othPr
types" of families, i. e., related and unrelated persons not combinations of husband, wife, or children, but living together as family
groups, was negligible among migrant families in comparison with
resident relief families. This difference is no indication that persons
living in this combination did not migrate; but it does mean that if
they did, they did not apply for assistance at transient bureaus as
family groups. Because of the youth of the family heads, there was
a larger proportion of husband-wife families without children among
Digitized by
Goog Ie
96 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
migrant than among resident relief families; but the over-all proportions of normal and broken families were much the same. Although
the proportion of broken families was slightly higher after beginning
migration than before migration, the agreement with the proportion
in the resident relief population is so close that family composition
does not appear to have been a selective factor in determining whether
or not a family would migrate.
SIZE
Logically, the presence of children and other dependents should
tend to restrict the mobility of families under adverse conditions.
Aud, indeed, a comparison between the size of migrant families and
families in the resident relief and general population reveals that
size of family was one of the selective factors in depression migration.
Table 29.-Size of Migrant Families, of Families in the Resident Relief Population of 1933,1
and of families in the General Population of 1930 1
Migrant families
Size of family
Total ....•..............•..••••••..•....•...•.•..
During
migration
Before
migration
Rasi<lent
relier
families
Oct. 1933
6, 48Q
5, 4811
2,782,675
Famili""
in J(eneral
population
1930
27,547,200
Percent distribution
Total .........•.•..•.•...••.....•••.......•......
100
100
100
100
2 persons...............................................
3 persons...............................................
4 persons...............................................
5 persons...............................................
6 persons...............................................
7 persons or more.......................................
3S
32
25
17
10
25
18
11
l!O
l!O
l9
25
23
Jg
14
13
10
8
17
12
l=====l•====:====,==== .
Average• size.....................................
3. 1
3. 6
3. 2
5
6
8
8
I
4.11
• Di\'ision of Research, Stntlstics. and Finance, Fn,mplnvmenl R,/i,f Cen•u•, Ortobtr 19'3, Report
Number Two, Fe,!eral Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., 1934, p. 26. l•person faml•
lies are not inr:lmled.
• Bureau of the Census, Fiffunlh Cem-u,. off ht L'nlted State,: 19-~0. Population Vol. VI, U. 8. Department
of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 193.1, p. 36. !•person families are not included.
I Median.
Table 29 and figure 23 show two significant facts: (I) Well over
one-half of all the families, both before and after migration, contained
only two or three persons, and two-person families occurred more frequently than any other; 6 and (2) migrant families were smaller than
families in the general population and were markedly smaller than
resident relief families.
In considering size of family as a selective factor in mobility it
must be remembered that the families in the study were interstate
migrants, and the distance traveled, while generally restricted (see
ch. I) was obviously much greater than the distance traveled by intra1 See appendix tahle 13 for a detailed distribution of mi~rant families by size
and family type.
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS • 97
■ 2-person
family
~3-person
1111114- person
~family
1881family
~ 5 or more
~ persons family
Percent
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Migrant families
before migrotion,1935
All relief
families, 1933
Families in general
population, 1930
F1G. 23- SIZE OF MIGRANT FAMILIES AND OF FAMILIES
IN RESIDENT RELIEF AND
GENERAL POPULATIONS
Source: Tobie 29.
AF-2172,
w,a
county and intrastate migrants. The conclusion of this report that
size of family is a selective factor in depression migration is therefore
restricted to the instances of interstate mobility. A recent report on
the mobility of the families in the general population 8 of Michigan
shows the need for caution in reaching conclusions on the relationship
between size of family and migration in general.
The Michigan report includes a tabulation of the range of moves
during a period of 57 months (April 1930 to January 1935) classified
by the number of dependent children on January 15, 1935.7 Despite
its obvious limitations, the Michigan tabulation shows that there is
relatively little relationship between size of family and percent of
moves in intrastate migration, but that there is a definite tendency for
the percent of interstate moves to decline as the number of dependent
children increases.
The comparison of migrant family siLe first with the size of resident
relief families and second with the Michigan mobility study indicates
that, in this social characteristic at least, migrant families resembled
other mobile groups more than other distressed groups.
AGE
Economic Heads
Youth was a clearly defined characteristic of the economic heads of ·
migrant families. Among the family groups included in this study,
1 Webb, John N., Westefeld, Albert, and Huntington, Albert H., Jr., Mobility
of Labor in Michigan, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration,
Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 31-33 and particularly table 97.
7 The lack of comparability between moves made at any time during a period
of 57 months and number of children at the end of the period was recognized.
The purpose of the tabulation was simply to explore the poi,sibilities of the data
by using a small sample of schedules preliminary to the complete tabulation of a
larger sample. The lack of comparability mentioned above has been minimized
in the larger tabulation which is being made at the present time (October 1938).
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog1C
98 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
approximately one-half of the economic heads were under 35 years of
age, and more than three-fourths were under 45 (appendix table 14).
In contrast, less than one-third of the beads of resident relief families
in 1933 were under 35, and only about three-filths were under 45.
The contrast in age is still more marked when the economic heads
of migrant family groups are compared with the male heads of all
families enumerated in the 1930 Census. Forty-five percent of all
male family heads in 1930 were 45 years of age or older. This was
true, however, of only 22 percent of the male heads of migrant family
groups included in this study (fig. 24 and appendix table 14).
■ 25
Under
years
■ 35·44 years
1!1125-34 years
0
Migrant family, 1935
All relief families, 1933
Mole heads of families in
general population, 1930
10
20
30
::
40
:::: :
Percent
50
60
70
:
:.:-:-:-:-:❖:-:-:-:-:-:.:
.··.·.·.·.·.•.•,·.·.·.·.·.
80
90
100
:~
: : ::: ::::::::: :: : : : : ::: ::::::::: :: :
::::::::::::::::::::::.::,
~~=
11145·64 years
::{::•~:•~•:•h ._~•. '••-~ ._
::;
!.'
-;. __
.
.
FIG. 24-AGE OF MIGRANT FAMILY HEADS AND OF FAMILY HEADS IN
RESIDENT RELIEF AND GENERAL POPULATIONS
Nole: Age distribution ovoiloble only for
mole fom,ly heads ,n the general population.
Source: Appendix table 14.
Previous studies have stressed the youth of the depression migrants
who received aid from transient bureaus. Unattached transients were
found to be even younger than the economic heads of family groups. 8
But youth as a characteristic of migrants is not confined to the depression period or to migrants in need of public assistance. Youth
wus an importunt selective factor II in the rural-urban migration of the
I 920's; and the study of labor mobility in Michigan (I 930 to 1935)
found "* • • the 20-24 year age group showed a larger proportion of workers moving than any other age group • • * and
• * * workers in the most mobile age groups * • • were
more likely to have completed . * * * longer moves than were
those [workers] of other age groups." 10 Accordingly, just as with
family size, the age of migrant families was more closely related to the
age of other migrants not in distress than of other needy groups that
did not migrate.
Hee Webb, John N., op. cit., p. 24 ff.
Thornthwaite, C. W., Internal Migration in the United States, Bulletin I,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1934, pp. 32-37.
10 Webb. Jolin N., Westefeld, Albert, and Huntington, Albert H., Jr., op. cit., p. 5.
6
0
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog1C
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS •
99
Age and size of family are related; this relationship qualifies but
doe.s not impair the validity of the previous conclusion that size of
family, in itself, is a selective factor in migration. The difficulties
that stand in the way of distress migration by large families remain
regardless of age; and the fact that migrant families are small is in
pa.rt explained by age and in part by the difficulty of migrating in
large groups.
Other Memben
In view of the large proportion of young economic heads of migrant
families, it is scarcely surprising to find that the age of other principal
members of the family groups, mostly wives of economic heads, was
even lower. The proportion of other principal members under 35
yea.rs of age was 65 percent as compared with 49 percent of economic
heads; and the proportion under 45 was 86 percent as compared
with 78 percent of economic heads (appendix table 15).
Since over half of all principal members (economic heads and other
principal members) were under 35, it follows not only that the number
of children per family was likely to be small but also that a large proportion of these sons and daughters would not yet have passed the
ages usually associated with common (grade) school attendance.
Of the 9,658 individuals apart from economic heads or other principal
members of migrant families, nearly one-third were less than 5 years
of age and over one-half were between the ages of 5 and 14. Less than
one-fifth of all children and other relatives were 15 years of age or
older. Thus, not only were the economic heads of migrant families
predominantly young but youth was also a characteristic of all members of the family group.
COLOR AND NATIVITY
A comparison of t.he color and nativity characteristics of migrant
families with those of nonmigrant families shows that native-born
white families tended to migrate more readily than foreign-born
white or Negro families. The proportion of white economic heads
was larger among migrant families than among urban resident relief
families, although it was about the same as among families in the
general population (table 30 and fig. 25).
By comparison with the nativity of the 1930 population, migrant
families were composed of a much smaller proportion of foreign-born.
Migrant families also included a smaller proportion of foreign-born
than the urban relief population .11 Since a similarly high proportion
of native-white persons existed among unattached transients, 12 it
is clear that the native-born white, whether families or single indi11
12
Comparable data in the 1933 FERA Relief Census are not avnilable.
See Webb, John N., op. cit., pp. 33-35.
Dig111zed l:>y
Goog Ie
100 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
■ Notive•born
white
m!Foreic;in•born
~white
lmllNeoro
~Other
18811
?ercent
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Mioront fomilies,
1935
Urbon relief
fomilies, 1934
Families in oenerol
populotion, 1930
FIG. 25-COLOR AND NATIVITY OF MIGRANT FAMILY HEADS
AND OF FAMILY HEADS IN URBAN RESIDENT
RELIEF AND GENERAL POPULATION
Source: Tobie 30.
AF-2874,WPA
viduals, migrated more readily in response to distress than other
population groups.
Two forces tended to stabilize the foreign-born population during
the depression. During the decades since the period of agricultural
expansion, foreign-born white immigrants have settled in large industrial centers and grouped themselves according to racial or national
ties. These ties have acted as deterrents to migration, despite the
pressures arising from limited economic opportunity and recurring
periods of unemployment. In addition, it is probable that local
prejudice outside of the highly industrialized States makes the migration of distressed foreign-born persons both more difficult than for
the native-born and less likely to provide a solution of their economic
problems.
Ta&le 30.-Color and Nativity of Economic Heads of Migrant Families, of Families
In Urban Resident Relief Population of May 1934,1 and in the General Population
of 1930 2
Migrant
famllles a
Color and nativity
Total .••....••...............•••...•.••.•..•..................
5. 447
Urban resi• Families
dent relief In general
families
population
May 1ll34
1930
:an, M
29, 9(M, 663
Percent distribution
Total. • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wblte.. ..................................•. .. ....... ............ ...
Natlve•boru................... ................................
Forelgn•born.......... .. . ... . . .... .• ... . .... .. . . . . ... . .. . . ... . . .
100
100
100
91
114
7
711
M
25
89
70
19
8
'1
18
'3
10
1
,----1·----,----
Negro...............................................................
Other...............................................................
1 Based on preliminary t~hulntion of schedule.s used by Palmer. Gladys L. and Wood, Katherine D., in
Urban Worktr• on Rdirf, Research Monograph IV, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Adminis•
tration, Washington, D. C., 1!136.
• Bureau of th~ Ce!]SUS, Fiftunth Cm,ua of the UnUed Staiu: 1~, Population Vol. VJ, U.S. Depanment
of Commerce, \\ flShmgton, b. C ., 1933, p. 11.
• 42 family heads, whose color and nativity were not ascertainable, are not Included.
• Includes Mexirans.
Digitzco by
Google
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS • 101
Negroes showed similar characteristics. In comparison with the
general family population, Negroes were underrepresented among
migrant families but overrepresented among families on urban resident
relief. The overrepresentation of Negro families on urban resident
relief is evidence that they were less able to withstand the rigors of a
depression. Yet, even though subject to greater economic distress,
Negro families were much less likely to migrate than white families.
No doubt custom and prejudice operate to restrict the mobility
of Negro families just as effectively as they restrict the foreignborn white. 13 Migration without adequate resources, whether by
highway or railroad, is much more difficult for Negroes, and particularly so in the South. Moreover, the employment available for
Negroes in any locality is restricted by preference for white labor,
and the practicability of migration is limited.
Mexican and other race or color groups were proportionately as
numerous among migrant families as among families in the general
population of 1930. Among migrant families they were chiefly
Mexican migratory workers and Indians who were registered principally in the central and southwestern parts of the country. 14
The fact that foreign-born and Negro families were underrepresented in the transient relief population justifies a supplementary
examination into some aspects of the migration of these two minority
groups. Information on State of registration, State of origin, and
reasons for leaving settled residence and selecting destinations for
both foreign-born and Negroes is presented in appendix B.
CITIZENSHIP
Only 2 percent of all heads of migr11nt families were without full
citizenship status, and half of these had received at least first citizenship papers (appendix table 16). Among the foreign-born family
heads approximately two-thirds (66 percent) had full citizenship
status. An additional one-sixth had first papers,and one-sixth were
without any citizenship status. Of the "others" slightly less than
three-fourths were full citizens, and the rest were without any citizenship status.
MARITAL STA TUS
In view of the predominance of normal migrant families and young
family heads, small proportions of single, separated, 16 divorced, and
11 The fact or the northward migration of Negroes during and after the World
War does not invalidate this conclusion, since thst migration was in response to
an abnormal labor demand which nullified the usual difficulties in Negro mobility.
H See Webb, John N., Transients in December, TR-3, Division or Research,
Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington,
D. C., March 1935.
u "Separation" as used here refers to separation with intent to live permanently
apart, rather than temporary separation arising out of the exigencies of migration.
□ig,t zc:d by Goog Ie
102 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
widowed family heads and other principal members may be anticipated (table 31).
To&le 31.-Marital Status of Economic Heads and Other Persons 15 Years of Age and
Over in Migrant Families and of Heads of Families in the General Population of 1930 1
Migrant families
Heads of
Other
M ttrital ststu.•
members
F.conomlc
heads
15 years or
5, 489
6,481
Total .•.. _________ • ______ ----- -- ____ ______ __ _____ __ _____ __ ____
and
over
age
families
In ~enenl
populu•
tionl\1311
29,400,174
Percent distribution
Total. __ •• _-··· _____ ------·-·-····--------·- - ··- --- -- ----· -- --
100
100
100
Bingle __________ .----------------------------------.---------------Married ... ___ ..... -------·· ··----- ·--------·-· ---·---------·-·---·Beparawd, widowed, and divorced._·---····---····-··-----····-· __
2
23
8.5
13
74
5
ill
3
1(1
• Bureau or the Census, Tvp,a of Fam iii,. in th, Uniud Stat,.,, special report, U. B. Department of Commerce, Wa.shiu~ton, D. C., August 5, IY35, table 1.
The classification of the families' reasons for migration showed that
domestic difficulty was a relatively insignificant cause of family
mobility. The same fact is reflected in the small incidence of separation, widowhood, and divorce among the family groups. Compared
with the returns from the 1930 Census, the proportion of separated,
widowed, and divorced heads among migrant families was significantly less than was reported for the total population.
Although the proportion of other persons 15 years of age and over
who were married was smaller (74 percent) than among economic
heads (85 percent), the actual number was slightly grea.ter. This
difference resulted from the presence in a number of family groups of a
few married adults other than the spouse of the head. Most of these
other married adults were parents or other relatives of economic heads.
SEX
Although migrant and nonmigrant families differed as to age,
size of family, and color and nativity, there was little difference in
their composition by sex.U1 The economic heads of migrant iamilies
10 The sex ratio for all members of the migrant family groups included in this
study was 97.5 m~les per 100 females; the ratio for the resident relief population
included in the FERA Unemployment Relief Census of 1933 was 103.4; and the
ratio for the total population 1930 Census was 102.5. Act.11ally the difference in
composition by sex of mi!Zrant and resident family groups was less than is indicated
by these ratios. Both the FERA Unemployment Relief Census and the United
States Census of 1930 inl'luded one-person families which were more frequently men
than women. Transient bureaus, on the other hand, classified one-person cases
as "unattached" or nonfamily persomi.
D1g111zcd by
Goog 1C
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS • 103
were much more frequently men than women, whereas wom<'n were a
majority among other principal members. But males and females
were about equal in number among all migra.nts-family heads, other
principa.l members, and children and other relatives (table 32).
Table 32.-Sex and Status in Family of Persons in Migrant Families
Sex
Economic
Total
Total •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • ·
heads
19,978
5,489
Other
prindpal
f'hildren
and other
xuembers
relatives
4,813
~r<"ent distribution
Total ••••••.•.•...••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.. _
100
100
100
MRIP ---------------·----••··-··-··--·-·--·-···--------t----49-t----86-l----4
Female _______________ --·------·--·---·-- _______ -··-____
51
14
9,678
Moo
96
61
49
The slight excess of females among all persons is partly a result of
the presence of more migrant families of the woman-children type
than of the man-children type (appendix table 13). In other words,
most of the male economic heads were accompanied by a wife, but
only a few of the female economic heads were accompanied by a
husband.
The fact that about one-half of all members of migrant family
groups were females is significant by comparison with the other and
larger group of depression migrants-the unattached transient.s.
Among unattached transients the proportion of women did not at
any time exceed 3 percent of the total unattached transient relief
population. 17 The difficulties of travel were alone sufficient to restrict
the number of unattached women, but an additional restriction was
imposed by social attitudes which disapproved the wandering of lone
women. Obviously social disapproval does not apply to the migration
of women as members of family groups, although the difficulty of
travel without adequate resources does apply.
EDUCATION
Only a small proportion of the heads of migrant families lacked
some formal education, and about three-fifths of them had completed
at least the eight grades of common school.
It will be observed in table 33 that the younger heads of families
were generally better educated than the older family heads, and that
this tendency was consistent throughout except for the age group 16
to 19 years. The lower educational achievement of this group is
probably the result of an early assumption of family responsibility.
11
See Webb, John N., The Transient Unemployed, op. ci.l., pp. 31-32.
o,g111lcd by
Goog Ie
104 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Table 33.-Schooling Completed and Age of Economic Heads of Migrant Families
Age
Schooling completed
Total
11\-19
2~24
Y68Il!
years
25-34
years
35-44
45 Y'-""'"
years
and over
--------------1--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
6,437
62
1,567
1.182
100
100
100
2
4
e
11
15
22
27
21
2,000
636
Percent distribution
Total ••••••••••••••••••...••••.•..••
100
100
None ••..•..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
Grade school:
Less than 6 yeara •••.•.••...••.•.•....
6-7.9 years_ •••....••.. _••...•.•. _.•...
8-8.9years ••.•••..•••••••.•••••••.•...
3
2
15
23
13
23
8
23
26
27
26
28
36
40
High school (9-12.9 yeail!) ··- ... __ . ·- __ .. _.
Colle~• (13-16.9 years) ___ ·----------··---Postgraduate (17 years and over)-··- ••••• _
Avernge • years completed_·---·----
5
8. 4
100
23
28
. .
32
4
3
23
23
26
20
6
1
!
- -8.-4 - -8.-7 - -8.-6 - -8.3- - - 8.0
-
•Less than 0.5 percent.
Median.
NoTll:.-52 family heads, whose age or schooling completed was not ascert.alnable, are not included.
1
The native-born white heads of migrant families were found to
have the highest ]evel of education, followed in order by the foreignborn whites, the Negroes, and the other races (table 34).
Table 34.-Schooling Completed and Color and Nativity of Economic Heads of Migrant
Families
Color and nativity
Schooling completed
Total
Nath·&horn
white
Foreign•
born
white
4,556
357
Negro
Other I
------------------•---- ---- ---- ---- ---Total ••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••..••.••••••••.
5, 40-5
415
n
100
Percent distribution
Total .•••.•••.••••.••••. _•••••.•••••....•. _... .
100
100
100
100
None_ ... __ .-·-·· ................................... .
Grade school:
Less than 5 ye8Il!·-···············-··-······-·-··
5-7.9 years ___ -······· •...• -·· ••..• ···-··· ....•• ·8-8.9 years ••..••••.••.••.•••...••...••.•••.•••••.
3
2
7
g
13
14
12
20
23
23
27
24
26
30
27
23
26
32
15
13
Bl~h school (9-12.9 YMil!). ·········-··-···-·-·-····College (13-16.9 years)·-·····--·····················Postgraduate (17 years and over) .•••••...•••...•••. -
29
5
•
31
5
•
19
6
2
14
4
I
13
3
Average• ye8Il! completed·-·--······--·······-
~I~
====:.o ~ ~
•Less than 0.5 percent.
1 Includes
I Median.
Mexicans.
Non.--84 family heads, wh088 schooling completed or color and nativity were not ascertainable, are not
Included.
Dig11ized l:>y
Goog Ie
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS •
105
Migrant family heads had a higher level of schooling completed
than the heads of either the urban or rural relief population (table
35 and fig. 26).
Tobie 35.-Schooling Completed by Economic Heads and Other Members 15 Years of
Age and Over of Migrant Families and of Heads of Urban
Relief Families
1
Economic
heads 1
Other
memhers
15 years
of age and
over•
6,441
6,379
Total_----------- _______ .------------------------
Resident
lleads of resident relief
families
Migrant families
Schooling completed
I
and Rural
Urban
Rural (Oct.
(Oct. 1935)
1933)
6,982
6,333
Percent distribution
TotaL _______________ --- _____ -------- -- - --- -- ___ _
None _________________________________________________ _
Grade
school:
Less than 6 years __________________________________ _
5-7 .9 years ______________ ------ _______ .----. ______ ..
8-8.9 years ____________ - -- ------ -- --- - -- ---- -- -- -- -High school (9-12.0 years) _____________________________ .
f'olle;;o (13-16.9 years) _______ . _____________ . ___________ .
Postgraduate (17 years and over) ______________________ _
Average• years completed. _____________________ _
100
JOO
100
4
3
10
8
13
10
22
23
26
23
27
26
19
27
22
29
100
.
. .
==1==== 1====
29
34
5
3
17
3
15
2
0
8. 5
8.4
1.0
I
7. ft
•Less than 0.5 percent.
1 Carmichael, F. L. nnd Payn,,., Stanley L., Th, /,9.% R,/irf Population In 1., rm,., A CrOM &clion, s~rles
r, No. 23, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Admlnistrntion, Washington, D. C., December 31,
19311, p. 9.
• McCormick, ThomM C., Comparatire Sludv of R1tral R,ii,(and Nan-R,lirf Tlo11..,holda, Rllcsenrch Monograph II, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, W1Lshington, D. C., 11135, p. 30.
• 48 family heads, whose schooling completed wus not ascertainable, are not included.
• 102 persom 15 years of age and over, whose schooling completed was not ascertainable, are not Included.
• Median.
II
~5-7
Less than
5 grades
~ grades
m
8 grades
~ 9 or mare
~ grades
Percent
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
Migrant families, 1935
Urban families certified
far WPA, 1935
Rural relief households,
1933
FIG.
26-SCHOOLING COMPLETED BY HEADS OF MIGRANT FAMILIES
AND BY HEADS OF URBAN AND RURAL RESIDENT
RELIEF FAMILIES
Source: Table 35.
Oigit1zcd by
Goog IC
106 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Some of the difference between the educational attainments of
migrant and resident relief families is attributable to the youth of the
migrant group and to the underrepresentation of Negroes. In any
event, it is obvious that educational attainment was not a selective
factor in depression migration. 18
18 There are no detailed studies of the schooling of the entire population with
which the schooling of persons in migrant families may be compared. The Statistical Division of the Office of Education, United States Department of the
Interior, in Biennial Survey of Education, 1932--1934, p. 14, estimates that 51.5
percent of persons above 21 years of age in 1934 have completed at least the eighth
grade, that 13.9 percent have been graduated from high school, and that 2.9
percent have completed college. These figures appear to show that the migrant
family heads and the other adult members have had more than average schooling,
since 62 percent of the economic heads and 60 percent of the other adult members
have completed at least the eighth grade.
Oig,t z~d by
G oog Ie
Chapter VI
OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCES
A REPRESENTATIVE cross section of the families receiving assist-
ance from transient bureaus necessarily consists largely of families
which, at the time of interview, had failed to achieve the purposes of
t.heir migration. As soon as migration succeeded, the successful
families were no longer a part of the transient relief population and
therefore were outside the limits of this study. It is worthy of note,
however, that the figures on the turnover among transient families
(ch. IV) suggest that migration must have been wholly or partially
successful in a large proportion of cases and within a relatively short
period of time.
Although this study could not follow migrant families after they
left the transient relief population to determine the kind of readjustment that put an end to migration, it is possible to report on three of
the most important factors that conditioned the return of migrant
families to self-support: (1) employability, (2) usual occupation and
industry, and (3) duration of unemployment. For those heads of
migrant families who were employable and who, in addition, possessed
skills acceptable to industry, it seems reasonable to assume that their
return to stability depended chiefly upon an increase in the labor
demand of private employment.
EMPLOY ABILITY
In this study, employability was determined after a careful consideration of the following factors: (1) interview and case record
information regarding the temporary or permanent physical and
mental disabilities, temporary or chronic illness, personality and
speech difficulties, attitude toward employment, illiteracy, and
similar factors bearing on ability and willingness to work; (2) medical
examinations, and clinical and hospital reports whenever available;
(3) type of work done before migration; (4) age; (5) responsibility for
the care of dependent children under 16 years of age; and (6) the
interviewers' and case workers' opinions of employability.
107
Digrt1zcd
b,-Goog 1C
108 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
It was recognized that willingness to work taken in conjunction
with an absence of employment handicaps did not assure reemployment by private industry. Any attempt to define employability, or
degrees of employability, in terms of probable reabsorption by private
industry presumes a knowledge of future developments in economic
activity that does not exist. Such factors as age and employment
opportunities, to mention only the more obvious, have an important
bearing upon the reabsorption of heads of migrant families judged
in this study to be employable.
The effect of age on employability has been accounted for, at
least in part, by limiting the wholly employable group to economic
heads 16 through 50 years of age. 1 But it is clear that arbitrary limits
cannot be applied to such intangible factors as the location of families
in relation to opportunity for employment. The intricacies of an
employability index which would attempt to measure all factors
prohibit its use. On the other hand, the practicability of the simple
index-absence of bodily handicaps plus willingness to work-justifies
its use. The discussion which follows presents an examination of
factors which only affect, but do not necessarily determine, the employability of the economic heads of family groups included in this
study.
After thrn,e factors had been considered by the interviewers for
each case, one of the following classifications was assigned: (1) employable; (2) employable with handicaps; or (3) unemployable. The
employable group includes those who were under 51 years of age, were
willing to work, and for whom no handicaps were reported. In cases
where the economic head was 65 years of age and over, was a woman
responsible for the care of dependent children, or was definitely listed
as unemployable by the interviewer, the head was judged unemployable. In other cases, the seriousness of handicaps was considered so
that a judgment could be made as to whether the economic head was
"employable with handicaps" or "unemployable."
Employable Heads
In these terms, somewhat over half (56 percent) of the family
heads studied appeared to be unquestionably employable; that is, the
head was present in the relief group, hnd no ascertainable employment
handicaps, and was ·willing to work. The problem represented by this
group was thus chiefly of reemployment by private industry at a wage
sufficient to insure stability (table 36).
It may be thus said that a majority of the economic heads of migrant
families possessed the most important qualification for a resumption
of stable, self-supporting lives. They were able to work, willing to
1 By definition, an economic head was a person 16 years of age or older who was
responsible for the family group.
Digitzco by
Google
OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCES • 109
work, and were within the preferred age range for private employment.
Moreover, the majority had other employable members within the
family group.
Table 36.-Employability of Economic Heads of Migrant Families
Economic
heads
Employabillty
Total ________ -- -------- _--·--- ___________________________________ .. ______ . _________ ... _
6,426
Percent
distribution
Total_ ... ·····-······· ... ... .. . ·-···-·-···- ............... ··-··--.·- ..... -·............
100
1---
Emp)oyable ... -·•······ · ··· · ·· ·····-· · ············-· ··· •·· ····· · ··········-··---- · ··•········
Employable with handlcsps•••• ---·····--·--···---····- · ···············-·· ·--- --···· ·· ...... .
l .' nemployable. ·-· .....•....... ·····---···-·····--· . ... .....•.. •. ·-···· •..•... _.. __ ......... .
56
33
11
NOTII.~ famDy heads, whose employabillty was not ascertainable, Rre not Included.
Hcach Employable With Handicaps
The employability of the economic hca<ls of the remaining families
offers a more difficult problem of analysis. Clearly some must be
judged totally unemployable by any criterion; and the bodily handicaps of others were such as to restrict the range of gainful occupations
in which they might engage. However, there were some whose employment handicaps were probably more apparent than re11l. For
instance, age was considered a partial employment h11n<licap for all
economic heads 51 through 64 years and a total handicap for all heads
65 years of age and over. This arbitrary procedure probnhly docs
some violence to the facts; but it does less violence thnn would hnvo
resulted from ignoring the well-known tendency of employers in hiring
workers to discriminate in favor of younger men.
Approximately one-third of the economic heads of migrant families
were neither wholly employable nor wholly unemployable according
to the criteria used in this study (table 36). That is, one out of every
three of the economic heads was willing to work, but there were one or
more reasons 2 for believing that his ability to work was limited by
handicaps that would impair his success in the labor market (table 37).
Chronic illness was the employment handicap most frequently reported. Among the more important types of chronic illness were, in
order of importance: diseases of the respiratory system; heart, circulatory, and blood diseases; and diseases of the stomach and abdomen .
'In a considerable number of cases a person suffered from more than one employment handicap. For instance, an economic head may have lost the fingers of
his right band and he also may have been 55 years of age. Jn this case there
would be both an age and a disability handicap. For purposes of this report only
one hanrlicap was tabulated-the one that most directly affected the employment
of the individual. In the case cited above, physical disability would be tabulated
rather than age.
Digitized by
Google
110 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Tobie 37.-Employability and Employment Handicaps of Economic Heads of Migrant
Families
Economic
heads
Employability and employment handicaps
5,426
TotaL __ --- _____ --- - ---- -- ---- - ---- -- -- ---- -- ------ -- -- --- ------- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- ---
PMcent
distribution
Total.-------------------------------------------------------------------- _________ ._..
100
1----
Employable 16-61 years of age ____________________________ -------------------------------.....
56
Em~g~f:i
~/!!'b~ltt1!~~--_-::::: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::: ::: :
Mental disability_. ______ ._._. ____________________________ . _________ ------ ___________ ....
~l
Chronic lllnes.s. ___ . _____ .. ___ ... _________________________ .. ______ . _____ ... _. _. ____ ......
~i~!~7tnr~!::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.
Temporary
illness ______________________________________________ . _______________ .. ______ .
In.<titutionalization .. ___ .. _... _. __ . _____ ........ __ .. _. _.... ________ ...... __ .... __ ....... .
Women with dependents•- ________________________________________________ .. ______ ..... .
Illiteracy ____ ... _.. _.... --- . -- -- ------ -- --- . -- --- -- ----- --- - -- - ---- -- ---- - ---- -- -- - ---- · ·
Other ______ ._._ .. _. __ .... _-----------. _____ -- . ----. -- -- -- . --- -- ----- --- -.. - . -- -- .. - . - --- Unemployable ______ .-------------------------- ____________________________________ .. ____ . _. .
~iit;;]!t~ri~1?~~-~::::=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
11
!
2
2
3
11
I
fl
4
• Less than 0.6 percent.
1 Women whose families required only part-time care, who were able and willing to work, and who had
work histories.
Nou.~ family heads, whose employability wu not ascertainable, are not included.
The proportion of family heads handicapped by chronic illness was
considerably higher in this than in a previous study 3 of migrant family
groups. The difference is partially due to the fact that the earlier
study covered continuous monthly registrations 4 which overrepresented the more mobile and presumably the least handicapped portion
of the population. The far more complete examination of employability made in the present study also indicates that handicapped
migrant family heads tended in the earlier study to overstate their
ability to work,6 either out of pride or the belief that it would improve
1 See Research Bulletins Nos. TR-1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, December 28, 1934, to August 26,1935, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency
Relief Administration, Washington, D. C.
' Continuous monthly registrations did not take account of the tendency of
family groups to accumulate in areas with healthful climates. Thus, among the
monthly registrations in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, the proportion of family heads suffering from ill-health was probably smaller than the
proportion of such persons under oare in these States. Since the present study
was based principally upon a sample of transient families already under care in
transient centers, it may be expected that the proporiion of family heads in poor
health would be somewhat larger than among family heads currently registered.
' The importance of ill-health as a cause of family migration bas already been
discussed. See pp. 7-8.
D1g1t1zed by
Google
OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCES • 111
their chances of obtaining private employment or employment on the
Works Program.
Age was a partially disabling factor for 7 percent of all economic
heads and in importance ranked next to chronic illness. Physical
disabilities that restricted but did not entirely prevent gainful employment complete the list of the three most important handicaps
found among the economic heads of migrant families. These three
handicap classifications account for approximately two-thirds of all
heads who were considered to be employable with handicaps. Chief
among the physical disabilities were: trunk or back injuries; eye
injuries; and leg, ankle, or foot injuries. That serious employment
handicaps a.re presented by these physical disabilities under modern
hiring procedures is obvious.
Each of the other employment handicaps involved a relatively
small number of family heads. Among these other handicaps were
the presence of dependent children or invalids who restricted women
heads to part-time employment, illiteracy, and other disabilities comprising a wide variety of such circumstances as personality difficulties
and unwillingness to work.
In terms of occupational attachment many of the families with
heads employable with handicaps were capable of returning to a
self-supporting way of life in a. new community provided tha.t normal
job opportunities were present. Broadly speaking, the usual occupations of these workers (appendix table 17) were such that resettlement would not be unduly difficult in many localities.
It must not be overlooked, however, that m8Jly of the families
whose economic head was partially handicapped had bunched up
in particular localities, where the ch8Jlces for securing employment
adequate to insure a stable self-supporting existence were not promising. For example, ln8JlY families in which some member was
suffering from respiratory disorders migrated to the Southwest,
where communities were simply unable to absorb them into private
industry. The failure of many of these families to make such an
adjustment is evidenced by the large numbers that turned to migratory agricultural work as the only means of remaining in an area
believed to be beneficial to the health of the head.
Unemployable Heads
There remain approximately one-ninth of the economic heads who
were judged to be totally unemployable (table 37). The most important group among the unemployable heads consisted of women
with dependent children requiring their entire time. This group
accounted for over half of the totally unemployable heads. Women
partially and totally unemployable because of dependent children
Dig rt zed by
Goog IC
112 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
made up 8 percent of all families and were equal in size to the proportion handicapped and disabled by age.
Next in importance were the family heads who, regardless of age,
were so incapacitated by bodily infirmities as to be unfit for gainful employment. Finally, the unemployable group included the
economic heads who were 65 years of age and over. Age, however,
was the least important of the three factors, accounting for slightly
under 1 percent of all economic heads and approximately one-fourteen th of all those classified as unemployable.
It is clear that resettlement of these families on a self-supporting
basis was highly improbable. These families contained no members
who were either fully or partially employable. In so far as these
families were absorbed by communities there was merely a transfer
of relief burden from the old to the new place of residence. For
many families, particularly the health seekers, such a shift was socia.lly
desirable. But the community at their destination is ordinarily
reluctant to extend such families aid, and it is seldom that a community of former residence will make any contribution toward defraying the cost of maintaining the family in another locality.
The unemployable family therefore faced the unhappy alternatives
of living precariously on what assistance could be obtained in a new
community or of returning (or being returned) to a place of former
residence where as often as not assistance was no more readily obtained. Though small in number this type of needy nonresident
family presents a social problem of great complexity and one that
deserves careful and sympathetic consideration on the part of public
and private social service agencies. Since the majority of the unemployable heads were mothers who could not work because of the
need of caring for young children or invalid dependents, the principal
relief problem represented by the unemployable heads was need for
aid to dependent children.
USUAL OCCUPATION AND INDUSTRY
About one-ninth of the families lacked an employable economic
head, and for this group it seems clear that public assistance was the
only means by which stability could be assured. For about ninetenths of the families, however, employment was necessary for reestablishment.. It is worth while, then, to consider their qualifications
for employment in terms of the occupation which they usua.lly followed and the industries in which these occupations were customarily
pursued.
Because of a pronounced similarity in occupational characteristics
between family heads judged to be fully employable and those judged
to be employable with handicaps, the two groups have been combined
in the discussion which follows. There has been included, however,
D1g111zcd by
Goog 1C
OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCES •
113
one summary description of the occupational characteristics of the
two groups separately (appendix table 17).
Usual Occupation
In this study the usual occupation wns defined as the particular
gainful acti•rity at which the economic hend of the family had customarily been employed or, in some instances, the activity which the
economic head considered his usual occupation by reason of experience
or training. 6
Main Class of Usual Occupation
Broad groups of occupations indicate roughly the general level of
skill possessed by workers, and at the same time suggest their economic level. The groupings used in classifying migrant family heads
are as follows: (1) white-collar workers, subdivided into professional,
proprietary workers (nonagricultural and agricultural), and clerical
and salespersons; (2) skilled workers; (3) semiskilled workers; and
(4) unskilled workers, who were further divided into laborers (nonagricultural and agricultural) and domestic and personal service
workers.
Ta&le 38.-Usual Occupation and Sex of Employable Economic Heads of Migrant
Families
_ _T__ _ ___-__-___-__-___-__-__-_-~-~~-----""----~u--~-~--t'.~-n___-__-___-__-___-__-__-___-__-___-__-____ ,_T_:-,t-:~-,
0 181
~:~~~ I Fema:
2
Percent distribution
TotaL-····-··-·····················- -· ·-·-··-··-· ___ ----···- ______ .
JOO
JOO
100
Whit~llar workers·-----·-····-··-·--····---------·----·---------------Proressional workers__________________________________________________
Proprietary wc,rkers (nonngriculturnlJ ..... __ .. . _______ _______________
Proprietary workers (agricult.urnl) ___ .________________________________
Clerical and salespersons. ___ . ____ .··-····--- .. ___________________ .... _
28
6
4
8
11
28
5
4
8
11
28
6
•
•
8kille<l workers_.---·-·-·····-____________________________________________
Semiskilled workers••• ---------------·-····---------····-···-··---------..
Unskilled workers_. _________ ---···-----··---·--. __________ .. _____________
Laborers (nonagricultural) __ ._. ______________ ---·--. _________________ .
Laborers (agricultural) ________ ------------------------------·--··-··-·
Domestic and personal service workers _____ .............. ________ .....
23
26
24
26
24
8
7
9
23
8
8
7
---1---·1---
22
I
:u
47
3
«
•Less than 0.5 percent.
NoTE.-760 family heads, who were unemployable, whose usual =1,ation was not ascertainable, and
those who never worked, are not included.
The employable economic heads of migrant families were almost
evenly distributed among the white-collar, skilled, semiskilled, and
unskilled workers (table 38). It is interesting to compare this distribution with the broad occupational st,atus of the resident unem• In cases where the economic head had worked at two or more occupations
for short periods of time the occupation of his last nonrelief job of 2 weeks, or
longer duration was reported as his usual occupation. The number of such
cases, however, was small.
Oigil1zcd by
Goog IC
114 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
ployed in 1935 and of the general population of gainfully employed
persons in 1930 (table 39 and fig. 27).
Tol,le 39.-Main Class of Usual Occupation of Employable Economic Heads of Migrant
Families, of Resident Relief Families, March 1935,1 and of Gainful Workers 16-6-4
Years of Age in the General Population of 1930 1
Employable
economic
heads or
Main class or usual occupation
Economic
hMdsof
Nlllldent
relier
Oalnlul
w~ken
l ~ yean
of BP in
ramllies
~n
migrant
ramllles •
March 11135
4, 729
4, 037, 709
Total. ....................•.••.•.•.•..........................
1930
45, D13, 404
Percent distribution
Total.........................................................
White-collar worlten...... .. .. .. .. ... .... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .
SkiJled workers.....................................................
Semiskilled workers................................................
Unskilled workers........ ..•.. .. . . . . ....•...... ... . . . . . . . .....•. ..
100
100
100
:l8
23
10
42
18
24
48
30
1----1----;---25
24
13
15
1 Hauser, Philip M .• Worker, on Rtlitfin I/It United Statt1 In Mardi 1936, Abridged Edition, Division of
Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 11137, p. 211.
• Bureau of the Censiu, Flftuntll Ctmu, of the UnUtd Statu: /9YJ, Population Vols. IV and V, U. S.
Department of Commerce, Washington D. C., 11133, pp. 44 !rand 352 ff, N111pectlvely.
'760 fRmliy heads, who were unemployable, whose usual occupation was not aaoertainable. and thoae
who never worked, are not included.
Although the economic heads of the two relief groups are not
perfectly comparable with all gainful workers 16-64 years of age in the
general population, the differences in the distribution shown in table 38
are of such magnitude that significant tendencies are suggested.
The occupational status of migrant family heads, in terms of broad
occupational groupings, was clearly higher than that of economic
heads of resident relief families. A substantially smaller proportion
of the migrant family heads was unskilled, and a larger proportion
was skilled and white-collar workers.
■ while
collar
Ill
~Skilled
E)unskilled
semiskilled
Percent
0
10
20
30
40
50
co
70
80
90
100
r--
Migrant families, 1935
Relief families, 1935
Gainful workers in
general population, 1930
FIG. 27- MAIN CLASS OF USUAL OCCUPATION OF ECONOMIC HEADS
OF MIGRANT FAMILIES AND RELIEF FAMILIES
IN 1935 AND OF GAINFUL WORKERS
16 THROUGH 64 YEARS OF AGE IN
THE GENERAL POPULATION, 1930
Source: Table 39.
D1g1t1zcd by
Google
I
OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCES•
115
The occupational status of the migrant family heads also compares
favorably with that of the gainful workers in the 1930 Census: The
general population contained a higher proportion of unskilled workers
than the migrant family sample. White-collar workers, however,
were greatly underrepresented among migrant family heads. The
economic heads of migrant families thus occupied a position intermediate between the resident relief unemployed, in which unskilled
workers bulked largest, and the total gainful working population, in
which white-collar workers were the largest group.
These broad occupational groups fail to carry over the significant
detail associated with individual occupations. In order, then, to get
a more specific description of the pursuit followed by the economic
heads of migrant families it is necessary to consider some of the more
important occupations that make up each of the four broad occupational groups (appendix table 18).
White-Collar Workers
Among the professional and technical workers in migrant groups
the most important occuptions were: musicians, technical engineers,
clergymen and religious workers, and actors. The importance of
actors, musicians, and clergymen reflects to some extent the presence
of itinerant showmen and revivalists on the road. The most important occupations included under "proprietors, managers, and officials
(nonagricultural)" were retail dealers and managers, peddlers, and
building contractors. Clerks in offices, bookkeepers, and telegraph
and radio operators accounted for most of the office workers; and
salesmen, real estate agents, and canvassers accounted for most of the
salesmen and kindred workers (appendix table 18).
Skilled Workers
Because of the relatively high proportion of skilled workers among
the employable economic heads of migrant families (table 39) it is
of particular interest to examine some of the more important types of
skills represented by this group. Well over hnlf of these skilled workers were usually employed in the building and construction industry.
In order of importance, the skilled trades most frequently reported
were: painters, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, engineers, and
structural steel workers (appendix table 18). The prolonged depression of the building industry, together with the fact that a considerable
number of building trades workers are accustomed to moving about
the country in pursuit of their trades, accounts for the relative overrepresentation of skilled construction workers among migrant families.
The remaining skilled workers consisted of craftsmen usually
attached to manufacturing industries. Mechanics led the list, with
machinists, locomotive engineers and firemen, and printing trades
workers following in the order named.
o,g111lcd by
Goog Ie
116 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Semiskilled Workers
Workers from the building and construction industries were somewhat less important among the semiskilled than among skilled workers.
Truck and tractor drivers in building and construction work were,
however, more numerous than any other single group among semiskilled workers, and accounted for nearly three-quarters of the semiskilled from the building and construction industry. Machine
operators were the principal group among the semiskilled workers
from the manufacturing industries. These workers were usually
employed in the manufacture of textiles, iron and steel, automobiles,
clothing, and food (appendix table 18).
Umkilled Workers
Economic heads of migrant families following unskilled pursuits came
in almost equal numbers from manufacturing and allied industries,
agriculture, and domestic and persona.I service. Unskilled workers
usually employed on the construction of buildings, roads, and streets
and sewers, together with the traditionally mobile laborers in mines
and on railroads, made up most of the unskilled group outside of
agriculture. Farm hands, including some migratory seasonal workers
who regularly follow the crops, account for the fairly large group of
unskilled agricultural workers. Among the domestic and personal
service workers, cooks in restaurants, construction camps, and hotels,
accounted for well over one-third of the group. Barbers, waiters,
and domestic servants made up the second most important group
of domestic and persona.I service workers.
U111al Industry
Table 40 presents a summary account of the industrial attachment
of the economic heads, and appendix table 19 presents a detailed
account of the specific industries.
Tobie 40.-Usual Industry and Sex of Employable Economic Heads of Migrant Families
Usunl industry
Male
Total
Total.----------------------------------------------------____
4,663
Female
4, 4M
1117
Percent distribution
100
Total _____ -- _____ -- -- -- - -- ---- -- --- -- -- ----- -- ----- - -- ---· · · · ·
100
100
Al!Tleulture.offorestry,
and
flshing_··-····-······················-···
Extraction
rninemhL
_____________________________
. ______________ .
hlnnnfacturing and mechanical industries ________________________ _
'fnrn..,portution and communication._ .. __________________________ _
Trade ...... --·--·-···--·-···-·----··---·-·· .... -· .......... --·-- .. .
service._._.-····-···--·-----·
___ ··--····-···········. __ .... ._
Puh!ic
Prore..~ion:1l
servif'.'e ________________________________________________
17
17
4
4
37
13
13
1
6
9
5
37
14
24
Domestic and personal service .... ·-···--···-. __ .......... _·- .. __ ...
1
13
1
5
8
2
13
l
II
47
NoTE.-826 economic heads, who were unemployable, whose usual industry was not ascertainable, and
those who never w•>rke<I,
lite
nol included.
C1grt zeo oy
Goos IC
OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCES•
117
This distribution of family heads did not depart greatly from the
industrial distribution of heads of relief families or gainful workers in
the general population. Migrant families represented no particular
broad. industrial classifications to the exclusion of others. Though
a few variations appeared, migrant families' industrial attachment
was in general a cross-section of the industrial composition of the
resident relief and general populations (table 41 and fig. 28).
Tobie 47.-Usual Industry of Employable Economic Heads of Migrant Families, of
Resident Relief Families March 1935, 1 and of Gainful Workers 10 Years of Age and
Over in the General Population of 1930 a
Usual Industry
Total ..•.......................••....••.••.•••.••.••..........
Employ.
able economic
beads or
migrant
families•
(, 663
Gainful
Economic workers
JO
beads of years of age
resident and over in
relief
general
families
population
1935
1930
3,719,074
47,492, 231
Percent distribution
Total •.............•...•.........•••••••••••••••••••••••••.•..
100
100
100
A!!Ticulture, forestry, and fishing ..•..•..................•.•..•.•....
Extraction or minerals. _____________ -------------------------------Munufocturing nnd mechanical Industries ....•.............•••••....
Transportation and communication .••.•••.•••.......•......•••..•..
Trude .............•.•••.•..•••.•...•...•.••...........•......••.....
Puhlic sen·ioo .....••••••...•••.•.•.•...•...•.....•.......••••.•...•.
Professional service ...•.......••...•...........................•••..
Domestic and personal servioo ..................................... .
17
22
23
3
30
4
4
37
13
13
39
14
g
1
1
2
6
g
g
g
16
2
7
10
• Rausor, Philip M. and Jenkinson, Bnice, Work,ra on R,ti,fin th, Uniltd S/al,s in March. 19,,s, Vol. Il,
.... Study ol Industrial and Rducational Ba,·kgrounds, Division or Social Hesearcb, Works Progress Admin•
i.stration, Washington, D. C. (in preparation).
1 Bureau ol the Census, Fiftunth Ctn,ua of /ht Uniltd Stalu: /9MI, Population Vol. V, U.S. Department
or Commerce, Washington, ll. C., 1933, p. 40>, rr.
• 82ti economic heads, who were unemploy•ble, whose usual industry was not ascertainable, and those
who Ilt'Ver worked, are not included.
Certain differences in the distributions which appear in table 41
are in part a reflection of other causes than the selective factor of
migration. Comparability is biased in particular by (1) the relatively small proportion of female migrant family heads and (2)
the comparison of family heads in the relief groups with all gainful
workers 10 years and over in the general population.
Other differences between the industrial attachment of migrant
family heads and all gainful workers appear to have resulted from
variations in the distress mobility of particular industrial groups.
Agriculture 7 is clearly underrepresented among migrant family heads.
:Manufacturing and mechanical industries were overrepresented by
comparison with the gainful workers in the general population. As
appendix table 19 shows, the particular industries contributing most
to this overrepresentation were building and construction, automobile repair shops, and sawmills. Transportation and communication
1
See ch. II, p. 52 ff.
D1g111zcd by
Goog 1C
118 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
was likewise overrepresented among migrant family heads, particularly in water transportation, automobile trucking, pipelines, and the
construction of streets, roads, etc., industries. The overrepresentation in these particular industries is logical, since most of these
industries require a mohile labor supply.
It would seem, then, that industrial characteristics were to some
degree a selective factor in the migration of the families studied.
The differences revealed in table 41 are not, however, great enough
to explain migrant family mobility in terms of industrial attachment.
While the pursuits which permitted or required mobility were overrepresented, the overrepresentation in most instances was not great.
Percenl
0
10
20
30
40
"9ricullure, forestry,
ond fishing
Extraction of
minerals
Manufacturin9 and
mechonicol industries
lmm:m:"-
Transportation and
communication
Trade
Public service
•
l!IB
Professional
service
~
Mi9rant families, 1935
Relief families, 1935
Gainful workers in
9eneral population, 1930
Domestic and
personal service
F1G. 28- USUAL INDUSTRY OF ECONOMIC HEADS OF MIGRANT
FAMILIES ANO RELIEF FAMILIES IN 1935 ANO OF
GAINFUL WORKERS 10 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER
IN THE GENERAL POPULATION, 1930
Source : Tobie 41.
AF-2877, WP&
Digitized by
GoogIe
OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCES• 119
Supposedly sedentary pursuits-such as in the food industries, the
clothing industries, the paper and printing industries, trade, professional service, and domestic and personal service--were represented
by large numbers of migrant family heads.
Occupation and Industry by Age
Both age and occupational characteristics appear to have operated
as selective factors in the migration of families receiving aid from
transient bureaus. It may be of interest, therefore, to compare age
with occupational and industrial groupings; this has been done for
employable economic family heads in appendix tables 20 and 21.
In the two age groups 35 to 44 years and 45 to 64 years the proportions of white-collar and skilled workers were distinctly greater
than among the two age groups under 35 years. Within the whitecollar group the older age of proprietors, both agricultural and nonagricultural, explains this difference. Among skilled workers the
difference is explained to a large extent by the industrial distribution
(appendix table 21) which shows that for workers in the building
and construction industries the proportions above 35 years were
greater than the proportions below this age.
The greater relative importance of youth in the semiskilled and
unskilled groups was the result principally of the attachment of youth
t-0 transportation industries and to agriculture where these occupational groups predominated.
Education and Occupation
In an effort to discover some significant relationships between
educational attainment and occupation these factors were compared
in terms of broad educational and occupational groupings. The comparison suggests nothing that goes beyond common knowledge. The
proportion of white-collar workers was about two times as great among
economic heads with better than a grade school education than among
those who stopped at or failed to complete the first 8 years. This
situation is reversed among the unskilled and, to a lesser degree, among
the semiskilled. The proportions of skilled workers were about the
same for these two educational groups (appendix table 22).
DURATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Duration of unemployment for migrant family heads has been
measured in two ways: first, in terms of the time elapsed since the
family economic head was last employed for at least 1 month at his
usual occupation; and second, in terms of the time elapsed since his
last employment (a) for at least 2 weeks and (b) for at least I month
at any nonrelief job. The totally unemployable family heads have
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog1C
120 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
been eliminated from the tabulations which follow in order to permit
comparison with the employable urban relief workers and WPA
project workers.
Time Since Last Joi, at U1UGI Occupation
Long unemployment involves a deterioration of skill which lowers
the reemployment opportunity of workers without affecting the distribution of their usual occupations. Accordingly, the information
on usual occupations in this chapter is conditioned by the lapse of
time since the family heads worked at their usual occupation.
The median time elapsed since the migrant family heads' last employment at their usual occupation was 18.5 months. It was accordingly substantially less than the median duration of 30.3 months for
the urban workers 8 on resident relief in May 1934.9 The distributions
for both these groups are shown in table 42.
Nearly three-fif tbs of the migrant family heads had last worked at
their usual occupation within 2 years of the time this study was made;
and nearly two-fifths had worked at their usual occupation within I
year. In contrast, only 43 percent of the urban workers on resident
relief reported work at their usual occupation within 2 years, and only
one-fourth reported a duration of less than I year.
For both groups, the workers displaced from their usual occupation since the depression (less than 5 years) comprised an overwhelming majority of the total. But among the migrant family
heads the recently displaced workers by far outnumbered the longtime depression unemployed, while among urban workers on relief
recent and long-time depression unemployment occurred in approximately equal proportions (table 42).
It is obvious, then, that by comparison with the resident relief
population, the deterioration of skills had made less serious inroads
upon the occupational resources of the migrant family heads. The
shorter duration of unemployment of migrant family heads since
8 The sample of urban workers on relief represents a resident relief group in
May 1934, more than a year earlier than the time of the migrant family study.
However, this disparity does not invalidate the comparison made. A survey of WP A workers conducted 7 months after the present study shows an
even greater median duration of unemployment than was revealed in the urban
workers' sample. The median duration of unemployment for the three groups
was as follows:
Migrant Family Heads, September 1935 ____________ 18. 5 months
Urban Workers on Relief, May 1934 _______________ 30. 3 months
Economic Beads Employed on WPA, April 1936 ____ 40. 6 months
See Shepherd, Susan M. and Bancroft, Gertrude, Survey of Cases Ceitijied for
Works Program Employment in 18 Cities, Research Bulletin, Series IV, Number 2,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
1937, p. 36.
• About seven-eighths of the urban workers' sample consisted of family heads.
Digrt zed by
Goog Ie
OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCES• 121
their last job at usual occupation thus reinforces the conclusion drawn
from the broad occupation comparisons in the preceding section. Not
only did migrant families tend to fall into higher occupational classifications than urban relief workers, but their experience in the higher
classification was also substantially more recent.
Ta&le 4.2.-Duration of Unemployment Since Last Job of at Least 1 Month at Usual
Occupation of Employable Economic Heads of Migrant Families and of Urban
Workers on Relief May 1934 1
Employable
economic
heads of
Duration of unemployment since last Job of I month et usual occupation
mi~rant
families•
Total..................................................................
Urban
workers
on relier
May 19341
4, 468
1118, 130
Percent distribution
Total.. ...................•......•. ····································
Le.55 than 5 years-··························································Less than 2 years ..........••....•.......•.......•.•.............•.•.... _
Less than 3 months ......................••............•..•....•.... _
3--5.9 months ...................•...•.•..•...•.....•...•...•...•.... _
6-11.9 months .....•......••..••.•. ························••··•····12-23.9 months ....•............................................... _.
2-4.9 years .••.••.•.••••.•....•.......•.•...•...•.......•................ _
Over 5 y~al"l! .......•.•.........•.•....... _.... ···- -···· _-·- ................ _.
.5-9.9 years .............•... ·-·········-····-··-·-···---··················
10 years or more •..•..•.•..•••...•.•.......•... ·····••················-··
Average• duration (in months)._ ......................................
100
100
83
69
11
11
17
20
24
85
43
7
6
17
14
3
15
------i-----
1
13
17
42
11
4
===,=8.=5=•1=
30. 3
I Based on Palmer, Gladys L. aml Woort. Katherine D., Urban Worktr• on Relief. Part I.-The Occu•
pstional Characteristics or Workers on Hrlief in Urban Aree.s May 1934, Resean·h Monograph IV, Divi•
sion of Social Research, Works Pro~ress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1936.
• 1,021 fomily heads, who were unemployable, who never worked, e.nd whose duration of llllemployment
at usual occupation was not ascertainable, are not included.
1 Medie.n.
Time Elapsed Since Last Job at Any Occupation
Data on the time elapsed since the last job at any occupation provide a basis for comparing the success of migrant families in finding
work at any job, both before and after migration to another labor
market, with the success of other needy groups which did not migrate.
Comparison between the migrant families and the urban workers on
resident relief presents a striking difference. Eliminating short-time
jobs and calculating for purpose of comparison on the basis of jobs
lasting at least 1 month, the median duration of unemployment was
7.8 months. In contrast, the median duration of unemployment for
urban workers on relief in May 1934 was 22.7 months; and for
WPA workers 10 in the last quarter of 1935 it was 24.0 months, more
than three times as long (table 43).
About two-thirds of the migrant family heads had been unemployed for less than 1 year as compared with only about one-third
10
Ninety-five percent of the WP A workers were family heads.
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog1C
1 22 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
of the urban workers on relief. This disproportion between groups
became even greater for those unemployed less than 6 months and
less than 3 months. Among the urban workers on relief 41 percent
had not worked since early in the depression as compared with only
11 percent of the migrant family heads.
It is clearly indicated that migrant family heads had been much
more successful in finding work outside their usual occupation than
the workers on resident relief (tables 42 and 43 and fig. 29). The
median duration of unemployment for migrant families dropped from
18.5 months in terms of usual occupation to 7.8 months in terms of
any occupation, while for the resident urban relief workers the decrease was only from 30.3 months to 22.7 months. This striking
difference suggests that the shorter duration of unemployment of
migrant families was the result of their access, through mobility, to
another labor market. And, indeed, as table 44 shows, the low
duration of unemployment is traceable principally to the jobs the
family heads found after leaving settled residence. It should not be
overlooked, however, that the median duration of unemployment
among the families which did not find work after migration (13.1 months)
was substantially lower than the median for resident relief workers.
Tal,/e 43.-Duration of Unemployment Since Last Job of at Least 1 Month at Any
Occupation of Employable Economic Heads of Migrant Families, of Urban Workers
on Relief May 1934,1 and of Urban Workers on WPA October-December 1935 1
Duration ol unemployment since last Job at any occupation
TotaL--·····························-·····-··-··-·-·-········
Employ•
able eco·
nomic
heads of
mhrrant
families•
Urban
workers
on relief
May 1934
3,007
206,394
Urban
workers
onWPA
OctoberDecember
1935
347.~
Percent distribution
Total .... -·-·-•-·•·•··-·······-··-······-·····•·······-·······
100
100
100
Less than ~years ... ·-········ .... --·•·· .•................. ··-·· ....
Less than 2 years ... _..................... . ........•.......•....
Less than 3 months ........................................ .
3-5.9 months .........................•.•....................
97
!!fl
23
20
23
20
92
51
8
50
6-11.9 months .............. . ..................... . .... . .. . . .
12-23.9 months ...... . ....... . ......... .. .................. . .
2---4.9 years •..• ··---- .•.•.•...••. ·- .••.••••..••••..••. ••••••·•• - -
Over 5 years ...... - .......... . .................................... .
f,-\),9 years .... __ ..................................... . . ·-• ..... .
lO years or more., •... •-·-·-··································-Average• duration (In months). .....•.•...............•......
11
3
3
.
8
16
19
41
8
6
2
88
5
8
13
24
38
12
12
1====~====1====
7. 8
22. 7
24. 0
"Less than 0.5 percent.
Based on Palmer, Gladys L. and Wood, Katherine D., Urban ll'erktr• on RtlirJ, Part I.-Th,• Occu•
pational Charact~ristics of Workers on Relief in L'rban Areas May IY34. Research Monograph IV, Division
of Social Research, Works Pro~ress Administration, Washin~ton, D. C., 10:!6, p. 44.
• From unpuhlished data in the flies of the Division of Social Research, Works Progre.s.s AdministraUon.
• 1,492 family heads. who were unemployable. who worked ie.s.s than I month at last Job, whose duration
of unemployment or occupation wa,; not ascertainable, and tbooe who never worked, are not Included.
1
• !1-ledian.
Dig rt zed by
Goog IC
OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCES• 123
50
50
Unemployment
11111
.;
4
Since lost job ot usuol occupation
0 1 - - - - ~ Since lost job ot ony occupation
- --
------t4Q
,:;
c0
E
c
~
30
t-----------
30
~
tE
~
a.
a.
C
:::,
•
.
E
E
C
:::,
0
~
0
20 .§
~:::,
20 - - - - - - - - - -
0
..,:j
..,
C
0
C
0
.
.
:.;
;.;
:E
--- --- 10
10
o ___
:E
___.o
Migrant family
economic heods
Urbon workers
on relief, 1934
WPA workers, Apr 1936
ond Oct. -Dec. 1935
F1G. 29-UNEMPLOYMENT SINCE LAST JOB AT USUAL OCCUPATION
AND LAST JOB AT ANY OCCUPATION
ECONOMIC HEADS OF MIGRANT FAMILIES
URBAN WORKERS ON RELIEF 1934, AND
WPA WORKERS 1935 AND 1936
Sources: Tables 42,43 ond Footnote 8, Chapter VI.
AF•Zl79, WPA
The fact that the short duration of unemployment of migrant family
heads resulted from (1) jobs secured outside their usual occupation
and (2) jobs secured after beginning migration suggests that many
families had turned to migratory-casual employment. As an earlier
transient study showed, this is what actually took place. Among
the family heads studied in The Transunt Urumployed only 3 to 7
percent had usual occupations as migratory-casual workers; but 23
to 33 percent had migratory-casual work as their first job after
beginning migration, and 23 to 38 percent had migratory-casual work
as their last job before registering for transient relief .11 This fact not
only implies low earnings but also a lowered occupational status which
11 See Webb, John N., The Transient Unemployed, Research Monograph III,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
1935, pp. 54-55 and appendix table 23B.
D1g1t1zcd by
Google
124 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
qualifies to some extent the conclusion to be drawn from the relatively
low duration of unemployment of family heads since last job at usual
occupation.
TafJle -U.-Duration of Unemployment Since Last Job of at Least 2 Weeks at Any
Occupation of Employable Economic Heads of Migrant Families
Economic heads or migrant ramilies
Duration of unemployment since last Job or at les.•t 2 weeks at any
occupation
Total
TotaL ___ ···-·····-···-·························-·····-·---·--
4,098
Did not
Worked
since
since leav- work
leaving
ing settled
se1tled
residence
residence
2,248
1,850
Percent dlstrlbulion
Total·--·······-···-·-·--------···-···-·····-·················
100
100
100
23
35
10
Less than 3 months ..•.•... ·-···-·-···-···-······••·····-·-·---•····
20
21
1e
3-5.9 mont.hs __ .. ········-·-······ ... -·· _-··•-. -·-·-· ....•..... ·-- __ _
22
23
21
6-11.9 mont.hs..._ ············--·· ---··· -··· ··-- -····· --··. ···-· _··- __
20
16
~
12-23.9 months.. .. _.•...................... -···-···._-·······-·-···-15
6
28
More than 2 rears .......................... ··················-····I = = = =1====1°====
Average I duration (in months).
8. 0
5. 2
13. 1
•Median.
NoTJl!.-1,391 family heads, who were unemployahle, who had no settled residence, who never worked, or
whose duration ol unemployment or occupation Wll8 not ascertainable, are not included.
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog1C
Chapter VII
CONCLUSIONS
THIS REPORT has been concerned with a detailed description of the
characteristics and behavior of migrant families which received relief
from the transient program during the operation of the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration. As such, it has dealt with only
one group among depression migrants. This fact should not, however, obscure the broader implications of the information presented.
These families were one of the few groups which have left a sufficiently
complete record to permit detailed analysis of population mobility
during the depression.
The record of the families studied is also significant in its own right.
"Mobility in trouble" is one of the most immediate problems related
to the internal migration of the American population. In the administration of the broad program of public assistance now being developed
by several Federal agencies, distressed population mobility is 0110 of
the problems still unsolved. For this reason alone the experience of
the transient program warrants careful consideration.
THE NORMALITY OF TRANSIENT RELIEF FAMILIES
Relief for the needy migrant was one of several important experiments in public assistance administration dming the depression.
Because it departed radically from established procedures, the transient relief program was frequently the subject of criticism. A persistent theme of transient relief's critics, still heard today, is the argument that the transient population includes a large criminal element;
that transients are lazy and degraded persons disturbing to settled
community life, and therefore are "undesirables." Finally, and particularly during the operation of the transient program, transients
were criticized as irresponsible and willful wanderers, out to see the
country at the expense of those who would give them relief.
The common element in all these criticisms is the belief that transients are abnormal people. This belief is, on the face of it, highly
suspect. The two elements of transiency are mobility and need of
125
Oig1tizcd by
G oog IC
126 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
public assistance, neither of which is exceptional. The tendency
toward mobility is one of the basic characteristics of the American
population, as the rapid spread of population across the American
continent and the birth-residence data of each decennial census amply
prove. Nor can need of public assistance be pointed to as abnormal
when it is remembered that, coincident with the operation of the
transient program, the relief rolls included as many as 27,000,000
persons at one time. The type of criticism cited appears to be a
counterpart of the argument that industrial unemployment exists
because "some folks just won't work."
The present study of families registered at transient bureaus provides direct evidence on the normality of migrant families' behavior
and characteristics. Comparisons of personal characteristics, for
example, suggest that the transient farniliec were, if anything, somewhat "above" the average family on relief. The majority of the
families studied were young, experienced, and free from handicaps
that would retard their reemployment by private industry.
In terms of ability to find work in a crowded labor market the
family heads had been more successful than the great majority of relief
family heads. The reabsorption of transient relief families proceeded
at a much higher rate than the reabsorption of workers on the resident
relief rolls. Family mobility could have been called excessive only by
supposing that a small number of highly mobile farnilie.s was typical
of the entire group, which was not the case. Finally, when the
motivation of these families is considered it becomes clear that
cautiousness rather than irresponsibility governed the families' plans
to migrate.
An illustration of the difficulty of depression migration will show the
lack of realism in the belief that family migration resulted from a
lack of responsibility. The following is a case history of a family on
the margin of mobility:
In an industrial city of moderate size the head of a family of five had worked for
a millwork manufacturer for 11 consecutive years up to January 1932 when the
factory closed. During these 11 years weekly earnings varied, according to
business conditions, from $20 to $35 a week. With no more than the average
run of expenses incident to a growing family, the head had laid aside some $400 in
savings and was carrying two insurance policies of modest size.
During the 5 years following the closing of the millwork plant, the head obtained two full-time jobs lasting about a year each. In between times the family
lived on their savings, the proceeds obtained by cashing the insurance policies, on
odd jobs, and local relief.
At first, the family had no thoughts of leaving the community because of the
persistent hope, supported by recurring rumors, that the millwork factory would
resume operations. Gradually the head came to realize that this was not likely to
happen, and that his only employment asset--skill as a mill hand-was of little
value so long as he remained where he was.
Had the family been willing to move in 1932 and, in addition, had known where
to go while they had the means to ma.kc a self-supporting migration they might
D1g1t zed by
Goog1C
CONCLUSIONS • 1 27
have avoided the "dead-end" in which they found themselves in 1937. With a
wife and three children, no money, and an accumulation of debts, migration seemed
impossible to the head who continued to realize the need for leaving the community but who found, in his own words, "Going is harder than thinking about it."
This summary illustrates the inertia that must be overcome before
the migration of a needy family can occur. Bad as it is, the local
situation is known; friends, the church, relief officials, the grocer,
milkman, coal man, etc., have been as helpful as possible. How can
the family live in another community where such assistance will not
exist? The risk seems too great as long as any hope remains that
work will be found locally. The transient relief program, however,
was evidence that the time did come for many families when all of
the real or imagined advantages of remaining where they were did
not offset the hopelessness of their predicament. The break was
made; families did leave their home communities; and when they
came to be in need of public assistance, they learned of the legal
concepts of residence and discovered that they were transients.
All these pieces of evidence point in the same direction. While
none is conclusive in itself, the sum of the evidence directly contradicts
the argument that transient families were "unworthy," "undeserving,"
and "undesirable."
Future efforts toward providing relief to nonresidents should recognize the fundamental normality of needy migrants. The transient
relief problem does not call for special techniques of assistance based
on the supposition that migrants in need are essentially different from
residents in need. Indeed, the principal difference between migrant
and resident is created artificially by legal settlement requirementsrequirements that are customarily invoked only in the presence of
need. Overemphasis upon the surfaee distinctions between transients
and residents has heretofore been a persistent source of error in attempts to provide transient relief.
TRANSIENT RELIEF AND RESTRICTIONS UPON MOBILITY
Public action has frequently set up barriers against internal migration. Witness, for example, the fact that a number of States have long
prohibited employment agencies from sending workers to jobs outside
their State borders, and the time-honored use of vagrancy laws and
legal settlement restrictions as means of penalizing out-of-State
workers. After 1930, because of the intrusion of the relief problem,
the restrictions put upon the mobility of needy persons became much
more stringent and more genernUy applied. The border-blockades of
Florida, Colorado, and California, as illustrations of such restrictions,
have established a particularly dangerous precedent for interfering
with the free flow of the American population in the future.
A less spectacular but more serious immobilizing force is the administration of general relief. Resident relief, whether work or direct
Dig111zcd b'y
Google
128 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
relief, exacts proof of residence before the grant of assistance is made
and continues the grant only as long as the applicant remains a resident.
In so far as resident relief is the means of assisting the working population of a community to remain where it may again be absorbed by
industry, it acts as a brake on wasteful migration. But when resident
relief "freezes" the unemployed workers in a community where industry cannot upon revival reabsorb them, it prevents a desirable migration and perpetuates stranded populations.
During the depression the legal residence requirements for relief
benefits placed a severe economic penalty upon the migrant in need
of assistance outside his State of residence. Theoretically, however,
the social necessity of population mobility during both boom and
depression had not been reasonably questioned since the beginning of
the nineteenth century. The defense of the residence requirements
and the return-to-legal residence procedures has always been in terms
of practical necessity in administering limited relief funds and never
as a sound contribution to population policy.
One of the indirect results of the transient relief program was to
neutralize, during the period of its operation, the tendency of the
resident relief program toward penalizing migration already under
way or accomplished. The transient program alleviated the distress
accompanying population readjustment during the depression by
providing relief to needy migrants who would otherwise have been
ineli 6,ible on the grounds of nonresidence status. Accepting the premise that population mobility is desirable, and accepting the evidence
that the families were not irresponsible wandc>rers, this function of the
transient program assumes greater importance than is ordinarily
recognized.
TRANSIENT RELIEF AND POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION
Obviously, however, the fact that the transient program neutralized
some of the restrictions upon internal population mobility does not
necessarily argue its usefulness. Migration as an end in itself has no
particular virtue; and "the record of unguided migration," as has
been demonstrated, 1 is in part a record of needless waste. Theimportant question is whether any gain accrued from the total movement of the families. Did the families assisted by the transient program tend to migrnte from the areas of less .iconomic advantage to
the areas of greater economic advantage?
To answer this question in generalized terms, it may be said that
the greater part of the movement of the families which registered at
transient bureaus produced no population displacement whatever
because of the balanced give and take among the various States.
1 Goodrich, Carter and Others, Migration and Economic Opportunity, Philadelphia.: University of Pennsylvania. Press, 1936, pp. 503-519.
Dig rt zed by
Goog IC
CONCLUSIONS •
129
Over and above this balanced movement, however, there remained an
amount of net population displacement which showed clear geographical trends. These trends were predominantly westward, but
also included a northward net movement out of the deep South into
the industrial centers of the North.
Accordingly, the most significant characteristic of the net movement was a marked similarity to the net movement of the total
American population during the prosperous decade from 1920 to
1930. But the similarity between the displacement of population resulting from the movement of transient-bureau families and
the net displacement of the American population during the 1920's
is not proof that social gains accrued from the transient bureaus'
contribution to population redistribution.
The American "problem areas" have been demarked and recommendations have been ventured as to the desired geographical direction that future migrations should take. 2 The net displacement of the
migrant families bears only a partial similarity to the ideal pattern
of migration that the Study of Population Redistribution has constructed. This similarity consists chiefly in a large net emigration
from the Great Plains and also in net emigration from the deep
South northward, though this particular trend among migrant families
was exceedingly feeble by comparison with the recommendation for a
large scale emigration from the South. The remainder of the net
migrant family movement bears little relationship to the ideal pattern, and even runs counter to it.
The movement of migrant families thus appenrs to be another
instance in the record of waste involved in unguided migration and
another illustration of the need for planned migration. These judgments are doubtless valid in the long view. 3 Under the exigencies of
1 Ibid., pp. 52-53.
See also, Beck, P. G. and Forster, M. C., SiJ; Rural
Problem Areas, Relief-Resources-Rehabilitation, Research Monograph I, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935.
1 It may be pointed out, however, that the theoretical need for population
redistribution is acceptable only when related to a disparity between the geographical concentration of population and resources. One of the recommendatious for population redistribution is based upon the observation of "overpopulation" in the South. But the distress of the South results from existing
ecooomic relationships rather than a scarcity of resources. As T. J. Woofter,
Jr. has pointed out, "Some observers conclude from the fact that the South rauks
low in almost every index of wealth and culture that there are too many people
in the area. As the economy of the region is at present organized, this is true,
but this condition does not necessarily have to continue. More rational land
use, more diversification of production and, above all, an increase in the standard
of living of the people through the use of home-produced goods can provide for
an increased southern rural population at a higher level of living." (See "Southern Population and Social Planning," Social Forces, Vol. 14, No. 1, October
1935, pp. 16-22.)
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog1C
130 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
a severe depression, however, the logic of the long view becomes
tenuous, and the blue-prints for the future redistribution of the
American population must be set aside until the problem of industrial
unemployment bas been solved. Outlines of the course population
distribution should take, even when postulating normal times, are
more convincing in describing where the flow should originate than
in describing what its destination should be. And when millions of
gainful workers are unemployed, where does economic opportunity
lie?
These facts are of special significance in view of the difficulties which
recent experimental attempts at planned migration have already
encountered and which any future attempts have to face. A planned
migration of any considerable numbers from the stranded populations
will involve problems of extreme complication and magnitude-problems of an upset labor market at urban destinations and of an
agricultural surplus at rural destinations, not to mention the problems of financing a subsidy for a large number of migrants. The
inevitable conclusion must be that the problem of population redistribution, difficult at any time, is scarcely possible of solution during
a depression.
If no one can trace abstractly the direction in which depression
population movement should flow, no one can appraise abstractly
the immediate gains and losses of the depression movements which did
occur. Nevertheless, it is difficult to question the wisdom of the individuals who took part in the movement of the families studied here.
It must be borne in mind that the families aided by the transient
program were by and large normal and responsible groups, and that
their migration represented a search for more favorable opportunity.
Notwithstanding any appraisal of the geographical trends involved,
the migration of transient-bureau families did make sense to the
migrants. The extremely high turnover rate of transient relief families
is itself sufficient evidence that the families were the best judges of
whether they should migrate and of where their destination should be.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
It remains to consider what bearing the findings of this report have
upon the continuing problem of need for public assistance arising out
of family group migration. As a factual study of families which were
assisted by the one national experiment with transient relief the
report should be of some help in looking to the future. Taken as a
whole the evidence of the report argues against the need for a separate
program of transient relief based upon the assumption that needy
migrants are somehow inherently different from needy residents.
Specific evidence has been presented to show that families receiving
nid from the tmnsient program were in no way unusual except for
Dig111z.ed by
Goog Ie
CONCLUSIONS • 1 31
their mobility; that they were young, with employable heads, in most
instances; that their migrations were cautious in nature and were
undertaken in an attempt to overcome difficulties caused by the
depression; that their efforts at relocation, by and large, were successful and therefore made only temporary demands upon the transient
relief program.
In view of this evidence of the essential normality of transient relief
families and the additional fact that all States contributed and all
States received these migrants, it might seem that the solution of the
transient relief problem lies in the complete integration of transient
with resident relief by modifying the existing relief procedures and
requirements that artificially create the separate category of the
"transient."
The experience of the past, however, stands in the way of accepting
as likely of realization so simple a solution. States become acutely
aware of the inflow of needy outsiders because of the public assistance
problem that results, while there is little but the occasional request for
verification of legal residence to remind the individual States that the
outflow of their own citizens creates a similar problem elsewhere.
Moreover, the principle of legal residence which has for so many years
governed the attitudes of States and their subdivisions toward relief
is based upon the belief that every person "belongs" to some community and should expect assistance only in that specific place. And,
finally, there is the obvious fa.ct that some few States have a particular
attraction for migrants, with the result that these States receive many
more migrants than they give. Such States are prone to insist that
by giving relief to nonresidents they only increase the inflow. Yet
no one has demonstrated that the hardships and uncertainties of
migration are undertaken for the sake of transient relief, and border
blockades and the refusal to give any form of assistance have been
singularly ineffective in stopping the inflow.
The implications of this report, then, are clear, though its conclusions are neither novel nor startling. The transient relief problem
does not originate in, nor can it be confined to, any particular region.
All States are affected, but in different degrees. It is difficult to see
how a total solution is to be achieved unless there is a coordination of
efforts from outside the individual States. The problem is national,
and the need of the moment is Federal leadership in achieving a solution which would take account both of the needs of the migrant and
the interests of the States.
D,g11lzcd by
Goog Ie
Oigrt1zcd by
Google
Appendixes
133
Digrt1zcd b,'
Goog1C
Digitized by
Google
Appendix A
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Table 7.-Reason Migrant Families Left Settled Residence
Migrant familie,s
I
Res.son for leaving settled residence
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ! Number
TotaL- .. ·-················· ....•••............................................
Perrent
4,247
100
2,941
69
Unemployment. .......••.......•• ·-··-····· ........•...........................
Layoffs attrihute<l lo depression ..•.................................. . . . .....
Completed job of definite duration ••.•......................................
Locality too small. ...•..••• -••.•••••••......................................
Drou1tht. ..........•. ····-- ..•.•..•..........................................
Jl.fi~ation of industry ...•.•.•...•.•.........................................
Layoffs attributed to other causes 1••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.
1,705
1, Zl2
109
108
60
40
29
3
3
1
lnadequRle earnings .. ··········-··········· .................................... .
308
Reduced wages •. ·- ••••....•••••••..................•.............•......•...
27
20
22
Unable to work in pRrticular community ...•..............................••....
Physical disability .•..•..•.•••..••......................••................•.
Personal handicaps-..••.••• ·- ..• _•••••••••••••.....•••.....................••
113
80
33
FRrIIJing failure ...•....••..•...••••..••.•.•••.•..............••..................
Dust or drought •.•.•••.•..........••..•••................. . .................
Floods ........•.•.•.......................................... . .......... . ....
Other failures ..•••••...•..•......•.•••.......................................
3..13
196
13
124
Business failure ...•..............................................................
Attributed to depression ...•. ·············-········· ....................... .
Attributed to drought .••..........••......................................•.
142
135
Inadequate relief ....••....•••••...••............................................
Unwilling to be on relief.. .•••••••...............................................
Unwilling to apply ...•..••••••.•............................................
Unwilling to continue ...••••••.•...•...........•.•.................•........
146
Evict~d from rented or owned domicile .....•..•.................................
Relatives unable to continue support •.........................................•.
Miscellaneous economic difficulties'·· ................•..•.••.•..•.••........••..
71
51
26
1
1
Personal distress ..••.••••••••••••••••••...•......................•.•.........•.....•.
1,040
2.5
lll·heRlth ..••..... ········-············ ................................•.•••..••.
Unhealthful climate .....••....••...................................•..•.•...
Inadequate medical care...•••••...•..................•...............•......
448
388
60
11
Domestic difficulties_ ••••• _.• _•.•.•.....................••............••..•••••.
Desertion .....•..•.•...•• _.••......•..............•................•••.......
Separation and divorce ..•..........•.............•..............•...•...•...
Quarrels with relatives ..•..........•....•......••........•..............••..
Death of breadwinner ....•..•...•.......••.....•...•...........•...•.•••...•
Other domestic difficulties• •••••....•••••••.••••••.•...••.•...•..•.•...•.•..
254
34
128
35
44
13
n
Economic distress.-----·----·------------- .. ·--· .. ··-- ..••...................•......
::ri:~?nl~
rc,a~~:i:.:n;~~tnai siaiu:,.·.:=:: ::::::: :: ::::: :: :::::: :::: :::::: ::
Seasonal work only •......................... . ...............................
~
footnotes at end or table.
---- ----
.
.
16
180
4
7
ft
1
2,19
3
2
1
.
8
5
3
.
3
3
7
3
1
1
.
46
2fl
20
2
II
2
1
3
1
.
1
135
D1g1t zed by
Goos IC
136 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
TofJle 1.-Reason Migrant Families Leh Settled Rniden~ontinued
Migrant famlllea
Bealon forlea"riDc eettled neldenee
Nambll' ~ t
~ a l dlllt--contlnued.
Disliked llfll)lll'&tlon from relatlTell or friends •••..•...•..•.•....•.. _•.• _•••.••.• -.
Colrc~~:F~~~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Other commnnlty disapproval•.···········-·--··-······---·--·-····---·····
Penonal dlsllb of community•••• ·-·····-·-·--- _________ ·--·--·---··-·--·--· __ -·
Climate u peraonal raetor •••• -······--···-···········--·-········-··········
Death u peraorutl factor_ •••••••••..•..•••••.•..•••••••....••••....•••••••...
Boredom and other repulalona.•••••••• _••.••••••..•. ············-···········
MlecelJaneow, penonal dllllcultles •···--- .•••..... ··--···-··-----·-·····-··-···--
tiTo\,uired
Not In distress--···········--·- ..• ---· ··-· -· -·-· -- ---- ---- --- ···- ---·- -----··- -·-··travel.. •. -····----··--·--·----···-·-_-· ________ -·---·-·--·---··-··.
Left larm.·--···· -····· ____ -· _. ___ -··-···· ·-··---··- ·-- .. -··- ______ -·-- -· ____ ···-
Left bualness_. ----.. ·- -. --. --. ------.. -• ---_.•• _•• ____ -· _. _••••• -· _•• __ • -· _.••••
Other•·-·····-··········-· -- --- ···- -___ ·-·---· -·- -----··-·--·- --···············-
187
42
1'
'
:M
118
8
u
e'7
G
14t
73
1,
22
IJ
.'•
.
1
1
I
1
1
1
8
.a
.
I
1
• Lea than 0.11 peroent.
• Moat of th- famlllea reported that new managers brought their own crews or that tbey ,rere dlmllsaed
to make a Job ror the manager's relatives (see history 1, pp. 21-22).
• Includes families whOllfl pension was dlscontlnued, wboee 11Cbolarablp expired, who W'lshed to nold
hlfb 008t or commutation, etc.
Includes families ID fear of u•hWlband, thoee attempting to _ . support ol cbfld, tbme -=inc l'or
llance, etc_
• Includes fllmlllea movlnc because of unpopulartty gro,r!Dg out of political cmnpalps, 1-w,e of racial
preludtoe etc.
t lncluaes lamlllel! fleeing from revolution, lack of 11Cbool faclllties, (9u- of earthq1Jt,D1, eta.
• Includes lamllles leaving to look arter penonal bua!Dess, to take ncatlons, etc.
NOft.-81 flmllles, wboee reason for leaving aettled realdenoe wu no& -ialnable, ue no& lncluded.
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 137
Tettle !.-Reason Migrant Familia Left Settled Residence, and State or Re9ion of
Settled Residence
ReuoDs for leaving aettled resldenea
Percent dlatrlbutlon
=r=:
Total
!all-
Economic dlsiiTotal
Unem- In.ad&qtlllte
p)oJ·
ment
Tvlal..••••....... 4, 1911
100
(()
1211
210
100
100
M
41
237
100
(()
lmnbla . . . ... ........
M
100
Vlrlfn,la .. . .. . ...... .
163
100
Ohio aad lDdlana.. . ...
Dl1Dola•. --··--··--·- --
Mlab.lpm.. ... - -- -- ---. -
112
212
213
100
100
100
---·········-···-
113
84
100
100
N-EDS)and .........
N- York .............
Penna!lvanla and
n!f!:...~diiiimi:and Dll&rlot of OoJten'1lcli:J and W•t
M ~ a a d Wis-
Iowa• •••••• ••••••••• -V ~ a u d North
··------·--South
Oeorsla aud
CaroJIDL ••••••••• -••
T-······--··-·Alabuna aud Mf1191s~·········-·---- --·······.
Mlllloarl
__ ____ __ _
____
Arlc1111.... ..
Loalllana.•. · -· - ·--- --
WJ-1nclllld Mon•
tana.. • •• • •••••.••••. .
Idaho• •• ····-·--····-.
Wuhlnstm and Oref::j· ···· ·····---·--11114 Nevada .....
U
Arlr.ooa aud NMmdco..... . ........
Ctlllt:lrnla ••. -· ..••••..
tress
tress
tress
-- - - - - - - -- - - - - - 11
II
6
II
----4 - -44 -----46 ---4
7
8
6
6
1
1
II
7
18
4
II
12
7
I
2
14
12
II
10
6
44
8
3
3
II
II
6
14
4
41
10
4
7
13
6
8
9
a
"
7
10
6
4
3
10
8
12
II
12
8
10
7
8
6
10
4
2
6
3
7
II
42
41
42
47
6
8
7
6
3
6
7
16
6
7
6
8
8
8
7
7
8
8
7
7
100
45
5
4
3
18
3
6
8
8
311
II
5
3
10
6
11
44
10
6
3
H
3
II
10
6
8
6
1411
100
100
M
44
13
10
7
2
5
7
10
5
6
7
II
11
II
10
4
6
100
100
100
100
100
41
4
6
12
13
14
4
7
6
6
11
6
12
9
6
4
.,
108
116
Oolando..... ....... ..
-
100
100
Nortb Dakota Uld
South Dllll:o&a•.. - - ..
Nebnall:L-. ... . ......
x:-.............. ..
lnp
116
100
Oll:lahomll.. ____ --· -· -· ·
······-----···---
earn-
Not
Other lndla-
Other
perParm Inad&Dom- llleltlc
fall. quate nomlo bMlth
aonal
trouble ~
ure relief db-
141
142
67
281
~
Peraonal dlsii-
blr
235
42
43
88
43
6
7
4
5
5
12
15
a
5
II
6
11
6
9
3
8
13
4
4
II
I
8
II
10
6
11
II
6
6
5
a
6
4
7
100
100
100
6
6
8
64
~
-5
33
17
4
7
100
100
211
34
4
Ill
16
15
2
~
4
6
10
a
116
18
3
7
-6
114
1(()
79
18
36
4
13
6
1
2
7
53
100
32
7
11
4
8
11
II
10
8
130
47
100
100
36
6
38
II
2
7
5
2
10
13
13
17
6
6
18
2
6
8
78
100
100
311
44
8
7
3
II
Ill
II
4
4
10
21
5
8
210
.
6
a
4
• 1- than 0.5 peroent.
Non.-188 fllmlJi., whca llettled residence wu In a fonfcn ooantr, or In U. 8. ~Ions aud whole
B&a&e ot ..uJed residence or . . - !or leaving Wllil not ~ l e , are not Included.
01grt1zcd by
G oog Ie
138 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
To&le 3.-Type of Contad Migrant Families Had at Destination, and State or Region oE
Destination
Type or contact
Percent dbtributlon
State or region or
dNtiDatioD
Total
DWD•
Dellnlte contact
No definite contact
ber
Total
Rest•
Former dence
of rel&·
rt!SI·
dence tlves.
etc.
Skill
or
Adver•
Other
Ru•
mon
2
23
UI
1
3
1
2
211
22
14
21
1
-
1
2
-
3
head
lndemand
tille-
ment
--- --Total ..•........•.•.••
3, 8119
100
12
43
New England .••••.........
New York ...•..............
Pennsylvania and New
1ersey•••.................
Delaware, Maryland, and
District or Columbia .....
Kentuclcy and West Vlr·
118
100
100
12
17
46
38
2211
---
205
100
7
66
2
24
II
102
100
II
48
4
21
15
g!Dla ••••••••••••••••••••.
60
JOO
3
57
10
17
10
Mlcbfpn •..................
Ohio and Indiana ...........
Illinois......................
Minnesota and Wisconsin ..
Iowa ••••••••••••••••••..•...
Ill>
Ill
14
42
411
2
2
3
1
2
18
II
20
12
12
7
60
100
100
100
100
100
75
Ill
711
99
104
177
Virginia and North CaroUna ••.....................
Georgia and South Carolina
Tenn-...................
Alabama and Mississippi. ..
Florida .••••••...•.•.••.....
Missouri .•......••..•.......
Arkansas ....•..............
Louisiana ........ -- . -.......
Oklahoma ...••......•.•....
Tezu ••••.•..••••••••..••...
187
174
166
~.Ji~n:t~~~-~~~~~::::
Idaho ••.....•......•........
Wasbington and Oregoo ....
Utah and Nevada ...........
Arizona and New Mexico ...
California.••.•..••..........
60
26
49
12
80
100
100
100
100
100
16
10
9
17
11
45
61
101
193
100
100
100
100
100
HI
10
7
7
10
13
49
167
43
134
100
100
100
100
11
100
100
100
100
100
12
17
19
8
9
89
511
North Dakota and South
Dakota ...................
Nebraska ...................
Kans&.,.·····•··············
13
121
264
67
136
419
t
t
II
10
7
21)
4
II
3
3
5
41
33
32
60
-4
34
4
t
-3t
60
64
47
62
44
31
43
38
26
24
44
Chance
3
2
2
2
.
19
17
14
20
II
19
12
13
14
7
26
211
27
43
27
21
29
111
11
32
19
20
t
31
14
21
t
20
30
111
10
12
34
22
1
19
111
6
19
2
I
211
63
211
1
17
13
22
2
---
1
3
fl
.
3
3
-·
4
---I
.
--
.
1
II
1
4
-3
3
l
2
4
2
-t
-
-5t
5
-
17
4
2
II
2
1
2
6
.
-
•Less than 0.6 percent.
t Percent not calculated oo a base or fewer than 20.
NOTJ:.--469 famlll•. which had no destination, whose reason for selectlna: the State or destination, type of
contact at the State of destination, or State or destination was not ascertainable. and who,,e dntlnatlon,...
in a foreign country or in the U. 8. possessions, are not Included.
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 139
Tol,/e 4.-0bjectives Sought by Migrant Families at Destination, and State or Region of
Destination
Objectives !IOUght
Percent dl8trlbutlon
State or ~on of
destlnat on
Total
number Total
Total ..• ----·· _______ .. 3,974
New EngJand __ . __ ...... ___ . _ 1111
New York ___________________
234
Pennsylvania
and New Jersey _________________________
Delaware, Maryland, and
District ol Columbia_ .... _.
Kentucky
and West Vfrglnla _______________________
Eoonomlo betterment
Personal objectives
ToreTo
To
Join
Hope PromIMl
of
Other
Health
rela- Otber
secure
secure
oljob
help
tives,
farm
Job
etc.
-- -------- -------100
u
14
6
11
10
6
8
3
--100
42
24
10
8
3
2
9
2
100
62
16
10
5
5
7
6
208
100
34
17
I
Ill
6
4
17
2
lll
100
41
H
1
17
3
4
10
10
61
100
41
13
a
23
a
5
JO
2
Michigan. - -..... ------ .... -.
Ohio and Indiana ______ .... __
mlnols ..... __________________
M lnneeota and Wl.sconaln ....
Iowa _________________________
ll2
191
179
171
100
100
100
100
100
53
14
2
3
3
10
16
13
26
19
3
3
7
8
I
4
8
4
13
6
4
7
2
4
II
4
20
4
Virginia and North Carolina.
Georgia and Soutb Carolina.
Tennessee ... __ ... _______ . -- ..
Alabama and MLsslss!ppl. ___
78
114
79
13
16
18
17
13
7
5
105
8
3
3
6
2
II
6
6
Florida_____ -······-···----- __
1
2
3
5
2
Mlseourf _-- -------- --- -- . ---Arkansas ____ .------------ -- -Louisiana ______________
----------------.
O11:laboma
•.. ___ ..TeDS ________________________
178
90
8
13
3
13
10
5
4
11
7
12
11
Dakota
and Sonth
North
Dakota
____________________
61
IOI
68
103
201
13
Nehruta ... _________________
50
Kansas-----------------------
158
46
139
ID"~-~~-~-~~~::::::
Idaho ________________________
Washington and Oregon ____ .
Utah and Nevada._ .... __ ....
Arizona and New Mexico ____
Calllornfa ________________ ----
122
272
60
136
434
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
t
46
46
37
35
48
47
21
13
14
UI
II
16
411
II
36
43
18
18
40
45
II
64
48
48
t
100
100
100
100
40
100
100
100
100
100
31
48
43
24
47
42
49
52
18
10
16
15
t
26
13
22
10
e
8
20
10
10
2
-
1
t
IJ
4
2
4
44
II
2
3
1
2
6
5
5
3
18
14
I
12
7
3
3
II
4
8
II
I
11
i
-t
4
12
7
2
4
11
7
4
4
33
4
-4
10
7
12
6
50
4
4
5
4
3
22
6
10
II
10
3
2
6
t
8
7
10
4
t
-I
3
4
2
6
.
2
3
3
5
t
2
'2
6
4
1
7
8
I
5
"Less tban 0.5 percent.
t Peroent not calculated on a base or !ewer than 20.
NOTB.--364 families, which bad no destination, whose reason !or selecting the State of destination or
whose State of destination '111'88 not asoertalnable, and whose destination was in a foreign country or In the
U. 8. ~ n a . are not lnoluded.
Digit,zea oy
G oog Ie
Table 5.-State of Origin and
State of Transient Bureau Registration of Migrant Families, June 30, 1935
....
1
~
•
State or translent bureau reglstratlon
State or orlgln
Alabama
Total................................. ..........
Alabama . .. . . ..... ..... ....... . ...........• ...•..... .
Arlzona .... .... .......... . ................. . .........
Arkansas.. ............ ... ....... ......... . . ..........
Calirornla .... .. . . ......... .... . . . ...... .. . . .... ... . .
Colorado. ....... . ....................................
30,304
417
Arlzona
225
693
-
2
21
15
14
7
16
8
596
466
I, 161
1, 193
838
13
-
Idabo •............. . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
Illinois .. . . ..... ......... . ....... ..... . ....... ........
Indiana. .... ..... . ... . ........... . . . ..................
Iowa. ...................................... .. . . ... . ..
Kansas. ..............................................
327
1, 264
685
522
1,091
16
12
10
1
1
2
7
Kentucky ................. .
Louisiana ..
Maine . . . .. ........ . ............. . . ... .•.•. . ..........
Maryland . •.•.........................•.........•....
Massachusetts ..•.................. ... . . . . ...•.....•..
6ol
504
78
16
18
6
0
Mlclllgan ....• . ..... ... . . ... ..... ................. ....
Mlnnesota .....•... . . . ... . . . ... . ... ........• .•. . ...•..
MisslsslppL . • .. .. . . . . ... . ... ... . . . ... . . ... . ... . ...•..
Missouri. •...•.................. ........ .......•. .•..
Montana. . . .. •. . •• • .•.•.•.....................•.. . ...
799
334
609
1,818
(v
Nebrasks• .••.•• .•• • ..••••.•••••••••.•••••...•.• . ... . .
Nevada •••••• •••• ••••••. •••••••••.••••• .•••••••• •••• •
New Hampslllre •••.••••...•.•..•....•••.•...•••••.•..
New Janey••••••••••••••• ••• ••••••••••••• •••••• ••••••
809
1:11
UI
,;""
(1)
Q_
~
C')
~.......
New Mexfoo ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• ••••••• •
I
I
Colo.r ado
6,044
1,847
29
7
Connectl•
cut
Delaware
27
49
District of
Colwnbla
,.,
G)
Florida
)>,
879
717
6
38
1
I
1- - - - - l - - - - - l - - - - - l i - - - --1--- - -·1 - - - - -11----·+-----1-----1--- -
534
600
ciS"
Ca!Uornla
Arkansas
Connectlcut . . ... ... . . . ... . . .. .. . ............... . ... . .
Delaware.. .. . ....... ..... ............. ....... ..... ...
Distrlct of Columbla. ........ .. .•....... ... . . . . . . . . ..
Florida..................... . ...... . . . . ... ........... .
Georgia.... ... . . . . . . ............. ..... ........... . ... .
0
~
Total
-
16
14
'1IJ7
53
119
2
8
12
3
25
48
I
4
2
19
6
I
23
Ill
47
284
H
43
14
4
2
2
10
I
1
66
3
-
22
-I
279
18
34
25
86
281
119
126
193
23
51
2
2
-9
198
-36
l
25
53
12
7
35
47
335
3
2
127
69
61
381
14
30
4
235
160
57
IM
9
II
11
9
ll
11
26
7
-44
~,
4
8
9
-2
2
l
14
2
112
3
17
2
l
62
136
2
22
3
-6
3
-
7
6
8
3
7
18
2
-2
to
2
2
40
64
8
13
34
2
592
360
5
26
66
39
103
I
209
264
239
188
3
6
I
7
16
28
l
7
3
3
6
-27
1
~
...,
)>,
~
;=
m
New Yorlc •. •..•.•.•. •.....•....••.• . •. . . . .•. •. •••••••
North Carolina . . • •• ••••.. • . •. . . . •.. • ••..• • . . . • . • ..•••
North Dakota .•••.•. • •••. . ..•. • .•.•.•... .. .. . . •...••.
Ohio • • •••• • ••••••. . . •.• . ••••••• •• ••. . .•.• •. ...•.. ••..
Olclaboma •. •••• •• •••••••••• ••. •• •••••... . .• • •.•.•• ••.
01"9110n ....... ....... ..... . ....... . ......... . . . .... . . .
Pennaylvanla •••• • •••••• ••.• •••••• . ...... . ... . .•.• ••. ·
Rhode Island .•• •••••••• . ..•••••• . .• . . . ........•.•.. ••
Boutb Carolina . . .•. . ..• • • .•• . . •.• • ......• ...........•
South Dakota • .•..•.•.•••.....•............ .... .. . ...
1,074
409
318
4
g
843
14
16
2,633
ro3
I, 140
69
2911
6
3
1
I
1
4
213
l
61
1
3
1
5
II
4
621
1
Ttmn8S!!ee ..•• . ••••• •••. . •.• . •.. . ..... .. . . .. . . •.... . ..
687
63
4
Utah • .•.... . ......... . . . . . ........ . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . ..
1,971
239
26
32
TeXBS ••••••.••• • ••••• •• • •• ••••• •• •• •••••••••• •••• • ••.
Vermont. .. . . ... ... . . . . ... ........ . . . . ... . . ... ... . .. .
Vlrglnla . • .... . . • . . ... •• . . . . . . . . .•. . . . • ..• .•. • . •• • . • .•
86
375
!:t?i~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Wyoming ... • . •. . ....••• • • • ... . .•. . • . . ..•.. . . .• .. . ..•
U . 8. possessions .. ...... ... ...•.•. . . . ... . . . .. .. . .....
m
Foreign countries . .... . . . . . . .. . .... . . ..... . . . .. . .... . .
300
631
341
318
119
12
1
39
130
2M
18
30
100
916
~
14 1
l
17
17
228
19
18
138
6
6
66
-l
68
624
140
4
17
7
79
33
an I
14
46
38
16
32
I
8
5
2
12
12
a
33
43
2
'IT
49
~
-12
31
1
4
2
21
-
86
1
27
-29
-
-
12
10
32
17
2
16
--
-1
61
13
2
14
8
5
2
-8
See footnotes at end or table.
V,
~r
m
?:
m
~
0
ciS"
,;""
(1)
0.
~
C')
0
~.......
(v
>
~
-t
>
m
r
!JI
........•
....
....
Tobie 5.-State of Origin and State of Transient Bureau Registration of Migrant Families, June 30, 19-35-Continued
~
"°•
State or transient bureau registration
State of orlg!n
Georgia
Total ••.••••••••••••••••••••••.•...
I
393
I
Connecticut. ......••..•••.•.•...........
Delaware .............••..••••••••...••..
District of Columbia..•.........•.•......
Florida ...•..•.......••...........•......
Georgia ...•••••••••••••••••••••••••••....
Idaho
Illinois .....••.•..•.••••.••••••...........
Indiana .....••........•...•.••••••.......
Iowa ..........•....•..........•••........
7
iI
01
§
G.
CJ"
'<
~it.~~!L::::
:::::::: :: ::::::::::::::::
Maine ......•.•.•.•••••...••••...•.......
Maryland ........•.•••••..•••..••.......
Massachusetts ..•..••••.••.•..•••••......
L)
Michigan ...•.........•••••••••••.•......
Minnesota ............•..••••..••.•......
0
~
Montana ••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••
r::i
Nebraska.. ......•..••••••••••...•..••....
Nevada .............•••••••••••.••••••••.
New Hampshire ...•••••••••••....•.••••.
t:: t':1~· ····························
973
I
t~ ::i'!r~~·.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-7
35
43
107
I =I
:1
Ka11S81l ••••••••••••••••.•...•••••••......
::J
I
! - - - I - ---
Alabama..•.•...•••••••.•••.•••••.••.....
Arizona. _______ -·--- _______________ • ____ _
Arkansns .••••..•........................
California..••••••••••..••.•...............
Colorado •••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.•....
cg·
Idaho•
ii
ii
5I
-
7
35
72
--7
-28
Illinois
I
I
Indiana
I
Iowa
I Kentucky
Kansas
I, 52.5
316
394
1. 372
54
820
41
6
4
2
9
13
3
I
1
13
26
10
6
10
124
:in
6V
2
2
2
2
84
23
60
81
19
5
1
6
18
32
-1
2
1
59
-
1.;.i
30
22
2
8
8
-
4
2
--I
2
46
9
-20
-4
1
2
29
7
-2
4,5
17
32
-
7
8
1
3
2
2
36
50
158
28
132
98
2
1
8
29
4
73
1
11
357
12
100
22
2
Ji
41
7
-12
3
1
--6
1
-
1
I
-
2
-
3
2
I
I
4
3
17
2
-2
45
I
40
45
1
10
II
-
3
8
i
jj
3
---1
3
1
-3
-
~I
I
66
5
1
1
-1
-7
I Louisiana I
I
28
-
30
4
~
6
~I
-1
4
II
,5
116
37
I
~I
2
I:
I Maryland
Maine
I
121
J Massachu•
27,51
setts
G)
~
)>
80
z
-I
...,
)>
--
--4
--
--
---2
-
-I
~I
l! I
I
4
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
3
-I
-6
8
4
-
r-
m
V)
5
3
10
12
~I
~
~I
1
2
12 I
5
5
New York . . ... . .. .• •.•. . .•••. •• . • . • •. •. .
N orth t'nrolin& .. .......... .. . . ... . .•. . . .
N orth Dakota .•
Ohio . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . ... .•. . . .. •. .
Ok.laboma •••. • ...•••.•.•.••• . •••.• ••... .
Oroi:on • • .........•......•..... . • . .. • . .. .
P ennsyl\'&.nia. •........•.•...... • •.. •....
Rhode Island . .•....•.•.•••••.••• •• . .. . . .
South Carolina ................... . . .. •..
South Dakota ••............•.•..... •••..
Tennessee • •. . . . ..... · · · ··--·····- · ... .. .
T eX!l.S •• •• •• •• •• ••••••••••••••••••• •• •• - ••
10
24
4
R.1
r,
25
2
15
28
3
43
11
5
I
3
14
21
2
71
3
13
343
6
3
13
15
93
3
13
3
25
53
10
41
8
15
II
2
2
8
I
6
5
I
3
1
12
4
I
2
Ji
12
66
2
4
3
2
10
~
6
--
80
57
7
j
6
2
-
--
2
43
14
RI
1W
164
Washington .
U. S. pos..ses,ions .................... •....
Foreign countries ....•.•............. . . . •
6
I
53
8
1
~.-.-.-.-:::::::::::::: : ::: ::: :: :
\\"yotning ___ ____ ___________ . ___ .. __.. . .. .
77
6
6
Utah .. . . . . . ... . .. . .... . . . .. . •. .... .... ..
Vermont. .. .. . . .. . .. . ....... •.... . . .... ..
Virginia . _. .• .•••......... . .... •.• ••.. . .•
~n:t~~~:t~
7
28
28
10
-
5
4
6
6
12
-4
I ~I
4
I
4
28
2
187
-
-8
4
4
3
-
1
31
------I
24
g
23
-10
2
2
I
1
40
I
6
4
16
-
4
4
-52
6
I
9
2
3
8
See footnotes at end of table.
V)
.,,.,,
C
rm
~
rr,
z
.....
0
cg:N.
Cl
a.
er
'<
C')
0
-
~
('iJ
)>
XI
-<
.....
)>
t0
rrr,
V,
-•
~
w
....
t
Tal»le 5.-State of Origin and Slate of Transient Bureau Registration of Migrant Familia, June 30, 1935-Continued
•
State of transient bnrean registration
~
StaLe of origin
Michigan
Tow..................................
Alabama................................
Arizona..................................
Arkaosas................................
California................................
Colorado................................
Connecticut •••..................••••....
Delaware.............•••................•
District of Columbia. ..•..........•......
Florida .......................•..........
Georgia_ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..
C'J
ci5
=<
;;:,
8
0
'<
C"')
0
0
-
00
(v
Idaho• .•....•..•.••.....................
Illinol• .........•........................
Indiana. ................................ .
Iowa .................................... .
Kansas.················-················
Kentucky .••.....................•......
Louisiana. ...•............•...•....•••...
Maine ....•.•••.•••.•.•••••.•••.•••.••.•.
M&ryland ..•......•......•.•.•..........
Massachuaetta•••••••••.•••••••••••••....
Michigan ........•..•••••••••••••.•.•.••.
Minnesota ..•...•...•••.•••.•.••••..•••..
~14
-
I Minnesota I Mlasla,lppl I
~2
-
M
1
18
8
12
4
Montana
Nebraska
New
HampshlrelNew J ~
Nevada
4
17
17
1
77
81
4
1
1,027
42
131
638
714
1, 7411
12
1
l
UI
2
110
1
10
6
42
25
43
8
II
4
2
1
1
60
1
40
4
2
4
6
1i
a
40
II
2
II
31
18
4
2
-a
8
8
II
a
•
1111
21
811
140
22
6
21
7
6
2a
1
2
2
1
a
10
1
2
111
Nebrsu:a. ..... ......................... .
Nevada ................................. .
New lhmpahln.. ...................... .
II
1
~I
Ill
g
all
8
2
II
11
60
II
a
-1
1
2
1
8
2
;1
1
7
4
2
42
4
2
iI
41
2
4
-2
II
3
eo
40
6
II
g
II
2
114
-1
-1
-1
811
a
-a
10
1
4
1
-
2
t=f.~~~ =::::::::::::::::::::: :: : : :: :
Montana ............................... .
II
6
I
-2
3
17
New York
~Ill
2
1
28
New
Mexloo
I I I I I I -- I I I
3
II
42
~= ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mlasourl
-22
a
18
10
-18
a
-4
4
a
3
13
6
18
1
1
30
8
14
81
M
1
'4
7
g
8
g
1
1
14
10
-81
2
12
8
4
3
2
11
7
1
61
43
16
-I
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
-1
1
•
•
1
4
-
2
17
10
M
81
6
t
2
6
2
6
2
Q
=-,
>
~
>
~
C
m
NewYort . . .... •... . .•.....•••...• •..•..
43
6
1
47
Ohio .•• . •. ••• . . ••••••••.•• • •••.••••...• •.
IIO
4
Oregon •• .. . . . . .....•. .... . .•.• . •.•..••.•
8
211
North CIU'Ollna •••.• • •••••••••••••••.••••
1'lorth Dakota .••••.••••• •.•• ••• •••••••••
Oklahoma •• • ••. •..• .••.• .••• . •••••.•• •.•
PeD11SYlvanlA ••••••••••••• •. •••• • •••••• ••
Rhode Island . •••• • •• ••.•••••• • ••• •••••••
South Carolina •••• . .. • ••••.•.••• . •.••• . .
South Dakota ••• •••••••••••••••• •••• ••••
•
2
4
4
Tenn- •• ••. . •. ..•.•.•••• . .. . .•..... ••
Texns .•..•...•• . •.•. •...•.••.••.•.•••...•
36
Vennont .••.•. .. .•••..•••. •.• ••. ... •.•. . .
1
6
Wa.shlnitton • •• .• .•••••. ••••• •• • •••.• .• ••
West Vl111inia ••••• •••••••••• • ••••••• . •••
Wisconsin • • ••• . •• ••••••••••• •• •••• •• • • ••
W yomin~ .. . . •..• .••• •• ••••••••••••••••••
'
U tah •• . • ••.• •• • .•••.•••••• ••••••••••.•••
Virginia ••• •• ••••••••• • ••••••••••• ••••• ••
U. 8 . pas.sessions . •• . ••••••••••••••••••• ••
F01'61gn countries .••••.•••••••••••.•• ••••
12
13
10
~
8
4
''
3
'
3
8
1
3
1
17
79
2
7
-3
1
-10
1
1
-'
2
-10
1
82
-
3
7
8
33
1
17
!IO
8
-4
4
-1
8
4
12
2
34
3
10
1
3
2
3
3
10
11
2
-
1
-2
6
1
2
6
u
2
13
2
3
1
7
-
3
1
1
1
-6
4
1
1
182
4
9
7
H
2
1
-
1
1
1
e
1
2
34
-3
22
'e
2
2
-'e
148
17
1
6
e
2
1
12
13e
aa
2
71
6
7
1
11
2
1
2
816
12
83
8
148
2
4
2
20
1
22
4
1
e
5
'
14
47
3
e
11
1
82
1112
Bee lootootes at end cl table.
V)
C:
~rn
:t
rn
z
-4
>
:::0
0
<C.
~-
(1)
a.
er
-<
0
0
-
~
('i)
-<
-4
>
m
r-
Cl
.....•
.a,.
UI
....
Table 5.-State of Origin and State of Transient Bureau Registration of Migrant Families, June 30, 1935-Continued
~
•
State of transient bureau registration
I:
State or origin
North
Carolina
TotaL ••••...•••••••...•...•...... I
Alabama ................................ .
Arizona _________________________________ _
Arkansas .•••.....•••••...........•......
California....
Colorado....•.•.•.•.•••..........••......
0
N
"
~
n_
0
0
a( ')
607
7M
594
3
5
ITT
M
16
4
12
8
1
8
141
34
4
10
4
-7
~
a
3
1
2
3
13
3
7
I
-2
27
5
·~
21
9
22
2
11
~
24
4
~7
4
17
I
I
2
2
7
2
~
3
ra
II
1311
5
~::~~;~?~~:::::::::::: :::::::::: :: ::::::
~
~
Nebrasl.a ............... .
Nevada..................
. . ........ .
New Hampshire ..•.....•... . ...........
New Jersey ............................. .
New ?>-!wco •••••.•.•••••••••••••••.••••.
M
1
7
2
1
4
-
15
51
14
3
16
40
-2
I
3
1
38
I
-I
I
2
12
10
14
15
4
I
-5
~
7
I
20
6
2
60
2
6
1
I
2
105
15
2
South
Dakota
Tennessee
l~-~~1---~1--~
!I =1
~1 -- -
I
13
7
2
--
South
Carolina
15
i
20
Rhode
Island
_ _5_1
3
11
4
4
~
M
Miehigsn .•••••••••.........•••••.•......
Minnesota •••.•.•.•.•..........••........
Montana ••••.•••.....••..•...•..........
vanis
w
fil
4
PennsyJ.
Oregon
too
2
8
~~~s~::_-_-_-_-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
11
Oklahoma
~
Georgia ................................. .
Maino ..•.•••.•........•.................
Maryland •..............•................
Massachusetts .......................... .
Ohio
2
Connecticut .....••.........•............
Delaware ............................... .
District or Columbia.................... .
Florida ..••••..••••............••........
Idaho
Illinois ...••...•...•.•....•...............
Indiana..••...•.•••.•.........•.•.•......
Iowa ....•.•.....•.•...............•......
K8DSBS .......•..........................
<g
48
North
Dakota
1~
2
-
--
I
-----I
G)
Texas
;o
1,073
113
28
5
101
19
4
20
96
fl8
g
4
3
37
89
35
19
35
21
2
2
70
-M7
I
15
2
59
51
4
34
14
12
25
15
139
1
1
I
13
0
27
48
II
3
2
3
~
r
;;;
V)
6
-
>
z-t
..,
>
2
13
New York ... . ...... . .... ............. . . .
Oregon •••••• _..••• ••. . .... . •••.. ..•• ••• .•
Pennsylvania .. •• .....• ••..•• ••. •.••••• . .
Rhode I slaod . . ...• ....••...... .... •..•..
South Caroline.•.•. .. .. . •. . ..•••.•..•..• .•
South Dakota .. .......... . ..• .• ..• ••••. .•
TaonessetL .. . ..•.. ••• . •..•....•..•.•... .
T exas .•• ·-·· .. . .. ...•.•.. . . . ... .• .•.•....
Utah .•.... .. • .. .. .... ... .... .. .....• • . .. .
Vennont .• ...... ..... . .•... . . .... ••• .... .
Virginia ••....•.. . . . . . . . .• . ..... .. ........
Washington .. .... .....•. ......... . .... . . .
West Virginia .. .•.. .•... ..... ... . ... •.. ..
w isconsln •. ... . .. .... . ... .........•...• ..
Wyoming .... .. .•. .... . ••.. .. .. . •••. .. . ..
U. S. possessions ..... .... .....•... . .. .. ..
F oreign COlliltries .... ......... .•.. ..... ..
I
I
110
North Cnrollno . . •• •• •• . •••• . ••••••. ... . .
North Dalrota . ••...• ••. •.....•••••.•.• .•
Ohio .•••• ..••••... •.••. ••.•••.•.••••.••. .
Oklahoma .•.••.•.. ...•••. •.. · - · . ••••.. ..
20
2
-
19
2
I
18
16 1
4
10
3
-
4
-
~
--
-◄
94
IS
26
242
2
2
26
◄
97
JO
-
12
92
I
30
5
20
10
-3
-2
3
45
-2
3
2
2
-5
-3
17
-
---
-
I
37
TT
2
13
293
--
-11
7
17
-
30
2
21
9
-
-3
2
3
129
2
7
I
9
I
-57
II
2
3
8
-I
2; I
=I
16
32
6
-
-7
-
26
21
I
51
l
-3
I
30
3
37
I
I
17
9
iI
~I 11
◄
3
3
5
-3
See footnotes at end of table.
i
r-
m
~
0
cci"
""
;::;-
(D
a.
~
C')
0
~........
(v
~-<
>
a,
r~
...•
.,i..
-..a
....
Ta&le 5.-State of Origin and State of Transient Bureau Registration of Migrant Families, June 30, 1935-Continued
~
0C)
•
State or transient bureau registration
~
State or origin
Utah
"'n
C.
er
-<
C"')
0
~
(v
Washing•
West Virginia
WIBoonsin
41
210
ton
233
1,394
I
3
1
10
2
10
2
2
1
1G6
80
JO
3
2
-5
5
-
-
3
2
1
6
6
12
Idaho
Illinois.
Indiana ... _.............. ····--·-- ... -- ... -- ...... ·-- ..... - ... - ...... -- ...... -. -· -··- ---- Iowa. __ .•......... _.·-- ............. __ ............ _... _.... __ ...... __ ..................... .
25
3
-2
95
24
2
2
1
14
I
Kansas .•.............. ·-· ... ·-· -- -....... -......... ·-. -..... ·- ... ·-. -... --· .. ···- -· .... ···-
8
Connecticut. ..•••.•.•........••.•.•••........•..............•..........•............•.....
Delaware ... ______________ . _____ . _____ .. -- .. -- . -- - .. -- - . - --- -- -- - - ----- --- -- ---- ---- - --- - District or Columbia ..•.....•••.•••••.............. ······················-···-·-······ ... Florida .........••...• __ ......•....•........... _...................... -· -- .... -· -··· -· -. -Georgia..•.•...••••..•.... _._ ......•...•...... -- ... - .. ·--- ... -·. -·-···. ·-- •·- •- --·-··· - -·- -
0
Virginia
146
Alabama ••..•..............•...•....•..•................•.•.•.•......•.•...••.•••••.•..... Arizona __________________ .. _________________ . ____________ -- --- --- .. -- ... - - . ---- ------. - - ! . Arkansas •.......••.. ·--.·-- .•.•.......•... _...... _-·- ...... ·--- ...... __ ._--··- ...••...... _
California ...•............•...... _.•........................ -· .... ··-- - . ----·--- .••••• -- -- Colorado .........••...•.........•...•.....................•••......•..•••••.•.•.......... -
:g
Vermont
I
26
10
2
f;;i\Y!L
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ::::::::::::: :: :: ::: :: ::::: :::::::: :: ::::::::: --Maine ___ ......••••.........•........... - ......... -· ...... -- • •- -• • -- · · -- · --- ··-·-- ·-·· · · -- ··
Maryland .. ·-·••·-·····················-·· ................. --- - ........ •-····· •· -····--·· Me.ssachusetts...•.......................... --·· -·-. ·-- .. _..... -· ........•.•••.••• -·-· ••....
Michigan .•....••••..•••.•.........•................... _................... ·-- .. _.......... .
Minnesota._.
Mississippi. •• ··--_ .. ·--- ___ .. __ ... ·--.-·. - - ................ -· .... -•·- .. •··· •· -· • •-· • - -· -· · Missouri ...••••....
Montana.. ••.•••................................................ _......... ___ ... __ ......... _
Nebraska..... __ ............ --· ....... _.............. --· .. __ ...... --·· ... _.. _......... __ ... .
Nevada ...........................•...... ·············-··-·········--···· ...•.•.•.......•..
New Hampshire •............ _...•.•.....•...•.........•.......•.......•.•.•...•...•.•......
NewJeniey··-···········-·-·-··············-····-··-····-··-··-····-···-·······
New Mexico •.•.••••.•••••.•.•••••••.••. - ...........••.....•.. - •.•.........•.•.•.•.•.•..••..
2
3
2
2
1
1
4
25
3
13
2
7
;I
I
53
I
2
3
~1
1
1
3
1
51
6
8
6
4
=-,
>
180
-4 ~>
3
1
2
2
16
16
2
-
G
G
3
6
11
3
I
-
1
-2
-l
23
53
16
23
3
1
4
13
13
61
83
95
3
-1
G
~
..,,
3
1
11
1
-
G)
I Wyoming
2
I
6
6
3
10
2
-7
-
6
;=
rn
18
M
10
8
9
I
4
6
6
2
l
117
12
61
New York _____ •••••••.•••••••••••••.••••• ••••.•••.••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••
North Carolina._ •••••••••••••.•••••...••• __ ...•.•••.......••.....•.•.••...••.•..•..•.•••••.
North Dakot.a_.··························-·····································-··········
Ohio •••••••.•• -·· •..• ··-· ••••. . ••••••••.•••...••••••.••••••
Oklahoma. •..•••••• -.•.•..•••••••••••••.•••••.•.. ··-·· •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••.•
2
Oregon •• ····-·· .•••••••••.•••••..•••• ··-- __ ··-._-···· ...••••••••• __ ••••••••••••••••••••••••
Pennsylvania .• ·-················ ·- -· •• -·-·····-·.·-·_ .•••.•••.•••••.•••• __ ••••••••••••••••
Rhode lsland ••••••••• ·---··---·-·--·----- ···-·--·--··-·· ····-··· ··---···············-··
South Carolina.. __ .•.•. _. __ .. _. __ .•. _-·····-···.-·-··-······ .....
South Dakota.·-· ··-··--·····-.-···- __ --···· .•.. -·-·· ...•••••••
4
l
15
6
7
15
1
88
2
18
Teooessee .•. __ -· _••• ..... _•••••.. ___ •••.• _-·· .• -· .. ______ . _..•.
Texas .
Utah ..
Vermont. .----·····-···-·---·---··········· -···
Vlrg!ola. ___ .. .. ---··-··----·----·--·---······
Wasb!oirton .....•.... ________ -· _-· _-· __ •...
W ost Virginia ... ·-·-·········--··-·-···-··-·_ ••
W iscoo.s!n __
Wyoming. _____ ..
ll . S. pos.sessioru ..• -...•.. ---·--- ...
f"orelgn countries_.
2
I
150
6
2
l
JO
1
34
6
3
21
11
6
2
9
1
6
25
6
6
1
I
6
3
IQ
1
3
8
4
I
2
3
2
3
11
2
2
2
l
l
I
2
l
3
2
22
9
12
1 Division of Transient Act!vlUes, Quarurlr c,11,,.. of 'n-amifflt, Un<UT Cure, June 30, 1935, Fed..-al Emerpocy Relief Admlolstratloo, Washington, D. C. Fam!Ues regiateNld In
St.ate or origin are not Included.
• Idaho traru;ieot bureau case loed estimated on the basis or June 15, 1935, ,Vidmont/1/r Cemiu of 'n-annfflt ActiDUiu. Orlclm of the Idaho cue toed estimated on the basis of the
mf&rant family s,unµle study.
(I)
C
=8
r-
rr,
I:
rr,
....z)>
0
,B"
;;:;
a.
"
!Z
CJ
0
~
rv
,0
....)>-<
a,
r-
rr,
II)
...•
,,:,.
,0
150 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Table 6.-Net Population Displacement and Reciprocated Movement Through Migrant
Family Emigration and Immigration
Migrant families
State
Total •.... .• . . .. ..... ••. . . . •• . ••. . . .
Net dlsplaoemen t
Emigrating Immll(l'8t·
from
Ing to
29, 885
1
29, 885
Gain
Reclprocatoo
movement
Loss
10,524
10,624
19,3/11
1-----l·----~-----1-----1-
Alabama..................................
Arizona...................................
Arkansas..................................
California.................................
Colorado..................................
696
466
1, 161
1, 193
838
Connecticut...............................
Delaware..................................
District of Columbia......................
Florida....................................
Georgia. . • • • . • . . • • . • . • . • . . . . . . . . • • • •• • • • . .
207
53
27
48
119
379
260
534
690
70'J
3ga
175
Idaho.....................................
Illinois....................................
Indiana _________________________________ -Iowa......................................
I 966
1,515
315
391
639
261
Kansas....................................
1327
1,264
68-.1
522
I, 091
1,368
277
E::i~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Maine ....•.........•.............•.•••.•..
657
504
78
Maryland ..........•...................•..
Massachusetts .......•..............•••....
209
Mlchi~an ...........................••.....
Minnesota .••........•....................
Mississippi. .••.•.•...•...................•
Missouri. ..........................•...•..
Montana .•.•••.•.•.................•••••..
799
334
609
1,818
Nebraska ....•••.•.•.•........•..•.•..•...
Nevada .....................•..•.•••••.••.
New Hampshire ....•..............••......
New Jersey ...........•...........•.•......
New Mexico ....••.........•.•.•..•••..•..
809
New York .........•...•.........•••.•....
North Carolina...•.....•..........•.......
!'.:Orth Dakota......•.........•............
Ohio .................•..............•.....
Oklu.homs....................•...•.•••....
Ore~on ..................................•.
Pennsylrnnla ........................•....
Rhode Island .........................•....
South Cnrolina _______ ~ ____ ------------- -South Dakota ..•......•............•......
Tennessee ........•...............•........
Texas .............................••...•..
Ctah .......•...•.•.................•......
Vern1ont. ________________ .. ___ .. _- - _- .. - - Vir~inis ...•••.••.•...•.•.....•.•.•.•••••..
~:rfn!rr~'.;~~=
284
264
120
19
592
369
======== ====== =========== =::
6, 11116
1,847
179
241
468
4,803
1,009
180
6
M
816
12
272
72
288
42
126
6:17
534
393
370
131
327
1,264
315
391
1,091
603
M
504
:l12
12
2W
72
66
63
123
676
481
792
167
1:18
1,026
g7
621
288
42
Ill
637
24
128
1,026
g7
27
48
119
297
312
676
358
417
225
6\13
1, 1\13
838
334
78
lOi
65
714
345
36ll
398
318
843
2,633
1,472
48
II
1,479
606
1, Oi4
41!
II
843
503
755
1,140
5Y
2911
621
69-1
687
1,WI
239
918
1,070
145
1,0i4
409
361
30i
636
2,027
262
48
193
6
646
511-1
11
106
616
48
193
5
901
9-1
687
1,070
145
86
233
631
1,373
41
207
180
318
227
606
503
Zll
86
375
341
Wyoming .....................••.......•..
417
225
693
141
742
300
Ill
47
233
631
41
207
180
• Division of Transient Activities, Quarterlr C,n,iu of Tramitnu Under Cart, June 30, 1935, ~·edersl
Emergency Relief A<lrninistration, Washington, D. C.
• 419 families emigrating from U, S. possessions or foreign countries are not included.
• Idaho transient bureau ca.se load estimated on the ba.sLs of June 15, 19.1.,. Midmonthlv Ctn81u of Tramitnl
Actiritiri. Origins of the ldllho case load estimated on the b11Sis of the migrnnt family 88lilple study.
□ig,t zc:d by Goog Ie
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 151
Table 7.-Migrant Families
I
Emigrating per 1,000 Families in General Population
1930,1 by State
Stat.
Migrant
lamili,•s
Families
Migrant emigrating
In general
families
per
1,000
population emigrating families
In
1930
from
i,eneral
State
population
Total •••... ••···---······································· __ 'n, 547,200
29, 8&~
1.08
18, T,lO
91,871
531, 18.1
48,441
120
n.o
N<'v"d"·······················································--···Ari1.ona ... _________________________________________ . _______________ _
Oklahoma .•.••.••.•...... ·•·······················•···············Wyominir ____ ._ ..• __ ._ .... _... ___ . __ .. __ .... ___ ._._ .. ____ .. _.. __ . __ _
New Me,ico--····-····-·····--·--···-·---··········-··············-
89,490
4611
2. 63.1
227
369
5.07
4.11ft
4.611
4. 1~
Bouth Dakota_._····-·······-··--···-----····--····················
Colorado ......••...................................... _.•.....•.....
Idaho .........•. -··· •....••..•.. _-·· .. __ ._ ........ _.... -·•·········Arkansas_ .... _....... _..... _··- -· __ . __ ·-. __ ... ___ ... -·. __ ··- •......
N ebras.lrn .•.......•............•.. _.............. __ .. _........•.....
Wl.~13
521
3.511
237, 9,10
95,721
410,4M
314,957
838
3. 52
327
1, 161
809
3.42
2. 8.1
2.57
Kan~a..~. ______ . ______ .. ________ .. ___ . __ . __ ____ ______ . _______________ _
4411,437
Nortb Dakota .... _.-·•• ... . ..... -·· .. .. .. __ -··· .......... -····-····
1Hontana ....•..•.•......... _..... ·- .... _.•..•..•...•............. _.
T:tah_·············-········ •-· -·- •-···--··---·-·····-·--·-··--··-··
Oregon •••.•...•.••....• _..... _... _... _........................•..•.
132,004
lH,679
100,621
231,258
1,001
318
264
239
ro3
2. 44
2. 41
2.30
2.24
2. 18
!!AA, 11.~
1,818
371,450
332. Q57
1,:193,344
436,971
631
."34
1,971
009
1.3g
Tennl'S...e ............ _. _. _..... _.............•.......•.............
Kentucky ....•.....•..••...... _..........••..•................. _._.
Ooorgia_ ...••.....••....•....•....•..•..•.••.•.•••...•....... _•...•.
Louisiall8 __ . _______ . ·- _···- ____ -·-- __ ........•....•... _····- ···-·-·District ol Columbia.....••.....•.••.•..•....••••...•...•••.•.•.••..
5117, 100
573,MR
610, 08-1
449, 61R
108,945
6~7
657
600
504
119
I. 21
I. 15
I. 13
I. 12
I.OD
Vermont ... -··-······•·· ... _......•...•.....•... ···················Alahama ....•....•.•.•...•........•....•.........••.•.•...•.••....•.
Delaware .....••••.•.....•....•.••..•••.....•.•••.•........•••....•.
West Virginia ... -•···--····--·······································
80,197
656, m
AA
500
M.lM
5.1
Mls.<0url. ___ ··-····-·········-···-·-···-----·-····-·---······--··--Wa.shington .... ······- __________ -·--·· ... _-·- ···-. __ -· _·- ......... _
Florida •..••••••••.....•.•......•........... -.•.........••.....•. -..
Texas ____ ·-_·····•···- ___ . __ .. __ -·_.-···-·-··--····- ... ········-····
Mississippi. .....•.•.......... _·······-· ..............•.............
Iowa ............................................................... .
Tn<liana _____ .. -··· _·-···· .. -........................•....•....••.. -South Carollll8_ •......... _-.•... -· ...... -········· ...........••.•..
California .•..•...••..•.........•.•.........••.••...•. _...•.....•....
Virginia .•... -···-······ __ ·........ __ ... __ ............. -· .....•... -··
Michigan .••••.....•...........•.•.•••...•.•.•...•.•.......•.•...• __
TIJlnols. ____ . ___ ·-···· -· ·················- ··············-·· -·· ··-- _.
North Carolina.··········-_ .•.... -·-················· ...•.•.•..... _
New Jersey ..•..............••..........•..•........•.•.•..•..•.••..
Minnesota_ ............• ···-_·-·····_ ......•...........•............
Maryland ..........••.........•.•........•....•••••••.•.•..••••..••
:l--'\3, 562
583,638
341
522
779,021
AA.~
299
1, 193
375
343,562
1, 37--'\,607
493, .',47
1,098,010
1, 789,5111
61,5, 81)5
923, bl3
,',ll(),O'lO
3M, 514
700
2.09
I. 70
1.60
I. 52
1.07
1.07
.98
.llff
.89
.AA
.87
.87
• 76
• 73
1,:lf\4
409
592
3.14
200
. 66
.64
.00
. 5g
. 71
8/l0,764
Connectirut_. _··-···· ___ ... ······-- ......................•.•...... _
Pennsylvania._ ........•. -·· ..........•....•.....•.•..•.•.•.•••..... 2,095,332
1,569,544
Ohio·-··•········•··••····•·········································
663,089
Wisconsin ....••••...........•.. _............... __ .•.. -·_ .......••..
177,860
Maine .........•.•..•....•...•...•.•....•....•. •····-···············
207
.57
1, 140
843
318
. 54
Rhode Island._ ......•.•.......•.•....••....•..... _..•..........•...
New York_ .......•......•...................•....••.............. __
M8558chusetts_ .....•. _. ___ .... _..•.....•.•...............••••..... _
New Hampshire .•..••...... _..... -········· .....•.•.........•......
5P
1,074
2!l-l
19
153,322
2,889, 81!9
940,Ml
105, 2W
78
.M
• 48
.«
.38
. 37
.30
.18
1 Division of Transient Activities, Qnarttrlv Ctn<ua of Tramkn/$ Undtr Cart, June 30, 11135, Fc<leral
Emergency Relief Administration. Idaho emigration estimated on ba,is ol migrant family sample study.
419 families emigrating from U. ~- possessions are not Included.
• R11rea11 ol the Census, Fiftu:nlh c,na.,. of the Uniltd Staru: 19~. Popnlat-ion Vol. VI, U. S. Department
ol Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1Q33, p. 36. !•per.ion families not included.
D1911 zed by
Goog Ie
152 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Tal,/e 8.-Migrant Families I lmmi9ratin9 per 1,000 Families in General Population
1930,2 by State
Mbmmt
Families
Migrant families imIn general families Im- migrating
per 1,000
population migrating
lWO
to St.ate Infamilies
general
population
State
Total •.•.•..•......•....•......•.....•. ·--············ .••.•.•. 'IT, 547,200
Idaho __ ·····-····-·········•·•··········-······-····················
New Mexico ..••.........•.••....•.•........... -...•......••....•...
Colorado ......•••....•.•.••.•• _..•........................•.....•...
California_ ........ _................. __ .. _..... _.-···················
Washington .•. ··········•·········•··- .... _....................... .
95,721
89,400
237,936
1,375,6:17
371,450
Wyoming_ .... ____ ._ .....•.........•...•.......................... _.
District of Columbia.- ....•......•..•..•........................•...
Oregon ••....•.......•...........•.•........... -.............•......
Kansas .•......•.............................•.. __ .............. ·- ..
48,441
Arizona .•••..••••............................................•......
Nevada ...•••••.........•••.........................................
Florida .•..•.•••...•....••......... -...............•................
Louisiana_
.•.••••....•.......... .___________________________________
.................................. ._
Arknn,;as _______________________
Tennessee .••.........•.....•.......................................
30,304
m
714
1,847
8,044
1,394
180
1-10
10.18
7. 98
7. 78
4.39
3. 76
3. 72
3. 48
8. 28
108,945
379
231,258
446,437
91,871
1,372
225
3. 07
2. 46
42
2.24
2. 15
1.82
1.69
1.62
18, 730
332,957
449,616
755
717
410,454
820
603
567,100
919
106,621
146
1. 37
1. 24
Ut.ah.- .. -·•-··---····················-········•······-············New Ilampshire .•........•..••.•.... -.•...•.•.•.•..................
Missouri.. ...•....•..•.....•.............•..••.•............•.......
Oklahoma ••......•.................... _.-···•·•· ..•................
Ohio ••••••••.••••••...•.......•...•........•...••..............•....
868.115
531,183
1,569,544
Nebraska ...••.... _........ -.......... ·- .................... ·- ...•..
Deiaware ..•• •········-····•·······-···············-··•·-•··········
Montana .. ·················- .................•............•..•.....
Illinois ........•• -········ ..... _.... __ ... ___ . __ .. -· .. __ .. __ .. _-·····_
Texas .••••....•••...•..•••.•..........................••....••..••..
314,957
M, 155
114, 6i9
1, i89, 581
1,293,34¼
Maryland ................••........... _........ _.......... _···- .... .
Alabama.•...•..•....•...•.....•....•....•...•..................... _
Iowa .....••......•........•... __ ·•·····························-····
Minnesota .••.•..•........... _.. __ ...... -··· .. ·······-···-._._ ..... .
560,080
610,083
359
393
Mlrhigan_ .•........ ····- ......... ___ .. __ ......... _····- ....... _... _ 1,098,010
New York ............•..•. •··········-······················-·····- 2,889,889
923. 613
New Jersey_ ..••.•.............•.... _................. _············Routh Carolina .. ·-._._ ........•...... _.... ····· -........... _.... -·.
343,562
879
1, 746
5.38
193
.62
.80
493,547
233
.47
Indiana_ ....••.......... -......... ··- .......................... -... 779,021
153,322
Rhode Island
•••••.....•.•..•••..•..•............ -.• ·····-··········.
Wisconsin.
________________________________________________________
M-3, 089
Mississippi ....••..... _.......................... _.. _............ _·436,971
Pennsylvania ............•.•.•••..•........•......••............... _ 2,005,332
316
.n
105,299
Georgia .•••••......•.•.•.••......... -........•.•.•................. -
Virginia ........................................................... -
West Virginia ... _·····- ..•....•..... . . ······-·•···•······-.-·····_ ..
Kcntucky ...•....••.....•••••••....•....•..•.......•.••..•••••.... 1\lassachusetts .........• _..•......... _........••....... _......•.....
J\;orth Dakota_ .........••...•................. _.............. ·- ... .
North Carolina ...••...••••••••••...••.........•••••••••••••••••....
Malne.•·········-··•··················-····························
Connecticut ....•.....••...•..•••••....•.•.......•••••••••••••.••...
South Dakot.a ........... -·········•·······-························
Vermont ......•..••....•....•••...••..••............................
131
1,027
607
1,480
289
49
99
1.18
1.14
.M
.92
.00
.M
1,525
1,073
.85
.83
3511,51'
M6, 174
275
. 77
58-3,638
39-1
.68
.64
.64
417
SI
210
128
5W
353,562
5i3, 558
41
940,541
80
132,004
615,865
48
177,860
360,764
146,513
80,197
M
11
12
27
5
• 75
.58
.56
.33
.32
.29
,28
.12
.w
.09
.08
. Ill
.07
.07
.03
t Division of Tram·ient Activiti011, Qu.arttrlV Ctmua of Trami<nl• Undtr Cart, June 30, 193S, Feder,,!
Emergency Relief Administration. Idaho Transient Bureau case load estimated on basis of June 15, 1935,
J.lidmonthtv C,mu., of Transi,nt Actiritie,.
• Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Cw,u., of the United Statt1: /9SO, Population Vol. VI, U. S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1933, p. 31l. !•person famili06 not included.
01g11 lCd
by
Goog Ie
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 153
TafJle 9.-Urban-Rural Distribution of Place of Migrant Family Origin and Destination
and Residence of Families in General Population of 1930 1
Mtsnmt family origin I
FamWes In general population
1m
Migrant family destlna•
tlon •
State
Total
Urban
Rural
Total
Urban
Roral
8, 882
3. 186
f!l11
Total
Urban
Rural
--- --Total ..... . . . .
4,2UI
2,034
1, 282
2'1,M7,D 16,976,874 ll,671,3311
Percent dllCrtbntlon
70
Sil
Colondo ...........
100
100
100
100
100
100
Conaectlcut ........
Delaware .. .... .....
Dlalnct ol Columbia..
l'lor1da ........ . . . ..
Oeoqla. .... •...... .
100
100
100
100
100
80
71
100
78
82
Idaho ••. .•. •.• •..• ..
Illlnoil . .... •.• . •.. . .
100
100
100
100
100
Ill
72
66
68
"
100
100
100
100
JOO
83
68
ga
Total ... . .. . ..
A..labllma •••••.... . .
Arboaa. ........... .
A r ~ . • ...... . . .
Callrornla. ........ . .
lndlana. . . ...... .. . .
IOWL ..... . . . ... . ...
~
-·-········· ·
~ ~ · - ·· ··•···
MIine . . .. .. ...... ..
Maryland ... . . .. . . .
Musachwietta •••.. .
Mlchipn . .• .. .. .. .
M
38
811
1111
47
1111
100
100
100
100
100
100
Ill
71
ga
68
1M
Ill
100
100
100
100
100
100
M
100
90
81
100
100
100
100
100
41
100
100
100
100
100
M
100
68
30
lMI
22
78
113
111
100
100
100
100
100
71
61
100
M
33
-48
100
100
100
100
100
81
82
611
8
21
18
18
7
100
100
100
100
100
M
82
60
811
116
48
18
60
II
4
15
28
63
34
66
100
100
100
100
100
86
116
48
71
81
14
30
36
34
82
11
31
:io
211
-
22
38
68
"
28
34
42
63
31
17
"
1M
711
82
18
211
7
42
8
g
-86
-10
38
60
311
10
118
211
311
100
100
100
100
100
32
411
82
48
M
78
83
59
86
81
24
17
41
14
19
100
100
100
100
100
'tf1
83
68
42
17
84
27
411
31
46
811
83
65
37
100
100
100
100
100
New York .. ..... ...
North Carolina . ....
North Dakota ... . ..
Ohio••• ••• •.••.•. .. .
100
100
100
100
100
113
88
211
112
57
7
32
7t
8
43
100
100
100
100
100
117
71
CIO
90
67
3
211
40
10
43
100
100
100
100
100
9rf,gon •••. •••••••. .
100
100
100
100
100
90
10
100
78
16
88
-22H
100
100
100
100
100
81
1M
100
83
100
Ill
8
-
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
67
72
711
41
59
33
28
24
100
100
100
100
100
ga
26
83
23
21
7
76
17
100
100
100
100
72
68
67
311
28
t2
43
100
100
100
100
83
32
82
62
17
88
18
48
PennaylvanlL ......
Rhode Island . •••••.
8011th Carolina ••.•.
SOlltb Dakota ......
T -. .........
Tau.. ........... ..
Utah . ... . ..........
v-ont ............
VlrllnJa .. . .........
w
. ..
...····
WestV~ · Wlaoomm ... .. . . .. .
WJ'OIIWII...... . ....
86
511
41
61
"
(f1
61
Oklahoma .... ... . ..
1111
211
41
40
81
90
100
100
100
100
100
II
67
33
Nebruka . .. . .......
Nevada. . .. . ..... . . .
New Hampablre . ...
New1eney .. . . . . . ..
New Mexico •••• •• ••
611
211
411
100
100
100
100
100
Montam ...........
46
47
611
611
86
72
47
M
Mtaei-:r.pl.. •••.•..
Mtaeo . .. •••.••...
ISO
78
X
41
41
100
100
100
100
100
Mlnnelota . . ........
74
42
70
77
711
4
M
-
17
61
18
52
8CI
42
68
83
27
18
llU
37
73
18
73
Ill
31
113
112
23
21
47
31
8
77
711
100
100
100
100
100
88
43
66
64
67
46
34
35
M
86
100
100
100
100
611
31
41
1111
63
611
65
46
34
88
I Bureau of the Census, Flflanlll C,n,u, o_fth• U nittd Stain: 19SO, Populat-ion Vol. VI, U. 8. Department
of Commel't'll, Washington, D. C., 1933, State tahle 5. I-person famili es not Included .
• 112 families, wb098 State of origin or size ol place of ori,Jln was Dot ascertainable or whose origin was a
foreign country or U. 8. possessions, are not Included .
• 4411 families, without dellnlte dcstlnatiooa, whose State of destination or size of place of destination wu
not -1aluahle, or wb01!8 destination was a fon,lgn country or U. S. possesslooa, are not included.
Dtgrtzcel by
Google
154 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Table 10.-Size of Place of Origin and Destination of Migrant Families, by Year of
Leaving Settled Residence
Year of leavlug aettled residence
Type oC residence change
Total
Total .......................
I
Before
111211
4,0741~
111211
11130
11131
11132
11133
11134
1935
--- - - - --- --- - - - - - - - - 1311
1117
141
2811
486
1,346
1,383
--82
Percent distribution
Total •.....•••••••....
To urban areaa ..•.. ........
To metropolitan cities...
From metropolitan 1
cities..............
From small • cities..
From villagee 1•••••.
From farms •.•••.•..
To •mall cities ..••••••..
From metropolitan
cities.............
From small cities •..
From villages •••••..
From farms••••• -· •.
100
100
JOO
100
100
100
100
100
711
64
ft()
64
32
31
38
68
33
71
63
l!8
36
'8
82
Ill
24
15
JO
20
11
18
11
:u
1
3
18
10
4
23
lff
7
6
3
32
19
II
2
1
211
3
33
4
28
26
14
II
2
4
15
10
6
2
12
10
4
2
11
- - - - - - - - - ---
23
8
8
4
3
4
11
II
7
a
To rural are&II •••••••• - •••••.
To vtllagee....••....•...
From metropolitan
cities .....•••......
From small cities ...
From vtllages.......
From fanns ... ......
TofBl'IIIS...•.•.•..••••..
From metropolitan
cities.....•.•......
From small cities ...
From villagee •••....
From farms •••••••..
17
10
21
11
ao
20
23
12
3
1
4
10
4
II
2
10
11
3
No deftnlte destination .....
From metropolitan
cities..................
From small cities ••.....
From villages ...••......
From IBl'IIIS ...... .......
7
a
2
2
a
7
8
10
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
5
a
1
8
8
5
2
6
5
8
4
2
7
4
4
8
26
33
15
Ill
23
14
8
12
II
7
4
2
2
11
8
6
2
4
14
II
3
3
2
II
2
3
2
2
2
1
5
J
14
a
7
3
2
2
1
5
15
10
II
10
'
'
II
4
3
3
4
.
II
11
3
1
1
2
6
2
-
26
19
II
7
21
20
8
II
21
-a8
4
61
12
7
6
23
2
2
2
t
JOO
2
1
5
1
I
•
II
a
2
-
6
1
3
I
I
6
II
1
1
1
8
1
3
4
II
. .
3
2
5
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
I
I
• Less than 0.5 percent.
• Places of more than 100.000 population.
• Places ol 2,~100,000 population.
a Places ollesa than 2,500 population.
Non:.-264 lamllles, whcee •lze of place or settled residence or destination and thcee for which the year
or leaving settled residence were not ascertainable, are not Included.
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 1 5 5
Ta&le 71.-Place of Destination and of First Transient Bureau Registration of Migrant
Families
Migrant families
Place of destination and of lln,t tran•ient bul'tlllu registration
Total _______________ -- _______ --- __ --- - ---- -- --- - --- --- --- ---- -
Total
Urban des- Rural destination
ti nation
3,896
3,190
706
Percent dlsb'fbutlon
Total _____ ---------------------------------------- -- -- -------.
100
100
JOO
1----·1-----1---Registered In place of destination. ____ .... __________________________
53
81
14
Registered In State but not at place or destination__________________
8
6
IQ
Registered In State other than State of destination. ______ • _____ .____
39
33
67
Non.-1.~ families, which had no settled residence, hsd no dellnlte destination, and whose State or
destination or size of place of destination was not ascertainable, are not Included.
Ta&le 72.-Migrant Family and Unattached Cases Opened and Closed During Month
and Number Under Care at the Middle of the Month in Transient Bureaus, February
1934-September 193 5
Migrant family cases
Year and month
Ca.""•
opened
Caaeacl~
Unattached cases
Case!!under
care at
mldmonth
Cases
CasesclOll8d
opened
C611e8under
care at
mldmonth
11134
February _____________________
Mardi ________________________
5,911
6,812
~-------------------------
8,9211
8,444
lune __________________________
luly __________________________
August _______________________
September ___ -------------- --October_, ________ - ------ ______
November____________________
n-Dber ____________________
4,045
4, 1133
8,316
7,475
8,204
II, 160
II, 149
9,568
11,301
13, 112..~
12, 88.5
13,999
13,875
12, 734
11, 8ll6
11, 789
13,070
11, 5(),5
12,007
13,001
14,769
15,122
16,848
15,945
9, 71111
11,1114
10,930
13,676
14, 118
u, 174
16,179
17,716
16,588
16,832
10,687
11,071
10,1122
11,585
13,458
14,289
15,886
17,346
19,235
22,275
24,044
27,391
30,216
11:1,417
138,088
1711,660
200,136
240,716
2111, 148
345,031
302,439
88,485
1211, 812
174,835
200,870
231,079
2811, 451
335,9fl8
308,984
2118, 2112
271,941
213,739
211(), 1173
213,506
285, 7RII
60,677
70,483
76,934
78,nl
86,369
96,687
104, 789
108, 134
116,289
128,686
136,823
1936
lanuary .. ____________________
February _____________________
March ________________________
~-------------------------
lune __________________________
luly __________________________
August_ - ------------- -- ------
September•-------------------
33,124
35,414
35,2M
35, om
32, 727
32,MII
31, 7111
31, 112
27,312
212, 8114
'JJJl, 1811
279,632
303,941
310,842
2118, 034
2113, 999
275,090
13,1, 797
210, 14.5
208,272
283, 6.'i:I
312, W4
317, fXl5
30!,168
2118, 334
281,814
154,481
135,0.~l
134,170
132,562
1211, 249
120,224
112,958
110,094
106, 174
96, 5()11
Intake of new C88e8 closed on September 20.
Source: Division of Transient Activities, Federal Emergency Relief Administration. Interstate casea
1
only are Included.
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
156 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
Tal,le 13.-Size and Composition of Migrant Families During and Before Migration
Composition
Total
Size
Durln~ mi!!l1lt!on ................... .
Belore migration ••...•••••...•......
Normal
with or
wt I hout
children
Women•
children
Man-chi!dren
All other
types
5, 489
4. 3-43
728
119
299
5, 48V
4,476
589
105
31V
100
Percent distribution
During migration....................
2 persons................................ . .
3 persons..................................
4 persons..................................
5 persons..................................
ftpNsons..................................
7 persons..................................
8 persons..................................
9 persons.................................
10 persons or more.........................
Betore migration...................
100
100
100
100
35
25
17
10
35
24
17
10
6
4
2
1
1
42
43
31
12
7
4
l-----l-----+-----11-----1·----
5
4
2
1
I
l=====I
100
30
14
7
3
3
1
•
I
15
30
19
IV
8
4
2
2
I
100
100
100
JOO
---- · ----·1-----1-----1·----
2 persons .............................. .
3 persons .....•..........................•.
4 r>ersons _. ______ . _. __ . __ . ___ . _. . . ________ .
5 persons .•........•.......................
6 persons .•......••.....................•..
7 persons ................................. .
32
32
41
37
13
25
25
29
28
29
18
11
18
II
6
4
2
15
7
4
3
I
13
14
6
1
19
18
9
4
3
1
•
6
4
2
I
I
8 Jl('rsons ••• _________________________ . ____ •
g 1wrsons .•............................
10 persons or more ............ .
3
2
1
• Leso than 0.5 percent.
Tai,/• 74.-Age and Sex of Economic Heads of Migrant Families, of Heads of Resident
Relief Families October 1933,1 and Age of Male Heads of Families in General
Population 1930
1
Economic he,vls ol migrant
lllmilies'
Age
n.,ads of resident relief
lllmilies Oct.ober 11133
Male hrads
or families
In general
population
Female
1930
-·
Total
,·emale
Male
Total
Male
- - - - - - - ---- ---- - - - Total. .••..•••........
5,480
4,725
755
204, 100
li4,042
30,058
26. 093, 4111
Percent distribution
Total .•••••...•.......
1&-24 years .••........••....
25-34 years •••••..............
35-44 years .••............•••.
4:',-.'\4 years ..•..•••..••••.••..
~ years ..........••.•.•...
65 years and over_____________
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
13
36
29
15
12
37
29
15
19
7
5
17
23
6
6
1
7
22
2i
22
13
1
---
32
27
14
7
1
9
23
28
22
12
8
5
27
25
22
22
15
14
9
16
1 Division of Resesrch, Statistics, an<l Flnsnce, Untmplnvm,nt R,li,f Ctn,,,,.,, Odnhrr /PIJ.~. Report Number
Three, Federal Emergency Helie! Administration, Wushington, D. C., 1935, p. 36. !·person families are
not included.
• Bureau of the C'ensu!, Fiftu11th
oftM United Stair,: IP-!O, Population Vol. VI, U. B. Department
ol Commerce, \\'ashlngt.on, IJ. C., 1933, p. 9.
• 11 family heads, whose age was not ascertainable, are not included.
r,,...,.,
D1g1t1zcd by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES•
157
Table 15.-Age and Status in Family of Persons in Migrant Families
Economic
Total
Age
Total ........................................... .
heads
19, 93li
1
Other prln• Chlldren
cipa)
and other
members • reluth·es 1
4,797
6,480
9,658
Peroent dtstrihutlon
Total............................................
100
100
100
1-----1·----·I-----I
Undtt5years .................. :.......................
f>--9 years..............................................
10-U yean.............................................
100
15
31
28
23
12
3
1
14
llr-l9years.............................................
20---24 years.............................................
2.',-29 years.............................................
30--34 years ............................... __ ............
~years.............................................
4&--54 yean.............................................
M-1>4 yean...... ........... .... .. .. .. ..................
Myearsandover........... ..........................
11
8
JO
JO
II
13
1
12
18
18
29
6
3
15
6
15
21
9
3
1
1
2
8
.
22
20
•Less than 0.6 percent.
9 family bearls, whose a~e was not ascert.11lnnhle, are not lnclnrled.
• In the majority of ca..se.s "other principal memhers" were spouse ol economic bends. 2 oth!'l' io-oups sre
also included: ( I) parents ~f economic heads, where the economic bead was an unmarried child; and (2)
aiblin~s (16 years of age and over) ol economic bea,!s.
• Includes brothers and ststers under 16 years of age, grandparents, nieces, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.
NOTE.-43 persons, whose age W8" not ascertainable, are not included.
1
Table 16.-Citiz:enship Status and Color and Nativity of Economic Heads of Migrant
Families
White
Citizenship status
Total
Native•
born
I
Foreign.
Negro
Other
born
4, 5781 _ _ _3_7_1·l----.-19-l·----79-
Total.. ............................. .
5,Hi
Pert-ent distribution
Total •......•........................
100
100
100
100
100
U. 8. l'itl,ens ............................. .
ll8
100
66
100
73
~ ~tu~'t'~l~fz'.:~~1S~~:::::: :: ::::::::::
I
I
16
18
27
Non.-42 family h..ads, whose color, nativity, or citizenship status was not asoertalnable,are not Included.
D1911 zed by
Goog Ie
158 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
To&le 17.-Usual Occupation and Employability of Economic Heads of Migrant
Families
Employability
l'sual occupation
Total
Employable
Tot11J. _______________________________________________________ _
4,729
Employable with
handicaps
l,TM
2,995
Percent distribution
TotaJ. ____ ------ -------- - . -------------- ----- ---------------- -
100
1001
100
Whiro-rollar workers.
. ·-·-···--· --------·----------Profrssional and trchnkal workl'rs_ ____ ___ __ _ . _. _____________ _
28
26
31
5
4
PropriC'tor.-;, forem<'n, 11ml ovPr--N:"rs (a.~1ic111t.Un\J) ______________ _
Offi<Xl workers, salesmen, and kindred workers _________________ _
4
8
11
4
7
11
12
8killcd workers ______________ . __________________________ --- ___ ------
23
2li
21
Semiskilled workers _________ . ______________________________________ _
2li
'11
22
Unskilled
workers...
. .. -------------------------------·------Laborers
(nonagricultural)
_____________________________________ _
Lahorers (agrirullurnll .
_____ . . ----·-- · -----------------Domestic and personal service workers ____________ .. ___________ _
24
22
7
7
8
211
8
8
10
Proprietors, manai,ers, and offidais (nonfl!!l"icuiturai) __________ _
8
7
11
5
4
10
Non:.-760 economic heads of families, who were unemployable or who ha<! no experience in any occupation and those whose usual occupation was not ascertainable, are not included.
Ta&/e 18.-Usual Occupation and Sex of Employable Economic Heads of Migrant
Families
Usual occupation
Total
1
Total ___________________________________ -------------------·•·
Inexperienced persons _____ .--··. __________________________________ ..
White-<'ollar wnrkers.. .. .. ..
. _.. ______________________ . ____ .
Professional and technical workers•- ..... ___ ... _._ .•. ___ .. ______ ..
Actors ____ .. _________ . _________ . ________ . ___ ,. ________________ . _
Artists, sculpto!"'I, and tooeherso(art _________ ·-·-··-·-·-------Chemi.:.t.s, as.'-Ryers, ·metallurgists _____ . ________ ......... ____ .•. _
Clergymen and religious workers _____________________________ _
Designers ___ --·--------- __ .. ______________ . ____ . ___ . ___________ _
Tlrart_smen ________________ . ________ . _--- _. __________ .. ____ . ____ .
Engineers (technical)_ .. _. _____ ----· _____________ .. ___________ _
Lawyers, Judges, and Just ires .. _. ________ --- .. ___ . ____________ _
l\fu~icians and teache~ of music .. ________ .... ---·-····----- .. __
Nurses (trained or registered)
. ____ . ________ . _______________ .
Physicians, surgeons, and dent.i-•,t~ .... _...... ______ . ____ . _______ _
Playground and recreational workers ______________ . ___________ _
Reporters, editors, and journalists ____ . ___ . ____ . __ .. _._. _______ _
Teachers ______________ .... __________________ . ___ . ______________ _
Other professional workers .. ______ ._. ___ . _____ . ___ ... __ . _______ _
Other semiprofessional workers ___ ...... __ . _______ ... _________ _
Proprietors, managers, and officials (except agriculture) __________ _
Iluii,!ing contractors . ___ . ______ ... ___ . _. ______ --- ------·-----.
1-'ore.sters, tore.st rangers, and tlmher cruisers ____ . ______________ _
Hucksters, 1x,ddlers, and Junk and rag dealers __ . ________ . ____ _
Trueking, transfer and cab companies, and garages _____________ _
Retail dealers and managers (n. e. c.•). _________________________ _
Other proprietors, managers, and oflkials. _____________________ _
Proprietors, foremen, and overseers (in agriculture). ___________ _
Farm foremen, managers, and overseers. _________ •. ___ • __ ._. __
Farmers (owners, tenants, croppers, etc.)_. __________________ _
Offlooworkers ____ ··---·-·---- __________ --·-··---------------Bookkeepers, accountants, and auditors•------------------- _
Ca.shiers (except in banks) ____________ -------·---------------Clerks (n. e. c.)_ ... _. ________________________ - . -·- - ------ --·.
Office machine operators _____________________________________ _
Office man"l(ers and bank tellers ______ ---------- ____________ _
fltenoirraphers, stenotypista, and dlctapbone operators _______ _
Tel8t(raph and radio operators ____ ---------- __ .. _____________ .
Telephone operators ______ --•----------------·------ -- -------Typists .... _______ .. __ ._ .. - ... -----------------· - ----- -- -----Other clerical and allio<l workers ____________ ----------------t:!ec footnotes at end of table.
Ctgrt zeo oy
Male
Female
4. i96
2e2
67
g
1,308
21.~
I, 249
203
17
17
g
3
23
I
2
g
3
21
I
31
1
31
1
39
3
4
4
7
13
7
47
lRO
12
1
IQ
8
51
R9
31<1
J.~
3f,S
224
67
3
II
4
6
9
6
46
179
12
1
-~
6
2
't
2
1
19
8
51
88
382
16
367
203
55
91
7
1~
1
1
98
3
2
2
40
R
58
511
12
1
'
16
8
6
26
24
Goos IC
t
21
2
2
7
2
a
2
2
1
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 159
Table 18.-Usual Occupation and Sex of Employable Economic Heads of Migrant
Families-Continued
Usual occupation •
White-collar workers-Continued.
Salesmen and kindred workers ....••..••.... ________ ............. .
Canvsssers (sollritors, any) .......•.....•..... . ............... . .
Commercial tra\'elenL •. _______________________ .......... ______ .
]\;ewsboys ....•.•.•................ . ..........................
Real estate agents and lnsuran"8 agents ................. .. ... .
Sales:men and saleswomen (r6tail stores\ ________ .. __ . .. ________ .
Other salespersons and kindred workers ........................ .
Total
Male
Female
300
282
24
31
2f)
5
28
28
3
3
34
32
2
122
106
16
88
87
I
Skilled workers ..•....••••.•..•.......... __ ................... . .. .
Skilled workers and foremen In building construction .........•...
Blacksmiths ........•.•........................................
Boilermakers ................................................. .
Brleklaycrs and stonemssons •......... . ........ . ............. .
Carpenters .........................................•........
Cement finishers ...•..••..•.••••.••.....•.............•.........
Electricians ........•....•..............•......•.•.••........
Foremen: construction (ex"8pt road) .................•••.•......
Foremen: road and street construction ...•.....................
Operators or engineers: stationary and portable construction
equipment. ............................•.......•......•.•••..
Painters (not in factory) ..................................•.....
Paper hangers._ .........•.........•...... . ....................
P!a.sterers ................... . ......... . .... •· •··•· ··•·····•·· ·
Plum hers, gas and steam fitters ............................... .
Roofers ...............••................................. •·•··•·
Rheet metal workers ..•.............. . ... . ...................
Stonecutters and carvers _____________ .. _.... ____ . _________ . ____ .
Structural iron and steel workers ......•...•.....................
Setters: marble, stone. an<) t.il~-------------------------------Othor skilled workers In building and construc·tion ............. .
Skilled workers and foremen In manufacturing and other indus•
tries ....... . .......•.•.•.•••....•..........•.............. .
Cabinetmakers ...•....•.•••.••••............................
Cobblers and shoe repairmen ••••............................
Conductors: steam and street railroads and buses ....•....•...
Foremen (in faetorie.s). ......... .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .... .
Foremen and inspe<:tors (exc-ept In lactories) ................. . . .
Locomotive eng-ineers and firemen _________________ . _____ . ____ _
Machinists, millwrights, and toolmakers .................... .
!llechanics (n. e. c.) ...••...•..•... ...••••••••............... . .
Molders, foumlors, and casters (metal) .•.••.... . ........... .
Sawyers •.......................•....•................•......•
Skllled workers In printing and engraving ..................... .
Tailors and !nrriors ...•.......•.••.•...•........................
Tinsmiths and coppersmiths .................................. .
Metal workers (exrept goi,i and silver) (n. e. r.J. ............... .
Skilled workers in manulacturing and other industries (n. e. c.).
I, 106
I, 10.~
004
66-1
25
6
25
6
Semiskilled workers .........................•.............
Semlskil!...-1 workers in buil<iing and l'Onstructlon ...... .
Apprentices in build in~ arnJ construction ............. .
Blasters (exc.-ept in mines) ......•.........•..•..............
Firemen (exc•,•pt loromotivo arnl fire department) ....... . .. .
Operators ol building and constnwtlon equipment... . . .
Pipelayers ............................................ .
Rodman and chainmen (surveying) ...................... .
Truck and tractor drh·ers.. .• • • • . . . • . . . ............... .
Welders .........•................•........ --......... .
Other semiskilled workers In building and construrtlon
Semiskilled workers In manufacturing and other Industries. . .
Bakers ...........•............................................
Brakeman (railroad) ..•••.......................•..•...........
Deliverymen ........•...........•.•...••.•................ . .. .
Dressmakers and mllliners ......................••...•.........
Filers, grinders, buffers, nnd polishers (metnll ................ .
Fumacemen, heaters, smeltem,en, etr. (metal work in~). ...... .
Guarrls, watrhmen, and doorkeepers (e,c-ept railroad) ....... .
Handlcrn!t workPTs: textile, wood, leather, metal, etc ......... .
Inside workers (mine~s) .......................•...............
Operath·es (n. e. r) in manufacturing and allied Industries ....
Chemical and allied industries ...........••.•................
Clga.r, cigarette, an<I tobacco fortories ..•......................
Clay, ~lflSS, and stone indtLstries ....••••.•••••..•...••....... .
Clothingln<lmtrie.s .............•........•..................
Electric light an<I power plants .•.••....•.........•..........
Food and bevarage Industries ..•..................•......•...
Iron and st«il, machinery, and veh!rle lnrlustrle.1 •••••.•••••..
Laundries anr! dry clean in~ establishments ..•...............
Lumber anrl lumlture industries .........................•....
Metal lnc!ustrle.s (exoopt iron an,! stool) ...•.....•... . ....•....
Paper, printing, and allied Industries ..........•..•.....•...
See footnotes at enrl or IBhle.
I, 1R9
452
1,141
1
1
2
1Y
19
128
128
24
59
11
JO
24
59
11
JO
45
191
2
13
57
IO
4
4
35
l
20
45
191
2
13
57
10
4
4
35
l
20
Ii
441
6
15
15
442
4
18
22
25
f,3
171
12
13
24
11
4
18
22
2-~
6.1
171
12
13
24
JO
7
4
47
2
27
23
2
2
27
23
2
2
327
:18
327
40
';:i7
23
40
fo/lY
18
26
7
12
4
12
I
87
336
0
~
2a
18
26
48
12
4
12
I
87
ws
9
9
0
5
9
26
I
16
I
46
65
41
64
J:l
20
48
4fi2
22
6
22
9
8
:18
4
10
5
1
7
6
Dtg1t zed by
Goos IC
160 •
MIGRANT FAMILIES
To&t. 18.-Usual Occupation and Sex of Employable Economic Heads of Migrant
Famili~ontinued
U rual occupation
Total
1
Semlskllled workers-Continued.
Semiskilled workers In :nanu!acturtng and other Industries-Con.
Operatives (n. e. c.) In manufacturing and allied Industries-Con.
Shoe factories ___ ••••••...•••••••••••••••••..•...••.•......•••
Textile Industries ...••••..•.•.•• ········- _________ .•••..••••..
M lscellaneous and not spe('ified manufacturing Industries_ •...
Painters, varnishers, enamelers, etc. (factory)_··-·············
Switchmen, flagmen, and yardmen (railroad) •.•. -.....••••..
TBilcab drivers, bus drivers, and chauffeurs .. __ ..... -········
Other semiskilled workers In manufacturing and other lnduatrles ••••••.•..•..•••••.••..•••...••.•.••.••••.••... -....••••
Male
7
72
86
16
15
38
Female
7
413
34
16
15
38
143
140
Unskllled workers .•••.......•....•...•••••.••••.••..•.•.•...•.•...
U nskllled laborers (except In agriculture) •••.•••....•.••....••....
Laborers In manufacturing and allled Industries .•.•...•.•..•.•.
Clay, glass, and stone industries .••..••..•........••••..•...•.
Iron and steel, machinery, and vehlcle Industries ..•.••.••••..
Lumber and furniture industries ...•.........••.••...•....•••.
Other manufacturing and allied Industries •...•.....•.......
Laborers except In manufacturing and allied Industries ••••.....
Minas, quarries, and oil and g11.s wells •••..•.... -..•••••..••...
Odd Jobs (general) ...•........•.•••...•••••••.••....••.•••....
Railrnads (steam and street) ••••••••••••••••••.••••.••.•••••..
Roods, streets, and sewers ....•••••••••••••••..•.•••••.••••.••
Stores (Including porters In stores) •••••••••.....••••••••••....
Laborers and helpers (n. e. c.) in building and construction •.•
Longshoremen and stevedores ...........•.........•.....•...
Lmrbermen, raftsmon, and woodchop1>ers .....•.....•...••..
Street cleaners, ~arbage men, and scavengers ....•.....•...•...
Teamsters and draymen •............... __ ...... --· .......... .
Other laborers, except In manufacturing and allied Industrias
1, 1211
1,030
357
g
g
(n. e. c.) ...••.•••.•....••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••.•.••.••..
42
3M
34g
Un!kllled laborers (in agriculture) .... ··························-·
Domestic and personal service workers ...•...............•••.....
Barber and beauty shop workers..................... . •...•.•• _
Bootbh,cks_···-··-·· · ························ ........••...•..
Cleaners and charwomen .••........ ··-· ............ ···········Cooks and dwfs (except ln private family) ..•....•••..•••....•..
Elevator oJ)<'rators ........ _ ·- -······· ..•.•••..•••••••....•.....
Janitors, caretakers, and !181:tons ..•••••••••...• _•.•.•....•..•...
Laumlres.ses (not In laundry) ...••••.••••••.•.•.•.••.•..•••••.•.
Porters (ex!'t1pt In stores) ............•................•..•.•.•...
Practical nul'Sf\s, hospital attendants, and orderlies •..•••••••••.
Servants (hotels, boarding houses, etc.) (n. e. c.) .......•..•••••.
Servants (private family)_ .. -·-· ................•........•..•••.
Waiters, waitres.•PS, anti bartenders __ ·--············-·········· ·
Other domestic and personal sen·ice workers ................... .
357
68
1
1g
20
28
289
32
19
29
39
12
7g
4
21
3
28
289
32
1g
29
39
12
79
4
21
a
42
324
8
8
142
10
17
4g
7
gg
2
1
4
2
7
II
4
11
11
26
84
13
31
37
6
ZT
40
21
I
68
1
19
20
413
61
1
149
10
22
II
12
12
3
32
13
II
t The occupational classlficstion used here differs from the classification In Bureau of the Censu.s, Fiftllfllla
Ct11•u• o/ the United ,"tete,: rn,n, Vol. V, U. S. Depertmenl of Commerce Washington, D. C., 193:1. The
ha.sic code used in clas.,ifying tho O<'cupation! was prepared by Palmer, Gladys L., Ocn,paliMlal Clauifi•
ealiMI, Section 2, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
Washington, D. C .• July 193~. The arrangement of ()('('Upntions above Is In the main compm,,ble to that
used by HnuS<'r, Philip M., WorktTa on Re.'it/ in lht Uniltd &alt, in Mord& 19.'5, Abrid~ed Edition, Dlvl•
sion of Social Hescarrh, Works Prol(l'('ss Administration, Washington, D. C., January 1937.
1 Certified public accountants a.re exrlu<led from professional and technical workers and are Included
with bookkeepers, accountants, and auditors.
• Not elsewhere classified.
Ncl'n:.~ economic heads of families, who were unemployable and those whose usual oocupe.tlon was
not =rtairu.ble, are not included.
Dig rt zed by
Goog IC
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 161
Tobie 19.-lndustry of Usual Occupation and Sex of Employable Economic Heads of
Migrant Families
Industry ol usual occupation •
Total
Total.........................................................
Female
Ma.le
.. 730
4,476
2M
1-----11-----1-----
Ine,perlPnced persons..............................................
Agriculture.........................................................
67
761
9
763
Fishing and rorestry..... .. ... .. . ..... ... . . . ... . .. .... .. . ...........
Fishing....................................................... . .
Forestry...................................................... ..
41
8
33
41
8
33
Extraction ol minerals.............................................
Coal mines....................................................
203
73
203
73
8~ff!~:l'!fi~er"mirieii.·::::: :::::: :::: :::::::::::::::: :: :::::: :.
Iron mines......................................................
Le.ad and ,inc mines............................................
Other specified mines...........................................
Notspecifiedmines............................................ .
Quarries........................................................
Oil wells and gas wells..........................................
Manulllctnring and mechanical Industries..........................
Buil,!ing industry..............................................
Chemical and allied Industries..................................
Oas works..................................................
Paint and varnlsh lactorles.. ... .. .. .. . ... .. ....... ... .. . ...
Petroleum refineries........................................
Rayon lactories. ........... .. .. . .. . ... ... .. ....... ...... .. . .
81,nplactories...............................................
Other chem Ir.al factories....................................
Cigar and tobacco laetories.... ........................ .........
Cla)l~~~tif;:~~~r:r~~n~.i1!,·tories:::::::::::: :: : :: : :::::::
Glass lactories.. .. ........ ..... ... . . . . . ................... ..
Lime, cement, and artificial stone factories..................
Marhleandstoneyards.....................................
Potteries....................................................
Clothing Industries........................... . .................
lht lactories(lelt)......................................... .
Shirt, co!lnr, and cufT lactori•s......... .. . .. . . . . . . . . .... .. . .
Suit, coat. and overall factories.............................
Other clothing lactories ............................. c. .. . . . .
Food and allied Industries..................................... .
Bakeries....................................................
Butter, che<'.se, and condensed milk lactories... .. ...........
Candy lactorie.s._. .. ........................ ..... ... .. . .....
Fish curingnnd packing.......................... . ... . ....
Flour and grnln mills.......................................
Fruit and vegetable canning, etc............................
Slaughter and pncking houses..................... . . ........
Sugar factories and refineries...............................
Other 100<! factories ........................................ _
Liquor and beverage Industries............................ .
Iron and steel, machinery, and vehicle Industries ...... . ....... _
A~riml! ural implement l&ctories... ... .. ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
Automol,ile factories............................. . ......... .
Automobile rep11ir shops .. _...... _................ _....... _.
Bla9t lnrmc't'S nnd steel rolling mills .........•.. _ . . . . . . . . . .
Car and railroad shops.....................................
Ship and boat building .... ---·············••········--···
Other iron and steel and machinery lactorles............ .. . .
Not specified metal industries_............................
Metal industries (except iron and steel)........................
Bra.'IS mills..................................... . .......... .
Clock and watch lactorles...... ........... ... . . . .. .. . . . . . ...
Cor,1per lactories.......... .. . . ... . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Go d and silver factories ................................ _.. .
1ewelrylactories........................................... .
Tinware, enamelware, etc., lactorles. ... ........... ... ... . . .
Other metal lactories.......................................
Leather Industries ............ _........................ . .... •-..
Harnes.sand saddle factories .......... __ .................. _.
Leatherbelt,leathergoods,etc.,lactories... ............. .
Shoe factories ........................................... __ .
Tanneries .................................. _.... . _......... _
Lumber and furniture Industries................. . ............. .
Furniturelactorles............................... ......... .
Planoundor~anlactorles...................................
Saw and planing mills .... _.................................
Other woodworking factories................................
1!1
16
1
10
JO
65
1, 711
658
58
8
,:
1
15
I
19
JO
65
43
I, 664
656
42
6
6
2
17
2
6
2
17
2
6
47
2
1
11
10
1
11
7
4
l~
8
I~
8
-l
4
1
33
6
2
4
4
1
45
7
3
22
13
Jg
129
6
123
29
29
6
16
2
12
7
46
4
2
7
363
6
71
ll8
50
16
17
79
6
4
13
2
12
6
46
4
1
7
363
6
71
118
50
16
17
79
6
27
1
27
1
-l
2
3
12
4
4
14
1
I
2
e
I
2
10
211
2
60
2
102
28
2
60
12
12
103
l
3
7
I
1
4
2
3
12
14
I
1
JO
12
I
Bee footnotes at end of table.
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
162 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Tobie 19.-lndustry of Usual Occupation and Sex of Employable Economic Heads of
Migrant Familia-Continued
Industry of usual occupation•
Total
Manufacturing and mechanical lndustrles-C'ontlnued.
Paper, printing, and allied industries __________________________ _
Blank book, envelope, tag, paper bag, etc., factories _______ _
Paper and pulp mill•------------------ _______________ _
Paper box ractorles_ -----------------•- _______ ___ _
___ _
Printing, publishing, and engraving_ ••• _______________ _
Textile industrfes_ ••••••••• ·--······-- _·-· __ •• __
Cotton mills_-······-----·---···--·---·· - __________ ------·-_
Knitting mills _____________________ -------- ____ --···- --- -- . .
Lace and embroidery mills _______________ --· ______________ _
Silk mills ___ --····------··--··-- ___________________________ _
ii~/!~
~~~~~~~e~h~:fiis~~~-~~~l-~~-".1_ ~~---~ :: ::: :::::::::
Other and not specified textile mills _____________ -·•·-_-··· __
1
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries _______________________ _
Button factories_. ________________________________________ ._
Electric li~ht and power plants _________________________ ---Electrical machinery and supply factories __________________ _
~g~i:~1:~~~:~~-~~~~~::
::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::
Turpentine farms and distilleries _________________________ _
Other miscella!'eous manuracturtni: indust_rles ____________ _
Other not specified manufacturi0& 10dustr1es ______________ _
Male
73
2
5
2
fl1
96
48
4
Female
68
2
5
2
59
87
43
4
1
7
T,
130
1
37
14
31
7
1
28
11
7
1
25'
12:!
37
14
25
7
1
27
11
Trade ______ . __ ••. _____ .. ________ .• _..• ___ ._._ •.. _.. _-·_--· ___ • -- -- -Advertising agencle.s ___________________________ . ______________ _
579
55.1
19
JU
21
1
~~i~ ~fe~~ro~. -~~~~~:: ::::::: :: : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : ::: : :: : : : : : :
Insurance .•. ···-···-··-········ .. ____ • ____ . ____ .. _. _. __ . _____ . ..
Real estate____________________
.•• ··········-······
-. ---. ---. -- ---- -- -- -. - -- --. -- - _
Stockyards
. _____
__________________________
Warehouses and cold storage plants ________________________ . __ __
Wholesale and retail trade ________ --····· _____________________ ._
Automobile agencies, stores, filling stations _______________ .
Whole.sale and retail trade (except automobile) ______ ·- ___ _
Other and not specified trade ________ --···_···--··--_. __ ____ .
613
I
r,o
15
4
I
167
I
32
14
1
8
20
127
62
31
12
1
8
8
459
49
410
1
43l
1
I
2
I
4~2
511
4
3
1
21
6
15'
167
9
22
127
62
1
2
7
I
617
3
15'
1
50
15
0
II
0
11
1
8
Transportation and communication ________________________________ _
Air transportation ____________________________________________ _
Construction and maintenance of streets, roads, sewers, bridges __
F.xpre.._i;;s con1po.nie.s ____ .. __________ . _________________ . ______ .. -- .
Garages, automobile laundries, greasing stations _____________ _
Pipe lines ___ -·-···-·-· ___ --- __________ -·-·-- -------- -- ---·- --Postal service ________ -··-· __________________________________ ._
Radio broadcasting and transmitting_. _________ . ___ -···----- - Steam railroads.-·-·-··--·--·---_. __________________________ .. . _
Street railroads __ . _______ ···-- ____________ .. -· __ ---- --- --- -- Telegraph and telephone ________________________ ._. ___________ _
Truck, transfer, and cab companies_···-·----- __ . ___________ _
Water transportat.ion. ____________ -·····-···· _ ... _ __ _
___
Other and not specified transportation and communication __ .. _
1
5
2ll
1
2
23
1
22
63
61
2
-·
Professional service ______ --·----------- _ ..
Professional servke (except recreation and amusement).
H.ecreation and amu:--ement. __________ _ .
.
_______ _
Semiproressional pursuits and attendants and helpers ________ _
250
Zl3
111
97
13:l
6
130
17
14
3
Domestic and personal service._····-·- ______________________ --···_
Hotels, restaurants, hoarding ho1Lcses, etc _____________________ _
Domestic and personal service (n. e. c-1) ________________________ _
I.sundries._ .. ____________________ . _______ ----.-----.------. -- .
Cleaning, dyeing, and pressing shops __________________________ _
43R
249
345
2lij
99
15
13
Pnhllc service (n. e. c.•) ____ ····-·········-·····-···· ---------·. --- -
154
22
13
6
93
31
55
7
1 The arrangement or industries is In the mBin romrarahle to that used by Houser, Philip M. &nd Jenkinson, Tiruce, in Worta, on lulitfin th, Unitrd Sta/ts in March lh-~5. Vol. II, A f.tudy of Industrial and Educational !lack grounds. Division or Rocial Research, Works Progress Administration, Ws.shinvton, D. C' .,
(in preparation). Industries which wcm reportPd by no employable eronomic bead of mi;rrant families
aro not sltown In this dassltlcation.
• Not elsewltcre classified.
NOTE.- 759 eronomic he•d• or ramllles, who were unemployRble and those whose usual industry was not
a.scertainat,le, nre not inelutled.
Digit,zea oy
G oog Ie
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES•
163
To&le 20.-Usual Occupation and A9e of Employable Economic Heads of Mi9rant
Families
Usul\l occUPflllon
Total
Under
25 years
25-34
45-64
35-44
years
years
years
--------------------1---- ---- ---- ---- ---TotaL •....•.•.......•.•••••••••••••••••••.•..
4,722
994
548
Percent distribution
Tota! ••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••....
100
100
100
100
100
24
30
37
5
18
3
4
5
6
4
1
2
8
11
6
0
5
8
12
12
7
13
11
Skilled workers ..••••...••...••.•••••••.••••....•...
23
11
23
71
26
Semiskilled workers .••........•••••.•..•.•••........
25
34
30
22
16
l:nskilled workers ......•.............•..............
Laborers (nonagricultural) ...................... .
Laborers (a~ricultural) ............ . . _.....•.....
Domestic and personal service workers ......... .
24
37
23
21
21
8
10
17
6
5
8
6
7
----
White-collar workers ............................... .
Professional and technical workers ........... _.. .
Proprie.tors, managers, and officials (nonagri•
cultural) ................................... _.. .
Proprietors, foremen, and overseers (agricultural).
Office workers, salesmen, and kindred workers ..
28
7
9
---- ---- ----
&
7
8
8
10
10
NOTJ:.-767 economic heads of families, who were unemployable, who had no experience at any occups.
tlon, and whose usual occupation or lige was not aseertainllble, are not included.
To&le 27.-lndustry of Usual Occupation and A9e of Employable Economic Heads of
Migrant Families
Age
Industry of usual OCCuPfltlon
Total. ..••..........••.......•...........••....
Total
Under 25
years
21;.34
35--44
years
45-64
years
years
- - - 4, 656
543
1, 752
1,384
977
1
Percent distribution
100
100
100
JOO
100
17
4
2,~
15
20
4
4
14
5
Manufacturing and mechanical.. .•..................
ll uilding and construction ....•.•...............
Clothing industries .. _......•................. . _
Food and allied industries .•......... _..... .... .
Automobile factories and repair shops ........ .
Iron, steel, and machinery industries .. __ ..... .
Textile industries ... __ . ___ . __ ... _•••.......•...
Lum her and furniture industries. ___ .......... .
Paper, printing, and allied industries .......... .
Other manulacturing industries .. - ........... .
37
14
1
30
I!
l
5
37
39
37
14
16
1
16
3
3
3
6
5
4
6
l
6
Transportation and communication ............... .
Trade ....•...•••.•••••.............. -- -- ..... --·-- Public service ....•.••••••...........................
Professional service ......... _....................... .
Domestic and personal service ...................... .
13
12
l
14
15
13
12
l
13
2
5
9
Total ••••••••••............ ····· -- -·-· --- --- A~riculture, forestry, and fishing __ ...•......•.... _
Extraction of minerals ....•.•...•.....•..... . .....
---- - - - - ---- - - -
J
4
4
2
2
2
6
10
2
1
5
V
l
3
3
2
2
2
2
6
4
2
2
12
J
6
10
6
I
2
2
4
1
3
2
6
V
12
l
&
JO
NOTJ:.-833 economic heads of lamilies, who were unemployable, who had no experience at any occupation,
and whoee age or usual indwtry WllS uot ascertainuule, .. re not included.
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
164 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Tobie 2.2.-Usual Occupation and Schooling Completed by Employable Economic Heads
of Migrant Families
Schooling completed
Total
Usual occupation
Total ___ ---- --- __________________ .. _--· _.. ______ . ___ -· _. ___ ·- _
8 grades or 11 grades or
less
more
4,687
3,034
1, 1153
Percent distribution
Total. ____ ._. ____ •• _. ___ ._·-•• __ ._ ••. __ •• _••• __ •••••.•••• _-· -.
100
100
100
Whlt&-collar workers .. __ ..••.. ···- .•.•• ···············-······-····-·
Professional and technical workers .............. ····•·------·-··
Proprietors, managers, and otllclals (nonagricultural) __ ·····---·
Proprietors, foremen, and overseers (agricultural) .•••••• __ ._ •• _.
Office workers, salesmen, and kindred workers.·-····-···-·--··-
28
6
4
8
21
2
40
a
11
&
4
11
10
&
21
Skilled workers ... ·-------··---------·----··---··-··--··--···-·-····
23
24
23
Semiskilled workers .. ·--···---···-···-·----·----···-·--·--·--------·
25
Zl
21
Unskilled workers ... _... _.... ·--·-·--·-···-····-·-··-·····-··-·--·Laborers (nonagricultural) .. _.·-·- ••. ·---- •• ··---······-·----- ..
Laborers (al'!rlcultural) ......•..... __ ..••...•.• ·····-·-·-·······.
Domestic and personal service workers ... ·-····-···········-····
24
28
l&
10
10
8
3
11
8
7
9
4
N0TE.-802economic heads ol!amilies, who were unemployable, who had no experience In any occupation,
and whose occupation or schooling completed was not asoert.ainable, are not included.
C1grt zeo oy
Goos IC
Appendix B
SOME ASPECTS OF MINORITY-GROUP
MIGRATION
FOREIGN-BORN
AMONG THE families with foreign-born white economic heads
Italians formed the largest group with 20 percent of all foreign-born,
followed in order by English (13 percent), Russians (9 percent),
Canadians (9 percent), Germans (8 percent), Poles, Greeks, Austrians
(each 6 percent), and Scandanavians (5 percent). The nationalities
listed made up four-fifths of all the foreign-born family heads. Twothirds of the foreign-born were citizens, and one-sixth had first papers.
State of Registration
The distribution of the 370 families with foreign-born economic
heads was extremely uneven among the States. In New York the
308 families in the sample included 108, or 35 percent, foreign-born
families. In contrast, the 320 families under care in Kansas included
only 2, or less than 1 percent, foreign-born families. The proportion
of foreign-born was consistently above the average (7 percent of all
families studied) in Northeastern industrial States, such as New York,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and New
Jersey, and consistently below the average in agricultural States, such
as Kansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and the entire Southeast.
State of Origin
The origin States of these families showed the same concentration.
For example, 23 percent of the families whose last place of residence
was in New York State were foreign-born, whereas only slightly over
1 percent of the families starting from Kansas were foreign-born. The
same States that contributed and received the highest proportions of
foreign-born migrant families are also the States that had the highest
165
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
166 • MIGRANT FAMIUES
proportion foreign-born in their total 1930 population. Obviously,
then, the movement represented by the foreign-born migrant family
was between places of foreign-born concentration. Unlike native
white migrant families the migration of the foreign-born was restricted
to those communities where previous experience had shown that the
conditions for absorption of the foreign-born groups were favorable. 1
Rea10n1 for Leaving Settled Residence
The reasons for migration reported by foreign-born families indicate
that the economic forces operating on them were no less important
than in the case of all migrants. Almost three-fourths of the foreignborn families were in economic distress when they set out to find a
more favorable location. This ratio is slightly above that reported
among all migrant families and is the result principally of the larger
proportion of foreign-born reporting business failure as the reason for
migration. Inadequate relief was a less important expelling force
among foreign-born than among all families. A smaller proportion
reported personal distress. Ill-health was the most important personal reason but was less frequently reported by foreign-born families
than by all families.
Kind of Contact at Destination
The tendency of foreign-born families to migrate to places where
there was already a concentration of the foreign-born is further illustrated in their choice of destinations. As compared with 80 percent
of all families, 78 percent of the foreign-born had chosen a community
where they had some kind of definite contact. Foreign-born families,
however, showed a somewhat greater tendency to return to a place
of previous residence than was found among all families. Chance
selection of destination was reported only twice among the whole group
of 370 foreign-born although rumor and advertising attracted 18 percent of them in contrast to 16 percent of all migrant families.
Reasons for Selecting Destination
As indicated by the reasons for leaving settled residence, economic
betterment was the goal of the majority of the foreign-born migrants.
Unlike all migrant families, however, a larger proportion sought
business and form opportunities. While 7 percent of all migrant
families hoped or expected to obtain a farm or business, 11 percent
of the foreign-born were motivated by this desire.
In summary, it may be said that although families with foreignborn economic heads were represented in comparatively small numbers
1 For a discussion of the distribution of minority peoples in the United States,
see Young, Donald. Research 11-femorandum on Minority Peoples in the Depression,
Social Science Research Council, New York, 1935, ch. III.
D1grt zco oy
Goos Ie
SOME ASPECTS OF MINORITY-GROUP MIGRATION• 167
among the depression migrants they migrated in response to forces
similar to those operating on all transient families. The foreign-born
tended to move to communities similar to the ones in which they had
been living and showed a decided preference for the industrial States.
NEGROES
State of Registration
It was pointed out in chapter II that, in contrast with the prevailing
westward movement of families, the movement from the South was
to the Northeastern and North Central States. 2 The importance of
the Negro family in this movement is evident in the greater than
average proportions of Negroes registered in transient bureaus in
such States as Illinois, New York, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Evidence of a movement of Negro families north along the Atlantic
coast is found in the higher than average proportion of Negroes in
the sample for the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, and
New Jersey. The 11 Southeastern States had only 9 percent of all
Negro families under care.
State of Origin
The movement of families out of the Southern States, both from
the deep South and the Mississippi Valley, included relatively large
proportions of Negro families. Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Georgia were of
outstanding importance as origins of Negro families. The 11 Southeastern States contributed 40 percent of all Negro migrant families.
With States in the southeastern section of the country contributing
more than a proportionate share of Negro families to the transient
relief population, and with States in the northeastern section receiving
more than a proportionate share, it is clear that lines of Negro migration established during the 1920's were, in general, being followed
during the depression. The attractive force during prosperity was
industrial employment in the larger industrial centers. The predepression Negro migration undoubtedly influenced southern Negro
families suffering from the depression to seek work in the northern
cities where in many cases friends and relatives had preceded them.
Reasons for Leaving Settled Residence
'Unemployment, domestic difficulties, inadequate earnings, and a
desire to rejoin relatives were the more important reasons given by
Negro families for leaving settled residence. Unemployment and ill.
health were reported less frequently by Negroes than by all families
or by the foreign-born; on the other hand, domestic difficulties, inadequate earnings, and inadequate relief were reported much more fre2
See p. 40 ff.
Digrt zed by
Goog Ie
168 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
quently by Negroes than by all families or by foreign-born white
families.
Kind of Contact at Datlnatlon
Negro families had, on the whole, the same kinds of contacts in
the community of destination as were reported for all families. The
presence of relatives or friends in the place of destination, however,
was decidedly of more importance among Negroes than among all
families. "No definite en tree" was reported somewhat less frequently
by Negro families, and fewer Negro families were attracted by rumors
and advertisements.
The conclusions to be drawn from this analysis of Negro families
are (I) that the most important direction of movement was from
South to North, with the large industrial centers as the principal
destinations; (2) that economic causes were the chief expulsiveforces,
with domestic difficulties assuming more than average importance;
and (3) that the presence of friends or relatives was an unusually
significant factor in the choice of destination .
•
C1grt zeo oy
Goos IC
Appendix C
SCHEDULE AND INSTRUCTIONS
F. E. R. A. Form DRS-2!6A.
STUDY OF FEDERAL TRANSIENT FAMILY GROUPS
Date of Interview __________________ .
City and State of registration .••.•. _.... Intervlewer.-·-·--·------
Name of present head ...••. ····-·-···-···-·····-·--······-··-··-·-·-···-·-···- Case number-·-···-···--Status of case: ( ) Under care; ( ) Intake.
1. Members of family group:
A
B
C
D
JI'
B
H
0
Plsoe of birth
Line
No.
Relation to
bmd
Ser
Marital
status
Color
Age or
race
State
City or oonnty
- - -- - -
Education: Grades
completed
Orscle
and high
school
College
--- ---
1. ••. Present head ..•..•...••.. ·······- .......• ·-·-····-···········-· ................•.•....•..••••
2•••• ·-·--·-·-···· -····· •••.••
r r
3•••• ·-············ •••.••••••..
rr
........ -·-················-·· ..............•...........•..•
4 ••.. ······•···-··- ••..•• ..•.••
r
X
..••.....•••••••••••••••••••••.••.•••...••••.•••••••••••••••
S•• _. •••••••.•.•.•• .....• ..•...
r
X
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
9 •••• •••..••••••••. ·-··•· .•..••
XX
7•••••••••••••••••••••••• ·•·-•·
XX
(Enter below lnformatum for member, muallv Included In famllv group /mt
flOt
now pruent)
1----- -- --1-----1--i---- --i-- - i---------------------1---------1--------1-------------------- - - - - . -- - - - - . - ----------------- - ------ -------- ---------·
D•••••••••••••••••• •••••• •••••• •••••••• -······· ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
L
.
" --
11 •••• ········-····· •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ···················-·· •••••••••••••••••••• ········--
2. Month and year of last marriage of normal head .........•.•••.••. ···········-·-·---··--·-·---·----·-··
3. Ia normal head a U. 8. citizen? ( ) Yes; ( ) No; ( ) Fust 1J8pen.
169
D1g1t zed by
Goog1C
170 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
4. Residence history or family group since January 1, 111211, or since date or p!'eS('at marriage lllllter:
(Liat In <11ronologfral ordtr alt p/a,u In which th• famllr ruidtd 1 fflOfllh or longn, uclu.ding pniodl ichtn the
farnilp rtrtietd lran,i,nt r,/irf)
A
D
C
Looo,tlon
Duratio,i
Nature of pl11ce
(check one on each line)
City or county
State
From
(month
and year)
To
(month
and year)
Farm
Vil111ge
(under
Urban
(2,500 pop-
2,500 pop-
ulation)
ulation or
more)
~- Transient relier record since July I, 1g33:
(Liat In chronologkal ordn all iutanet1 In whirh th• familv a• a who/, or tor more member, of It wne re(liltntd
for lran.•ient rtlirf a., a fam1lv group)
A
Location
B
C
D
Dat,11 of re1Zlt1-
Leng th 01
stay
aeason for leaving
- - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - 1 tration (month,
City
State
day, and year)
REASONS FOR FAMILY GROUP MOBILITY
(Thi, 1edion appti,a to the tntire p,riod during 1ohirh the familr group hat bun In an unadtltd rondilion, b<gin•
ninq btfor, or aft,r Januarr 1, 1919)
6. L&st plsce in which the family lived a settled sell•supportlng Ille; that is, the place at which family
group mobility began:
Stute .. .....................
City or county ......•.................
Datelelt .................•.•.
7. Rea.sons !or leaving. State fully all the circumstances that caused the family to leave the place entered
in question 6:
D1g1l1zed by
Google
SCHEDULE AND INSTRUCTIONS • 1 71
8. Destination at time or leaving plaee entered in r1ue-•tion ri:
A. titste ... --····----·····-------· .... ·--·-··· City or county ---·-·-··--·-·-------------------·-·-··
H. Reasons !or selection of this place _________________ . ________ ..... __________________________________ _
II. Present plan• !or future:
) Formulated hy family group.
( ) Formulated with a..'81stance of Transient Bureau.
B. ~ature of plans __________ .. _____________________ ... __ ... __________ . _________________ . _____________ .
A. (
OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY
IO. Present employment status ol normal htad:
A. ( ) Not working; ( ) Working on transient relief projects.
( ) other employment (specify) ___________________ ------------------------------------· _________ _
B. Inter;iewer's opinion a..• to employahility of normal head:
C. Employment handicaps of normal head (specify):
II. Usual OCCUl)lltions of all emptouab/e per,on, 16
v,ar, of Of/< and or,er entered in question I:
Usual occupation
Line number of person In q u e s t i o n > - - - - - - - - - - - - ! (A)
Occupation
D
C
B
A
Industry
Total number ol years
exverience
Last nonrellef Job of I month or
longer at usual occupation
From (month
and year)
To (month
and year)
Present head ________ --------·-·-··-·-- ---------------- -------------··· ---------------- ---------------Normal head ________ ---------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------------···
Others _______________ --· --------------- ----------- --- -- ---·-· ------ --
12. Lest nonrellel Job of 2 weeks or longer held by narmal head at any occupation:
A
B
C
r~-
Duration
Occupation
Industry
--------------I--------------I--F-ro_m
__
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
172 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALLING OUT SCHEDULE DRS-116A
Cases To Be Scheduled
1. Schedules are to be taken only for cases registered as family
groups.
2. Schedules are to be taken only for cases classified as Federal
families (i. e. Federal transients); d-0 not schedule cases classified as
Staie families.
3. Cases classified as "service only" are not to be scheduled.
General Instructions
An interview with a responsible member of the family group,
preferably the head, will be necessary in all cases. For cases taken
from current registrations, the entire schedule is to be filled by interview. For cases taken from among those under care, the case record
will be helpful in providing some information, but an interview will
be necessary to answer most of the questions on the schedule. The
case record should also be of use in checking some of the information
obtained from the interview.
At the time of the interview and before the person interviewed has
left, the schedule should be checked to see that there are no omissions
or inconsistencies.
SpeclAc Instructions
Name of Present Head
The present head is the person who is registered by the Transient
Bureau as the head of the family group.
1. Member of family group.
b. Relation to head: Enter on lines 1 to 7 the persons now registered
as part of the relief case.
Enter on lines 8 to 11 persons normally a part of the family group
but not now registered as part of the relief case.
The entries must be in terms of relation to the present head; e.g.,
wife, son, daughter, sister, friend, etc.
The entries must be in the following order: head, spouse, children
in descending order of age, other persons.
If the person who is normally the head of the family group is not
the person registered as the present head, enter his relation to the
present head on line 8 and add "normal head"; e. g., husband (normal
head).
In cases where the husband and wife are permanently separated or
divorced, the husband is no longer a member of the family and should
never be entered as the normal head.
c. Sex: Enter "M" for male, "F'' for female.
d. Age: Enter age as of last birthday.
Digit,zea oy
G oog Ie
SCHEDULE AND INSTRUCTIONS • 173
e. Color or race: Enter "W" for white, "Neg" for Negro, "Mex" for
Mexican, and "0th" for other races.
f. Place of birth: In all cases where the person was born on a farm,
ent-0r the name of the county followed by the abbreviation "Co."
If a person was born in a foreign country, enter the name of that
country according to present day boundaries.
g. }.,farital status: Enter "S" for single, "M" for married, "Wid"
for ·widowed, "Div" for divorced, and "Sep" for separated.
Separated means legally separated or separated with the intention
of living permanently apart. The term must not be used to include
temporary separation.
h. Education-Grades completed.
Gra.de and high school: Enter the highest grade successfully compl~ted in grade and high school; e. g., for a person who completed
eight grades in grade school and entered but failed to complete the
third year in high school, enter "IO."
For persons who entered school but completed no grade, enter "0."
For persons who have not attended school, enter a dash.
College: Enter the number of years successfully completed.
For persons who entered college but did not complete a year,
enter "0."
Do not include attendance at so-called "business colleges."
2. Month and year of last marriage of normal head.
Enter the date when the normal head was lust married. If inapplicable, enter o. dash and explain.
3. Is normal head a U. S. citizen?
Check First papers for persons who have made formal declaration
of intention to become U. S. citizens but who have not yet received
their certificate of citizenship.
4. Residence history of normal family group.
List in chronological order all places in which the family has resided
1 month or longer since January 1, 1929.
Exclude periods when the family, or the two principal members
thereof, were receiving transient relief.
If the family was formed after January 1, 1929, give the residence
history from the time the principals were married.
a. Location: Enter the State and city for each residence.
If the residence was in open country, enter the name of the county
followed by the abbreviation "Co."
b. Duration: Enter the month and year when each period of
residence began and ended.
If at the beginning of 1929 the family was in a place where they had
been living for some time previously, record the year their residence
in this place began, regardless of the fact that it was prior to 1929.
The earliest date entered here can never be earlier than the date of
Digit,zea oy
G oog Ie
174 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
marriage of the normal head (Question 2) since that was the date
the family was formed.
c. Nature of place: Determine for each period of residence the
nature of the place in which the family was living.
Check one on each line.
Farm: If the family was living on a farm.
Village: If the family was living in or near a village with a population of less than 2,500, but was not operating a farm.
Urban: If the family was living in a place with a population of 2,500
or more.
5. Transient relit'] record since July 1, 1933.
Enter in chronological order all instances in which the family as a
whole or two or more members of it were registered for transient
relief as a family group. Include only relief given under the direction
of transient authorities established under the provisions of the Federal
Emergency Relief Act of 1933.
a. Location: Enter every place (State and city) in which transient
relief was received.
b. Date of registration: Enter for each period of transient relief the
date when the case was registered.
c. Length of stay: Enter the length of time the case was under care.
d. Reason for leaving: Enter the chief reason for the group's going
off transient relief in each place listed.
Reasons for Family Group Mobility
This section applies to the entire period during which the family
group has been in an unsettled condition, whether beginning before or
after January 1, 1929.
6. Last place in which the family lived a settled, self-supporting life.
The purpose of this question is to determine the place and time at
which family group mobility began.
Enter the name of the last place in which the family lived 8, settled,
self-supporting life. That is, the place which the family considered
its permanent place of residence and in which the family was entirely
or mostly self-supporting. In cases where the family has moved several times in recent years careful interviewing will be necessary to
determine the location of the place, because in one or more of these
moves the family may have established a semipermanent residence
which properly belongs to the period of family mobility. For example:
Family A-lived in Chicago, Ill., from June 1924 until August 1930.
The head of the family was steadily employed there as a machinist. In August 1930 part-time employment had reduced the
family income to a subsistence level. The head succeeded in
finding a full-time job as field representative for a mill machinery company. The home in Chicago was given up and the
01g1l1zcd by
Google
SCHEDULE AND INSTRUCTIONS • 175
family accompanied the head on his movements about the
country. A year later the job ended when the family was in
Houston, Tex., where the head found enough employment
doing house painting to support the family for 2½ years. When
this work failed, the family went to Richmond, Va. (birthplace
of the head), where it obtained transient relief.
The proper answer to Question 6 in this case is "Illinois, Chicago,
August 1930" and not "Texas, Houston, February 1934." Careful
interviewing disclosed that although the family lived in Houston long
enough to gain legal settlement, it did not consider Houston its home,
nor its residence there as permanent, because the head could not obtain steady employment at what he considered adequate wages.
If the family has had no place of settled residence since marriage,
enter "None" and explain.
If the last place of settled residence was prior to January 1, 1929,
enter the name of this place and the date left.
7. Reasons for leaving.
Give a comprehensive explanation of all the circumstances which
caused the family to leave the place entered in Question 6.
The answer to this question refers specifically to the place and time
entered in Question 6 and is not to be conditioned by subsequent
events.
Brief entries, such as "seeking work," "unemployment," "visits,"
"health," and "family trouble," are not adequate. The statement of
reasons for leaving should be amplified to include both the primary
and secondary factors which caused the family to leave a settled abode.
In no case is the answer to this question to be taken from the registration card (Tr-10).
8. Destination at time of leaving.
a. State, city, or county: The destination to be entered is the place
to which the family planned to go at the time it left the locality entered
in Question 6.
If the family had no definite destination, enter the general area into
which it expected to go.
b. Reasons for selection of this place: Enter the reasons why the
family selected this particular pince rather than any other as its
original destination.
9. Present plans for future.
State what plans for the future have been made by the family alone
or by the family in conjunction with the transient relief agency.
Occupational History
10. Present employment status of normal head.
a. Check one item to indicate the employment status of the normal
head at the time of interview.
Digil1zcd by
G oog IC
176 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Check Other employment if the normal head has any job other than
a transient relief job. Include in this category persons on strike,
persons going to a definitely promised job, and persons employed on
nontransient work relief projects.
Specify what kind of work and in what industry; whether it is full
time or part time; and whether the person is employed by others or
working on his own account.
b. Interviewer's opinion as to employability of normal head: Enter
here a statement of the interviewer's opinion as to whether the normal
head is readily employable, or wholly or partially unemployable.
c. Employment handicaps of normal head: Specify all factors which
would seriously handicap the normal head in securing and pursuing
steady employment. It is particularly important to note such factors
as permanent physical or mental disabilities, chronic illness, temporary
disabilities, old age, personality difficulties, household duties, etc.
11. Usual occupation of all employable persons 18 years of age and over
entered in Question 1 .
a. Identify each person by the appropriate line number in Question
la. If the present head and the normal head are the same, leave the
second line blank.
b. Usual occupation: (See appendix for supplementary instructions
for recording occupation and industry.)
The usual occupation is that at which the person has normally been
employed, or the one which he considers has been his usual occupation
by reason of experience or training.
If the person has worked at two or more occupations for short periods
of time and considers none of them his usual occupation, enter "No
usual occupation."
If the person has never done gainful work, enter "Never worked."
The occupation is the specific job or work performed (e.g., cook).
The industry is the specific industrial or business organization in
which the job or work is performed (e. g., hotel).
c. Total number of year's experience: Enter the total length of time
the person has worked at his usual occupation.
d. Last nonreliej job of 1 month or longer at usual occupation: Enter
the dates of the beginning and ending of the last nonrelief job of 1
month or longer which the person held at his usual occupation
Employment on PWA project is to be considered as nonrelief employment; employment on work relief projects is to be excluded.
12. Last nonrelief job of 2 weeks or longer held by normal head at any
occupation.
This entry should report the last nonrelief employment at any job
held by the normal head for 2 weeks or longer.
D,g,11zed liy
Google
SCHEDULE AND INSTRUCTIONS • 177
13. Farm experience of normal head.
a-b. The purpose of these questions is to determine the number of
normal family group heads who have had some farm experience; and
whether this experience was as farm laborer or as farm operator.
c. Owner, manager, tenant, cropper.
Farm owner: A farmer who owns all or part of the land he operates.
Include squatters and homesteaders who are farming.
Farm manager: A person who manages a farm for the owner,
assuming full responsibility for the crops and their cultivation and
receives a salary for his services.
Farm cropper: A farmer who cultivates only rented land and to
whom the landlord furnishes equipment and stock; i.e., he is a farmer
who contributes only labor and receives in return a share of the crop.
Farm tenant: A farmer who cultivates rented land only, furnishing
all or part of the working equipment and stock, whether he pays cash
or a share of the crop or both as rent.
d. Type of farm: Indicate the type of farm; e. g., wheat, fruit,
dairy, stock. In cases where there was little specialization, enter
"general."
e. Number of acres: Enter the number of acres included in each
farm, whether under cultivation or not.
f. Location: Enter the name of the State and county in which each
farm was located.
g. Number of years operated: Enter the number of years each farm
was operated.
h. Date left: Enter the month and year the person ceased operating
the farm.
i. Reason for leaving: Enter the reason for giving up the farm;
c. g., mortgage foreclosed, dispossession or eviction, drought, operated
at a loss, moved to better farm, moved to city to obtain employment.
14. Remarks onjarm experience.
If the normal head has had form experience, but is not now capable
of operating a farm, explain the circumstance, and specify whether
there is some other member of the family group (e. g., son) who is
capable.
15. General comments on case.
Make free use of this space to explain, amplify, or interpret entries
on the schedule and to record other pertinent information.
Digitirnd by
G oog IC
Orgrt1zcd by
Google
Appendix D
LIST OF TABLES
TEXT TABLES
Tabl,e
Page
1. Reason migrant families left settled residence______________________
5
2. Migrant families with and without specific destination and reason for
no destination________________________________ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
9
10
3. Type of contact migrant families had at destination ____ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___
4. Objectives sought by migrant families at destination________________
13
5. Distance between State of origin and State of enumeration of migrant families and of persons in the general population 1930 residing
in a State other than Stat~ of birth_____________________________
35
6. Net population displacement and reciprocated movement resulting
from the movement of migrant families and of persons in the general
population l 930 residing in a State other than State of birth______
38
53
7. Rural-urban origins and destinations of migrant families______ __ ___ _
8. Residencestatusofmigrantfamilies___________ ___ _______ _________
61
9. Year of formation of migrant families having no residence of 1 month
or longer since January 1, 1929_________________________ ______
61
10. Duration of residences of migrant families since January 1, 1929_ _ __ _
62
11. Year migrant families left settled residence_________________________
64
66
12. Nature of residence histories of migrant families since 1929__ __ _ __ __
13. Residence changes of migrant families between January 1, 1929, and
first transient bureau regi,;tration _________ . ___ _ ___ __
67
14. Type of residence history and residence changes of migrant families
since January 1, 1929_____________ _______ ______ ___ _ _ _
68
69
15. Year of migrant family formation ________________________ . _ _ __ __ _
69
16. Year of formation and residence changes of migrant families__________
17. Average number of residence changes made per year by migrant
families, by year of formation__ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ ____
70
18. Yearly rate of residence change of migrant families by family settlement status and by year of change______________________________
71
19. Place of first transient bureau registration of migrant families_________
74
20. Time elapsed between leaving last residence and first transient bureau
registration of migrant families, )?y place of first registration _______ .
75
179
Digrt1zcd b,·
Goog IC
180 • MIGRANT FAMILIES
Table
Page
21. FERA transient program openings and closings of migrant family and
unattached transient cases during each month per 100 cases under
care at midmonth, February 1934 to September 1935______________
79
82
22. Number of transient bureau registrations made by migrant families____
23. Number of transient bureau registrations made by migrant families
which had no residence of 1 month or longer since January 1, 1929_
83
24. Length of time migrant families spent at place of first and last transient
bureau registration___________________________________________
84
25. Residence requirements for general relief, January 1, 1936_ ________ ___
87
26. Changes in residence requirements for general relief as of January 1,
1938________________________________________________________
89
27. Migrant families reporting absence of members normally part of
family group_________________________________________________
94
28. Composition of migrant families before and during migration and composition of families in resident relief population, October 1933_ ___ __
95
29. Size of migrant families, of families in the resident relief population
of 1933, and of families in the general population of 1930_________
96
30. Color and nativity of economic heads of migrant families, of families in
urban resident relief population of May 1934, and in the general
population of 1930______ _____ __ __ _____ __ _____ ____ __ _____ ______
100
31. Marital status of economic heads and other persons 15 years of age and
over in migrant families and of heads of families in the general population of 1930___ _____ __ _______ ___ __ _____ __ _ ____ __ ___ _________
102
32. Sex and status in family of persons in migrant families_______________
103
33. Schooling completed and age of economic heads of migrant families___
104
34. Schooling completed and color and nativity of economic heads of
migrant families_____________________________________________
104
35. Schooling completed by economic heads and other members 15 years
of age and over of migrant families and of heads of urban and
rural resident relief families___________________________________
105
36. Employability of economic heads of migrant families_______________
109
37. Employability and employment handicaps of economic heads of
migrant families_ _ ______ _____________ _____ ___ _____ _____ _ _____
110
38. Usual occupation and sex of employable economic heads of migrant
families_____________________________________________________
113
39. Main class of usual occupation of employable economic heads of migrant families, of resident relief families, March 1935, and of gainful
workers 16-64 years of age in the general population of 1930______
114
40. Usual industry and sex of employable economic heads of migrant
families_____________________________________________________
116
41. Usual industry of employable economic heads of migrant families, of
resident relief families March 1935, and of gainful workers 10 years of
age and over in the general population of 1930__________________
117
42. Duration of unemployment since last job of at least 1 month at usual
occupation of employable economic heads of migrant families and
of urban workers on relief May 1934___________________________
121
43. Duration of unemployment since last job of at least 1 month at any
occupation of employable economic heads of migrant families, of
urban workers on relief May 1934, and of urban workers on WPA
October-December 1935 _________ -~ ___ _____ ____ __ ___ ______ ____
122
44. Duration of unemployment since last job of at least 2 weeks at any
occupation of employable economic heads of migrant families____
124
Dig111zed l:>y
Goog Ie
LIST OF TABLES • 181
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Tab~
I. Reason migrant families left settled residence______________________
2. Reason migrant families left settled residence, and State or region of
settled residence_____________________________________________
3. Type of contact migrant families had at destination, and State or region
of destination________________________________________________
4. Objectives sought by migrant families at destination, and State or
region of destination__________________________________________
5. State of origin and State of transient bureau registrntion of migrant
families, June 30, l!l35__________ _ ___ _ ____ __ __ ___ _ ___ ___ _ _ __ ___
6. Net population displacement and reciprocated movement through
migrant family emigration and immigration_____________________
7. Migrant families emigrating per 1,000 families in genera.I population
1930, by State_______________________________________________
8. Migrant families immigrating per 1,000 families in general population
1930, by State_______________________________________________
9. Urban-rural distribution of place of migrant family origin and destination and residence of families in general population of 1930_ __ __ _
10. Size of place of origin and destination of migrant families, by year of
leaving settled residence______________________________________
11. Place of destination and of first transient bureau registration of migrant
families_____________________________________________________
12. Migrant family and unattached cases opened and closed during month
and number under ca.re at the middle of the month in transient
bureaus, February 1934-Scptember 1935_______________________
13. Size and composition of migrant families during and before migration_
14. Age and sex of economic heads of migrant families, of heads of resident relief families October 1933, and age of ma.le heads of families
in general population 1930_ ___ _ _ __ _ ____ __ _ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ ____ __ _ __
15. Age and status in family of persons in migrant families____________
16. Citizenship status and color and nativity of economic heads of migrant
families___ _ ___ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _
17. Usual occupation and employability of economic heads of migrant
families_____________________________________________________
18. Usual occupation and sex of employable economic heads of migrant
families____________________________________________________ _
19. Industry of usual occupation and sex of employable economic heads of
migrant families_____________________________________________
20. Usual occupation and age of employable economic heads of migrant
families_____________________________________________________
21. Industry of usual occupation and age of employable economic heads
of migrant families___ __ __ ___ __ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _
22. Usual occupation and schooling completed by employable economic
heads of migrant families_____________________________________
D1g1l1zed by
Page
135
137
138
139
140
150
151
152
153
154
155
155
156
156
157
157
158
158
161
163
163
164
Google
Digitized by
Google
Index
183
□ig,t zc:d by Goog Ie
Orgrt1zcd by
Google
INDEX
Page
Age:
Economic heads _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ __ 97-99, 108
Employment handicap _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
109
Other members of family groups _
99
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
99
School age of children
Ala.bama _ _ _ _
16, 17, 39, 42, 44, 45, 52
Arizona _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16, 17, 19, 43, 44, 51, 91
Arkansaa_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16, 17, 19,40,42, 43,44, 45, 49, 52, 56, 57
Attitudes (see also Border blockades; Family, opinion):
·
Of communities _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
77
7
Of migrants (relief embarrassment)
Urban-industrial perspective _ _ _ _
21
Backgrounds (see also Family, histories) _
Bancroft, Gertrude _ _ _ _ _ _
Bankruptcy _ _ _
Beck, P. G _ _ _ _ - - - - Border blockades _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Broken families. See Family, type; Marital status.
Bryau, Jack Y
_ _ 68--69, 82-83
120n
17
129n
_ _ 127, 131
91n
California _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ 19, 28, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 50, 92, 127
Carmichael, F. L _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 105n
Ca.'3e histories. See Family, histories.
Cases closed. See Turnover rates.
Caaes opened. See Turnover rates.
Casual work _ _ _ _ _ _
9, 72,123
Census, Bureau of the:
Popula.tion _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
35n, 38n, 44n, 47n, 48n,
52n, 53n, 96n, 100n, 102n, 114n, 117n, 151n, 152n, 153n, 156n
Children per family (see also Family, composition; Family, membership) _
99
101
Citizenship _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
City. See Urban areas as destinations.
Colorado _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 16, 17, 19, 39, 40, 42, 43, 50, 51, 127
Communities:
Granting aid. See Expense.
_ _ _ _ _ _
73
Legal responsibility of _
_ _ 71-72
Rate of change _ _ _ _ _
47
Connecticut _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Cotton. See States, cotton.
Delaware _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - Dependents. See Children per family.
Depressed areas _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
Depression migration. See Migration.
Desertion. See Marital status.
_____ 28, 51
17, 19, 55
185
D,g,11zcd IJy
Google
186 • INDEX
Destination:
Contact, type of at _
Predominantly urban
Selection of _ _ _ _ _ _
State of _ _ _ _ __
Disabilities (see also Health)
Displacement. See Population, displacement.
Distance traveled. See Zones of distance traveled.
Distress migration _ _ _ _ _
District of Columbia _ _ _ _
Divorce. See Marital status.
Domestic difficulty _
Drought _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Duration of mobility. See Mobility, duration of.
Duration of residence. See Residence, duration of.
Duration of unemployment. See Unemployment, duration of.
Page
_ _ 10-12, 18--19
- - - __ 53-54
_ 4,5,9,57-58
- - _ 57-58
____ 109--111
_ _ _ 4-9, 59, 92
42,50, 73
8, 18, 21, 95
7, 16, 17, 52
_ __ 6,82, 123
Earnings, inadequacy of _ _ _
East. See Industrial centers.
Economic:
Betterment _ _ _
12-13
Condition _ _ _ _
44,49
Expulsive forces _
17
Economic heads:
Age of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
97-99
Employable _ _
109--111, 117, 121, 131
Female ___ _
- - - _ 95, 103
Male _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - __ 95,98, 103
____ 111-112
Unemployable _ _
Education _ _
_ 103-106, 119
El Paso Times _
76n
Emigration:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 44,45,47-50
Rate of_
Related to relief intensity
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ 46-47
Employability (see also Economic heads, employable, unemployable):
How determined
107
Index _____ - - - - 108
Employment:
Agencies_
127
Qualifications for _
- .112
Seasonal __
_ --- • _
~ 19
Evictions _ _ •_ _ _
_ _ 5, 7, 17,23
Expense:
Communities granting aid
92
Government _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11
Living _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5
Experience or training for occupation
.113
Family:
Composition _ _ _ _ _ _
Doubled up _
Formation:
Related to mobility
Year of _____ _
~
94-96
11
__ 68--70
60n, 61; 69, .70
Digitzco by
Google
INDEX •
187
Family-Continued.
Page
Head. See Economic heads.
Histories _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 2, 21-25, 126-127
Membership _ _ _ _ _
94, 103, 105
Negro. See Negroes.
Normality of __
_ _ 125--127
Opinion _ _ _ _
_ _ 63-65, 67, 71
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
112
Re:settlement _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
96-97, 99
Size __ - _ _ _ _ _ _
21, 94, 95
Type (see also Marital status) __
White. See Whites.
Farm (see also Movements, farms and villages to cities; Villages and farms):
Failures _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ 16-17
Laborers _ _ _ _ _ _ _
25
Owners and tenants _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7
Farms__________
_____
19,21,53
Federal Emergency Relief AdminiAtration (see al.,o Transient program,
FERA; Transient bureaus, FERA) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 27n, 73, 79n
Florida _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 16, 17, 19, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 127
Foreign-born whites_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 99-100, 104, 165--167
Forster, M. C _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12911
Galpin, C. J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3611
General relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
46-47, 73
Geographical areas (see also Movement, reciprocated and net):
Emigration rates _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
48-49
Population trends _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
130
Geographical displacement _
_ _ _ _ _
18,39
Georgia _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16, 18, 42, 43, 44, 49, 52
Goodrich, Carter and Others _ _
128n, 129n
_ _______ 40,45,52
Great Plains _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Handicaps. See Disabilities.
Hauser, Philip M _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
114n, 11711, 16011, 162n
Health_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ____________ 7-8,9-10, 14, 17,21, 112
_ _ _ _ _
_ _______ 97n, 98n
Huntington, Albert H., Jr
Idaho __
19, 21,28, 40, 43, 50, 57
Illinois __
28,39,42, 43, 50, 52, 57
_ _ _ _ _
Ill
Illiteracy_
Illness. See Health.
__ 50--52
Immigration, rate oL
__ 39, 43
Indiana _ _ _ _ _ _
Indians _ _ _ _ _ _
101
Industrial centers _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 42, 43, 45, 129
____ 3, 112, 116-119
Industry (see also Labor market; Reemployment)
Inertia_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
127
Interview, place of. See Registrations, last.
Iowa _ _ _ _ _ _ _
28,35, 40, 43,45, 49, 51
Jenkinson, Bruce
Kansas __
Kentucky
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 117n, 162n
__ 16,39,40, 42, 57, 92
16, 17, 19, 42, 43,44,49, 51, 56
Oigil1zcd by
Goog IC
188 • INDEX
Page
Labor market_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 101, 107, 122, 126
Land_________________________
_ _ 3, 12,19
Legal residence requirements. See Residence, requirements.
Legislation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 86-92, 127
Local policies, general relief_ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ 46-47
Louisiana_ _ _ _ _ _
_ __ 16, 19, 39, 40, 42, 45, 49, 52
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 89n
Lowe, Robert c_ _ _ _ _ _
Maine _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 28, 45, 47, 49, 51
Manny, T. B _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 36n
Marital status _________________________ 101-102
Maryland ___________________________ 28,42,51
Massachusetts _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
44
_ _ _ _ _
105n
McCormick, Thomas C _ _
Means of support _ _
76
Medical care _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
4-5
Methodology _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ xvm-n:
Mexicans _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 100n, 101
Michigan_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
17, 28, 42, 43, 46, 49, 52, 97
Migrants:
Depression _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •
125
Distress_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 38, 59, 92
Interstate _ _ _
96
Migration:
Advantages of _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3 ·
_ _ 128, 129
Depression related to normal _ _
Normal and depression _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ xv-xvii
Planned_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
130
Purposes of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
107
Reasons for (see also Distress migration; Domestic difficulty) _ _ _ _ 2, 3,
4, 5, 14, 17,27, 40
Restrictions upon _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 127-128
Rural-urban _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 52-53, 55-57
Minnesota _____________________ 17,35, 40,45,47,49,92
Mississippi ___________________ 16, 17, 39, 42, 44, 45, 49, 57
Mississippi River _____________________ 18, 40, 42, 50, 51
Missouri _______________________ 17, 19, 39, 42, 43, 49
Mobility (see also Emigration; Immigration, rate of; Population, displacement):
Before transient relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 65-68
Between last residence and transient relief _
_ 75-76
Degree of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
91
Duration of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 67-68, 76
Net and reciprocated _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
39
_ 71-72
Of settled and unsettled families _ _ _
Population. See Population, mobility.
_ _ _ _ _
79
Seasonal increase in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Unbroken _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
60
Value of ______________________ 59, 128, 129, 130
Montana_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7, 16, 17,28,47, 57,91
Moral incompetence.______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4
Digitized by
Goog Ie
INDEX• 189
Movements:
Eastward
Farms and villages to cities
Interstate
Intrastate _ _
Northeast _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Northward __
Population. See Population, movement.
Reciprocated and net
Transcontinental
Westward __ _
Page
19,42
54, 55
28-37, 52-55
97
_ _ 28, 52
42
_ - _ _ _ - - 37-40
37
_ __ 39,50
Native-born whites
_ _ _ _ _
_ ___________ 100, 104
Nebraska _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
16, 19, 35, 47, 48, 57
Negroes______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
23-24,42,43n,49,99, 167
Education _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
104
Representation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
101
Nevada _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 16, 28, 44, 4 7
New England
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _____ 19, 43
New Hampshire
__ 28, 44, 49, 51
New Jersey
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ 16, 17, 91, 92
New Mexico _ _
_ _ _ _ _
16, 17, 19, 28, 40, 43, 50, 51, 57
New York _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 16, 17, 28, 39, 42, 43, 50, 52, 57
Nonfamily persons (Me al:!o Transients, unattached) _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
59
Nonresidents _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
38, 90, 92
Normal families (see also Family, type)
_____ 126, 131
North. See Industrial centers.
North Carolina __ _
16, 17, 44, 49, 90
North Dakota _
16, 17, 28,35,43,47,48,51,52
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
57
Northern plains
Ohjectives sought at destination :
Economic betterment _ _ _
_ 12-13
Personal _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
14
Occupation. See Usual occupation.
Occupation defined _ _ _ _
I 13
Occupational resources _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 107-124
_____ 39,42, 43, 45,47, 50, 52
Ohio_ - _ - - - - - Oklahoma _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 16, 17, 19, 28, 42, 43, 47, 56, 57, 91
Opinion. See Family, opinion.
Oregon ___ _
_ ________ 19, 40, 43, 92
Origins _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
27-37, 53-54, 56
Overnight care _
----------77
Palmer, Gladys L __
Payne, Stanley L _
Pennsylvania _ _ _ _
Personal:
Characteristics _
Difficulties _ _ _
Reasons for migration _
_ _____ 100n, 121n, 122n, 160n
_ ___________ 105n
16, 17,43,45, 46, 47,51,57,91
93-106
18
~9
o,gitiz d by
G oog Ie
190 •
INDEX
Population:
Page
Displacement _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 37,38,40-42,44
Mobility _ _ _
36-37, 125-128
Movement _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- 40-44
Redistribution _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 128-130
Stranded. See Stranded populations.
Trends _ _ _ _ _
_ ___ 40-44
Turnover _____________ _
_ - - - - - _ -
Private employment_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Problem areas (see afao Depressed areas) _ _
Pueblo Chieftain
52
82
129
76n
Reemployment _
Regions. See Areas.
Registrations (see aliw Transient hnreaus, FERA):
Following mobility _ _ _ _ _ _
In States other than destinations _
La."t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
126
74
58
84
53
74
Predominantly urban _ _ _ _ _
Reasons for _ _ _ _ _
.Relief:
Intensity _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 46-47, 49
Related to immigration, rate of _ _ _
51
Policy _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ 46, 59
Residence:
61
Absence of _ _
Changes _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 67-68, 69-72
Concepts, residence and settled residence distinguished
_ _ _ _ _ 92, 127
Defined _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 59n, 65, 66, 75
Duration of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 60-63, 64-65, 66
Reasons for leaving_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ ___ 5-9, 74
Requirements for relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 86-89, 90-92, 128
Re1-1idence statutes, changes in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 89, 90, 91
Resident:
Families _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 44, 50
Relief ___________________________ 76, 128
Rhode Island _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 28. 90
Rumor _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18, 19
Rural areas as destinations _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 57-58
Rural-nonfarm. See Villages and farms.
Semiskilled workers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 113-114.,U6
Settlement Jaws in typical States _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 90-91
_ 102-103
Sex and sex ratio (.,ee also Economic heads)
Sharecroppers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
19
Shepherd, Susan M _
120n
Skilled workers ____ ~ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
113-114. 115, lli}
Smith, MapheuR _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ 46n
Social behavior and goals _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ ___ 39-40
South Carolina _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 16, 18. 44, 52
South Dakota ___________ 16, 17, 35, 42, 43, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 57, 92
Stability (see also Backgrounds; Family, histories; Family, opinion) _ _ _
59,
64-65, 100-101
DigrtzcdbyGoogle
INDEX• 191
States:
Agricultural
Cotton_ _ _ _ _
Industrial _ _ _
Of birth ________________ _
Stranded populations
Page
57
_ _ 17, 42, 43, 129n
_ ____ 42, 57
_ ____ 38,40,47-48, 49
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
128
Tennessee _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 16, 42, 44, 45, 49, 52
Texas_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 16, 17, 19, 42, 44, 56, 90
Thornthwaite, C. W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 43n, 98n
Transient bureaus, FERA _________ 21, 27, 38, 44, 50, 53, 58, 73, 80-82
Closings to resident relief_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
85
Registrations _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 38, 74, 82
Time spent at_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
83
Transient program, FERA:
Criticism of_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _____ 125-126
Effect on mobility ______________ 74, 76-77, 80-84, 127-128
Forms of turnover_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ ____ 77-80
Function_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 75, 86, 128
Supplement to inadequate earnings _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
82
Transient relief, responsibility for _ _ _ _
_ ______ 38, 73, 131
Transients, unattached _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 77, 98, 99
Turnover rates:
Resident relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 85-86
Transient programs _________________ 80, 8!¼-86, 107, 130
"Uncle Sam's Hotels" _______________________ 76-77
Unemployables __________________ 12,108,109,110, 111-112
Unemployment:
Displacing force_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 1 16
Duration of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 39, 107, 119-124
Unemployment Relief Census, October 1983 ________ 95n, 96n, 10211, 15611
United States Department of Commerce. See Census, Bureau of the.
Unskilled workers_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ 113-114, 116
Urban areas as destinations_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 19, 53-54, 57
Usual occupation (see also Family, histories) _
113-116
Utah _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16
Vagrancy law. See Legislation.
Vermont _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 49, 5011, 73n
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 53-54
Villages and farms_ _ _
Virginia _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 16, 17, 28, 44, 49, 90
Voting requirements_ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
90
Wanderers_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 37, 59, 65, 76, 79, 80, 85
Washington _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 19, 28, 40, 43, 50, 91
Webb, John N _ _
_ xvii, 59n, 77n, 91n, 93n, 97n, 98n, 99n, 101n, 103n, 123n
West Virginia_ _ _ _ _
16, 17, 43, 51, 90, 91
Westefeld, Albert _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ ___ 97n, 98n
White-collar workers_
_ _______________ 113, 114, 115, 119
Whites (see also Foreign-born whites; 1'ative-born whites) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4311
Labor preference _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
IO 1
Wickenden. Elizabeth _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
xvii
D,g11lzcd by
Goog Ie
192 • INDEX
Page
Wisconsin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17, 49
Wood, Katherine D ___________________ 100n, 121n, 122n
Woofter, T. J., Jr_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 129n
Workers (see also Semiskilled workers; Skilled workers; Unskilled workers;
and White-collar workers):
Gainful _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
114-115, 117-118
_ _ _ _ _ _
123
Urban_
_ _ _ _ _ _
123
WPA __
_ 16, 35, 47, 50, 51, 91
Wyoming _
Young, Dona.Id _ _
Youth _____ _
166n
__ 97-99
_ 28-37
Zones of distance traveled _
0
D,g11lzcd by
Goog Ie
Digit zed by
Geog Ie
[Yg,t,zco 'Jy
G oog 1c
@FedFRASER