Full text of Mothers' Aid, 1931, Bureau Publication No. 220
The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FRANCES PERKINS, Secretary CH ILDR EN ’S BUREAU GRACE ABBOTT, Chief T T^C f » IQOP, 0 i W * Mothers’ A id, 1931 Bureau Publication No. 220 U NITED STATES GOVERNM ENT PR IN TIN G OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1933 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Price 5 cents i. I k ■ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CONTENTS Page Letter of transmittal______________________ Characteristics of mothers’ aid_____________ I I I I I I I I I I I Development in legislation_______________ 1111111111 Persons eligible for aid__________________ I I I _ I _ I I _ I I I I Ages of children______________________________I I I I I I I Amount of grant permitted__________________ 11 I f I I I Administration_____________________________ " Growth in mothers’ aid__________________ I I I I I I I I I »Types of families aided_______________________ III11 III r Persons caring for ^children and status of "fathers'I’l l 111111 ’ Race of mothers______________ ______________ Expenditures for mothers’ aid by States___I I I I I _ I I _ I I I I I I I _ _ Per capital expenditures________________________ Average monthly grants_____________ I I I _ I I I I I I Families aided per 10,000 population____ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ Expenditures for administration and services._ II Expenditures for mothers’ aid by States________________ I I I I I I I Summary and conclusions_________________ Appendix A.— Tables____________ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' " Appendix B.— Expenditures for mothers’ aid In 1931 and in 1932 11 11 13 14 14 16 18 20 22 23 25 35 in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a b t m e n t o p L a b o e , C h il d e e n ’ s B tjeeau , Washington, June 27, 1988. M a d a m : There is transmitted herewith the report of a Nation-wide usrvey of the extent of mothers’ aid in the United States in the year 1931. A similar survey was made by the Children’s Bureau in 1921 and 1922, when mothers’ aid laws in the different States had been in operation 1 to 10 years. This form of public provision for social needs aims to preserve for dependent children care by their own mothers under conditions tending to make possible normal home life. Its steady growth is one of the most constructive achievements in the public-welfare field in the past quarter century. For the data collected the Bureau is indebted to State departments and local agencies having direct or supervisory responsibility for mothers’ aid administration. Respectfully submitted. Hon. F e a n c e s P e b k i n s , Secretary o f Labor. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis G b a c e A b b o t t , C hief. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 The progress in public provision for dependent children that enables mothers to care for them in their own homes has been one of the most significant developments in the field of public welfare during the last two decades. This development can be seen in improved legislation, increase in the number of families benefiting by such provisions, more liberal local and State funds, and growth in the number of adminis trative units providing such aid. Back of these developments lie recognition of the essential values of home life in the rearing of chil dren and acceptance of the principle that no child should be separated from his family because of poverty alone. CHARACTERISTICS OF MOTHERS’ AID ■ék Twenty years ago mothers’ aid or mothers’ assistance allowances or mothers’ pensions as they were called, represented a new departure in public relief administration, and the characteristics of legislative provisions and of administrative practice that have been developed are, therefore, of great significance. In general, mothers’ aid laws provide for aid to families having young children that have become dependent through the loss or dis ability of the breadwinner and that may be expected to be dependent for a relatively long time, usually during the period when the chil dren are too young to work, m th few exceptions the beneficiaries are families of men who are dead or divorced, who have deserted, or who are disabled or imprisoned. The laws include provisions whose purpose is to assure that the children assisted shall have home influ ences suitable to their upbringing. One qualification for eligibility as expressed in the statutes of all but one of the States (Maryland) having a mothers’ aid law is that the mother shall be a proper person to have the care of her children, and in a number of States a further requirement is made that the home shall be a satisfactory place for the rearing of children. A noteworthy characteristic of mothers’ aid legislation is the ex plicit or implied provision that the grant shall be sufficient, when supplemented by such income as the family has, to maintain the family at a reasonable standard of living without the necessity of outside employment of the mother, which would mean neglect of her children. In 11 States and the District of Columbia the amount that may be granted is unrestricted; in all others a limitation upon the m a x im u m grant that may be given nullifies this provision to some extent. Even when the allowance granted is inadequate, beneficiaries are able to maintain some sense of security and self-respect through the following universally accepted principles : That the grant shall be determined in advance; that it may be and in all probability will be continued, if the need persists, so long as the children are within 1 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 MOTHERS’ AH), 1931 the age limitation specified in the law; that it is paid at regular inter vals without reapplication for each allowance; and that, except in unusual instances, it is in the form of money paid to the mother to be spent at her discretion. In most States some requirements as to a period of residence by the mother or father within the town, city, county, or State are speci fied in the law. Citizenship or a declaration to become a citizen is also required in a few States. Provisions as to limitation on the amount of property the mother may hold are included in the laws of some States. Unlike the older poor-relief laws, the great majority of mothers’ aid statutes specifically require the investigation of each application and some supervision of families receiving grants. On the basis of this legislation, administrative practices have been developed in many jurisdictions to provide allowances suited to the needs of each family and sufficient to maintain standards of living contributing positively to the welfare of children; to discover the social and personal needs of beneficiaries, and to help in meeting these through the assistance of trained social workers. The use of a family budget computed separately for each family on the basis of a standard family budget is one of the most widely adopted practices. The social services rendered families include: Assistance in obtaining proper housing and in using community resources for health, education, voca tional placement, and leisure-time activities; education of the mother in income management, food values, child care, and child guidance; and assistance in personality adjustment when this is needed. DEVELOPMENT IN LEGISLATION The first State-wide mothers’ aid law was passed by Illinois in 1911, although previously a number of localities in other States had made public funds available to board children in their own homes or to assist the mother so that children might remain in school. Colo rado followed Illinois with a similar law in 1913, and during this year 17 other States enacted such legislation. The opportunity afforded by such laws to provide more adequate assistance for dependent children in their own homes than had been available under existing methods of poor-relief administration and private charity was im mediately recognized, and within 10 years after the passage of the first law (by the end of 1921) 40 States and the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii had made some legislative provision for the support of dependent children in their own homes from public funds.1 By June 30, 1931, 5 more States and the District of Columbia had added mothers’ aid laws, New Mexico being the latest addition to the list, having passed a mothers’ aid law in March 1931. At that time only 3 States— Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina—had no mothers’ aid laws, but in July 1931 Alabama authorized the counties to provide funds for care of dependent children under 18 years of age in their own homes.2 In most of the States mothers’ aid laws have been amended, often a number of times, since their original enactment. In some States 1The following discussion is limited to the United States proper. * The statute, however, does not include any of the specific requirements as to persons eligible embodied in mothers’ aid laws and has not been included in the following discussion of mothers’ aid legislation. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MOTHERS’ A H ), 1931 3 the laws have been completely rewritten.3 The general tendency in the legislation, particularly that passed in the last 10 years, has been to make the benefits of the law available to more children, to make the grants more nearly equal to the needs of the families, to improve admmistrative provisions in keeping with good social practice, and to provide for increased participation by the State through funds or powers of supervision over local agencies. PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR AID In the early years mothers’ aid was limited in its application in many States. Of the 39 States having mothers’ aid laws in 1919, only 10 made provision possible for all groups of families that are usually specified as eligible for assistance in mothers’ aid laws (that is, father dead, deserting, divorced, imprisoned, or physically or mentally incapacitated), 20 definitely excluded one or more of these groups, and 9 provided only for assistance to widows. As a result of new legislation and amendments to earlier laws, provisions have been broadened, and mothers’ aid has been made available to an increasingly larger number of families. By June 30, 1931, the laws of only 2 of the 45 States and the District of Columbia having mothers’ aid laws (Connecticut and Utah) restricted aid to widows. In 10 States 4 and the District of Columbia aid may be granted to any needy mother or to any mother with dependent children, and in 10 other States 5 the laws are almost as liberal, making assistance available to all dependent families in which the father is dead, deserting, divorced, physically or mentally inca pacitated, or imprisoned. In the other 23 States aid may be granted to widows and to certain other groups of mothers. In 15 6 of these States deserted mothers may receive aid, in 1 (Texas) divorced mothers, in 17 7 mothers whose husbands are imprisoned, and in 23 mothers whose husbands are physically or mentally incapacitated. In 18 States8 providing for families in which the father is incapaci tated, aid may be made available under a number of different condi tions, but in 5 9 States it is limited to families in which the father is in an institution. An expectant mother is eligible for aid under the laws of 7 States 10 and unmarried mothers are specifically made eligible for aid by the laws of 3 States.11 The laws of 18 States 12 and the District of Columbia expressly state that aid may be granted to persons other than the mothers, usually the guardian or other person standing in place of a parent, but in a few States relatives are specified. Five of 3 Louisiana is the latest State to have reenacted its mothers’ aid legislation. The first Louisiana law was enacted in 1920. This law was amended in 1928. In 1930 the law was completely revised. In the legis lative summary material the 1930 law is included, although when this report was prepared the new law had not been put into operation because of the failure of the legislature to make the necessary appropriations. 4 Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Washington. 3 Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vir ginia, and Wisconsin. 6 Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 7 Arkansas, California, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. 8 Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. •Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas. I Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin. II Michigan, Nebraska, and Tennessee. 13 California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin. 173108°— 33----- 3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 MOTHERS’ AID , 1931 these States 13 include fathers in the persons to whom aid may be given. AGES OF CHILDREN Since the summary of mothers’ aid laws was made by the Chil dren’s Bureau in 1919,1410 of the States having mothers’ aid laws at that time have raised the age limit for children eligible for aid and 1 State (Kansas) has set a lower limit. As the laws now stand, in all but 2 States that have enacted mothers’ aid legislation (Kansas and Oklahoma) children can receive aid until they are legally exempt from school attendance. The grant must stop when a child reaches 14 years of age in only 4 States and 1 city (Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and St. Louis, M o.) and at 15 years in 4 other States (Arkansas, Idaho, North Dakota, and Washington). In the remaining States and the District of Columbia aid may be granted until a child is 16 years, or in Michigan and Tennessee until he is 17 years, and in Colorado until he is 18 years.15 Seven of the States having a 16-year age limit grant aid up to 16 only for children attending school with a satisfactory record, or for those who are ill or incapacitated for w ork ;16 the grant may be extended beyond 16 years under such conditions in 4 other States.17 AMOUNT OF GRANT PERMITTED A grant fixed not by the law but by the administrative agency so that it can be adjusted in accordance with the individual family needs and resources has come to be recognized as having decided advantages. The laws of some States recognize this method by not specifying the amount that may be paid to a family, but providing that it shall be left to the discretion of the administrative agency to decide the amount necessary to maintain the child or children properly in their own homes with their mothers. This more pro gressive type of provision has been adopted by 11 States 18 and the District of Columbia.19 In New York State aid is restricted to an amount not exceeding the cost of institutional care. The other 33 States specify the maximum that may be granted; in most cases a monthly amount, or in some cases a daily or weekly amount, is allowed for the first child and a smaller sum for each additional child. Ten States 20 limit the grant further by specifying the maxi mum amount a month that may be granted to any family irrespective of its size. In no State does this maximum exceed $75, and in some it is as low as $40. In all but two of these States the maximum amount allowed for individual children is also specified. u California, Colorado, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin. 1 « Laws Relating to Mothers’ Pensions in the United States, Canada, Denmark, and New Zealand. U.S. Children’s Bureau Publication No. 63. Washington, 1919 » In Indiana aid may be granted to girls under 17 years of age. i» Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. u Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. i* Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin. i* The 1932 appropriation act for the District of Columbia placed a limitation of $100 as the maximum amount to be allowed to any family. This was in force during the life of the appropriation act. *> Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, and West Virginia. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MOTHERS’ A ID , 1931 5 The number of children in the family eligible for aid is one of the most important factors in determining the amount of aid given, its influence being especially marked since in most States the amount that may be given for each child is stated in the law. In actual practice the relative numbers of large families and small families granted aid vary somewhat with the policies of the different admin istrative agencies. In some jurisdictions few or no mothers with only 1 eligible child are given mothers’ aid, whereas in other juris dictions a large proportion of the families have but 1 or 2 children. Information obtained in 1931 shows that the average size of all mothers’ aid families within the different States varied from 2.2 chil dren per family in the State of Washington to 3.7 children in Mary land, Missouri, and the District of Columbia, the average for the United States areas reporting being slightly less than 3 children (2.7) per family aided. Using a family of 3 children as a basis for comparison of the grants that may be given in States that limit aid to a definite amount per child, it is found that for such a family 4 States21 permit a maximum grant of $60 to $70; 5 States,22 $50 to $59; 9 States,23 $40 to $49; 8 States,24 $30 to $39; and 7 States,25 $20 to $29. The laws of Con necticut, Delaware, Kansas, and North Carolina specify that addi tional amounts may be allowed under certain circumstances. ADMINISTRATION One of the most significant developments in mothers’ aid legislation has been the steady increase in'the number of States that have made some provision for State participation in the administration of mothers’ aid. Seventeen States have provided State funds for this purpose. In Arizona and New Hampshire allowances and administrative ex penses are paid entirely from State funds. The payment of State funds to augment mothers’ aid funds made available by the local government has been authorized in 14 States.28 In New Jersey State funds are available only for the salaries and expenses of the State staff, which is responsible for providing services and supervision to all mothers’ aid families. With the payment of State funds has come some degree of State responsibility for administration of aid. Complete or major responsi bility for administration has been given to a State agency in 8 States.27 In the remaining 9 States 28 authorizing payments from State funds, the major responsibility for administration is vested in a local agency, but a designated State agency is responsible for the administration of the State contribution and for more or less supervision of admin istration by the local agency. In some States (for example, Cali fornia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania) a special State staff has been provided for assistance to the local agencies in the adminis tration of State and local funds. In Illinois and North Carolina super81 California, Connecticut, Indiana, and Michigan. 8 Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, and Oregon. 83 Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, West Vir ginia, and Wyoming. 84 Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Tennessee 83 Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, and Washington. 88 California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin. 87Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont 83 California, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 MOTHERS’ AH ), 1931 vision of mothers’ aid is combined with other activities of the staff of the State department of welfare. State activity in Virginia and Wis consin has been limited, owing to the inadequacy of State appropria- ^ tions. The Louisiana and New Mexico laws providing for State funds VP and local administration have not been put into operation because of failure of the State legislatures to appropriate State funds. In a number of States that have not granted State funds for mothers’ aid the need for developing standards of administration throughout the State has been recognized. State supervision of mothers’ aid administration has been provided for in the mothers’ aid laws of Ken tucky. Minnesota, Missouri, New York, and North Dakota. New York is the only one of these States that has provided a special super visory staff which keeps in close contact with the county boards of child welfare, the local administrative agencies in New York. In addition to the 9 States providing State funds but placing major responsibility for administration on local agencies, 28 States have made administration of mothers’ aid entirely a local problem. In selecting the local agency in which responsibility for administration was to be placed, much thought has been given to the character of the services that could be furnished by existing agencies and to the value or the disadvantages in creating special agencies. Following the precedent established in Illinois, which provided the first State-wide mothers’ aid law, the juvenile court was made the administrative agency in a large proportion of the States enacting mothers’ aid laws during the early years. With the growth of appreciation of the neces sity of establishing county social-service agencies, a definite tendency is found in recent legislation toward selecting such agencies to administer mothers’ aid. Thus 6 of the 10 States that have passed mothers’ aid laws since 1919 provide for administration by a county welfare board. Seventeen of the 37 States with local administration have placed responsibility for mothers’ aid in the juvenile court.2® In 13 States 30 the county commissioners or local officials responsible for adminis tration of poor relief are designated as the administrative agency, and in 7 States31 county welfare boards with other responsibilities for children or specially created to administer mothers’ aid have been charged with this responsibility. GROWTH IN MOTHERS’ AID Progress in the different States in the development of administrative units and in the number of families benefiting from mothers’ aid is shown in table 1, which summarizes the findings of two surveys of mothers’ aid administration made by the Children’s Bureau in 1921 and 1931. Because the length of time that the mothers’ aid law has been in operation influences to some extent the extension of such aid throughout a State, the year in which the law was enacted is shown for each State. Information as to the number of administrative units authorized to grant mothers’ aid is also shown for all States that have adopted the county as a unit of administration. m a rirnngftg, Colorado. Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin. so California, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. , , , » Indiana. Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MOTHERS’ AID , 1931 7 The first country-wide survey of the extent to which mothers’ aid had been made available was undertaken by the Children’s Bureau in 1921 and 1922. By the end of 1921, 40 States had mothers’ aid laws.32 W At the time of the 1921 survey the laws in the different States had been in operation 1 to 10 years. Because of the inadequacy of the records, it was impossible at the time of this survey to get accurate figures from many counties as to the number of children in the families aided, but it was estimated that approximately 120,000 children were receiving aid on any given date. The questionnaires returned by many of the counties in some States indicated that the agencies in these counties had little understanding of what mothers’ aid was, and it is probable that many of the families reported were actually receiving poor relief only. No information as to mothers’ aid could be obtained from 6 S ates at t iat time (1921-22). In order to measure the progress made in mothers’ aid adminis tration, information was obtained in 1931 as to the situation at that time.33 Returns were received from all States having mothers’ aid laws, with the exception of New Mexico, which had just enacted legislation.34 In the New England States mothers’ aid is adminis tered by the State, city, or town rather than by the county, so that reports were made on a State basis since aid was available to families throughout the entire State. In the remaining States the county (or the parish in Louisiana) is the administrative unit, with the exception of 24 independent cities in Virginia and the cities of St. Louis, Mo., and Baltimore, Md. Information was obtained from all but 242 of the 2,723 administrative units that were authorized to 4P- grant mothers’ aid in these States and the District of Columbia. The 242 counties from which no reports were received in 1931 were scattered through 17 States, more than half of them, however, being located in Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas. Many of these counties probably were not granting aid, but some may have merely failed to report. Reports from 903 counties and cities in 32 States definitely stated that no mothers’ aid was being granted. More than one fifth of these counties were in Kentucky and Mississippi, which did not enact mothers’ aid laws until 1928, and in Maryland, which passed its State-wide law in 1929. The remaining counties and cities were in States that had authorized mothers’ aid for a period of from 8 to 20 years. Counties having large populations usually make provision for mothers’ aid. However, 42 counties with populations of more than 50,000 were among those not granting aid, including 2 independent cities and 12 counties containing cities with populations of 50,000 and under 500,000. As is shown by the following list, these 14 cities •° Arizona had reenacted in 1921 an earlier law which had been repealed. 33 In 1926 information as to the number of families and children aided and the amounts spent for their care was obtained from all States in which the State department of welfare could provide these figures, and for all but a few of the cities of 100,000 population or counties including such cities. See Public Aid to Mothers with Dependent Children, pp. 20-24 (U.S. Children’s Bureau Publication No. 162, Washington, 34 The State departments of public welfare in most of the 27 States in which the department has been given authority to obtain reports as to mothers’ aid administration from local administrative units and in a few others which volunteered such services supplied the information from records in their offices or sent out questionnaires to the counties and compiled the statistics for their States. The Children’s Bureau obtained mformation directly from the local administrative agency in 17 States through questionnaires and letters sent to the agencies. A number of State departments that were unable to assemble the material assisted by sending follow-up letters to the counties that failed to respond to the letters sent by the Chil dren’s Bureau. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 were in different parts of the country: Kansas City, Kans.84*; Coving ton, K y.; New Orleans, La.; St. Joseph and Springfield, M o.; Sche nectady, N .Y .; Nashville and Chattanooga, Tenn.; Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, and Waco, Tex.; and Roanoke and Norfolk, Va.^ The increase during the 10-year period in the number of counties and cities granting aid, and in the number of families aided, may be seen in table 1. In 1921 New Jersey and Delaware, of the States using the county as the unit of administration, had made mothers’ aid available throughout the State. In both these States mothers’ aid is administered by a State agency. By 1931 Arizona, California, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Washington had joined the group of States m which mothers’ assistance is really State-wide, except that one county in California which has a population of only 241 reported no aid granted. Definite increase in the number of administrative units known to be granting mothers’ aid is shown by reports from the majority of the other States. In 11 States36 the information received from 88 counties indicated that the aid given to more than 2,000 families more nearly resembled poor relief than mothers’ aid. (See p. 9.) These counties, which had given some assistance to families with dependent children, were not considered as having granted mothers’ aid if the information sent apparently included families receiving poor relief and if grants were made in land instead of cash. The apparent decrease since 1921 in the number of counties granting aid in some of these States is probably due to the inadequacy of records and reporting at the earlier period, which made it difficult to make any distinction between these two forms of aid. T a b l e 1.— Date of passage of first mothers’ aid law, number of administrative units in each State and number of units reporting mothers’ aid grants in 1921 and on a specified date 1 in 1931, and number of families and number of children receiving aid Division and State Number of admin istrative units reporting moth Number of families Number Number ers’ aid grants of admin receiving aid— of chil in States having Date of istrative dren re county jurisdic passage units in ceiving tion of the first States aid on a mothers’ having specified county aid law date in On a jurisdic 19311 During specified June 30, tion 1921 or 1921 date in 1931 1922 19311 2,723 Total_________________ New England: 1917 1913 1917 1913 1923 1919 1,049 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Connecticut-------------------1 Most administrative units reported as of June 30,1931. * Unit of administration is city or town. » Estimate. . 4 Number receiving aid on a given date. 1,490 0 0 0 0 0 0 45,825 93,620 253,298 638 4 144 43 3,391 608 175 90 2,817 388 959 »1,763 516 239 7,235 1,253 2,679 603 34a i n i 9 3 i a statement was received from the commissioner of the poor that mothers’ aid was not granted in Kansas City, but in May 1933 information was obtained that 4 families were receiving mothers aid from thM Kam^^MtesmSTMontmia, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 9 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 T a b l e 1.— Date of passage of first mothers’ aid law, number of administrative units in each State and number of units reporting mothers’ aid grants in 1921 and on a specified date in 1931, and number of families and number of children receiving aid— Continued Division and State Middle Atlantic: New York_______________ New Jersey______________ Pennsylvania...................... East North Central: Ohio.................................... Indiana........................ ...... Illinois__________________ Michigan_____ ______ ___ Wisconsin.................... ...... West North Central: Minnesota.......................... Iowa.................................... Missouri_______ ____ ____ North D akota.................. South Dakota................... . Nebraska________________ Kansas.............. ................ South Atlantic: Delaware________ ____ _ Maryland........................... District of Columbia_____ Virginia___________ _____ West Virginia___________ North Carolina. ____ South Carolina__________ Georgia________________ F lorida............................ . East South Central: Kentucky_______________ Tennessee_______________ Alabama_________ _____ _ Mississippi__ _____ ______ West South "Central: Arkansas___________ ____ Louisiana______________ Oklahoma................. ......... Texas___________________ Mountain: Montana____ ___________ Idaho.................................. Wyoming................ ........... Colorado ......................... Arizona_________________ Utah.................................... Nevada............................. . Pacific: Washington........................ Oregon__________________ California.. ____________ Number of admin Date of istrative passage units in of the first States mothers’ having aid law county jurisdic tion Number of admin istrative - units reporting moth Number ers’ aid grants Number of families of chil receiving aid— in States having dren re county jurisdic ceiving tion aid on a specified On a date in June 30, During 1931 1921 1921 or specified 1931 date in 1922 1931 1915 1913 1913 58 21 67 48 21 50 49 21 57 12,542 2,472 42,494 18,423 8 7,000 6,066 48,686 819,361 18|674 1913 1919 1911 1913 1913 88 92 102 83 71 86 21 54 70 70 88 70 91 775 71 5,763 114 2,500 2,072 3,284 7,708 1,083 «6,087 6,555 « 7,052 21,262 3,387 «17,004 18,030 « 18,188 1913 1913 1917 1915 1913 1913 1915 87 99 8115 53 69 93 105 78 64 32 43 44 56 41 85 98 8 11 «44 «63 82 »32 2,265 1,299 227 608 423 349 430 3,455 »3,242 307 978 1,290 78 1,453 342 9,990 »7,829 1,134 2,644 3,324 «« 4,141 954 1917 1916 1926 1918 1915 1923 3 124 1 » 124 55 100 3 3 7 1 3 « 17 4167 314 121 161 110 334 818 450 595 309 876 1,461 1919 67 1928 1915 120 95 1928 82 1917 1920 1915 1917 75 64 77 254 1915 1913 1915 1913 1931 1914 1913 1913 56 44 23 63 14 29 17 1913 1913 1913 39 38 58 O') ( 12 ) 19 ( 12 ) ( 12 ) 162 4 33 81 41 5 1 4 ( 12 ) 168 ' »2,298 *5,241 117 190 405 656 ( 12 ) 3 (! 2 ) 4 32 22 33 33 13 36 ( 12 ) »46 38 10 42 » 8 14 »15 » 13 23 30 39 »27 57 10 ( 12 ) 13 7 48 »23 45 110 78 131 69 1,896 475 18355 206 « 8 6,166 1,383 839 230 95 650 1,969 619 279 2.166 341 102 131 628 167 414 1,906 374 627 375 2,517 862 4,729 5,605 2,127 11,615 136 ( 12 ) 758 109 567 229 95 428 ( 12 ) ( 12 ) 10 3 14 I Estimate. 4 Number receiving aid on a given date. 4 Includes 13,031 children in 5,3S2 families aided under the Home Life Act and 6,330 children boarded with their mothers. 6 Number receiving mothers’ aid during the year ended June 30,1931. 7 Does not include 6 counties known to be granting mothers’ aid which failed to reply to the question naire. 8 Includes 1 independent city. 8 Aid given was apparently poor relief rather than mothers’ aid in additional counties as follows: Kansas 29, Missouri 13, Montana 6, Nevada 1, North Dakota 1, Oregon 2, South Dakota 3, Texas 9, Utah 7, West Virginia 11, Wyoming 8. 10 Includes for a few administrative units the number receiving mothers’ aid during the year ended June 30, 1931. II The law was applicable to only 2 counties in 1921. 18 Not reported. 13 Includes 24 independent cities. 14Number receiving mothers’ aid during the year ended Oct. 31,1931. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 10 MOTHERS’ AlD, 1631 The number of families reported as receiving aid in 1021 included in most localities the total number that had received aid during the year. Since new families are constantly being added to the group of beneficiaries, and the grants of others for various reasons are dis continued, the number of families aided during a year may be much larger than the number receiving aid on a given date. Figures ob tained from a number of cities reporting monthly statistics to the Children’s Bureau show that the families aided on December 30,1930, were 84 percent of the entire number given some aid during the pre ceding year.36 A comparison of the number of families aided on June 30, 1931, and those aided during the preceding year, in the counties and cities which reported on both of these items, showed approxi mately the same turnover in cases. The 93,620 families receiving aid in 1931 represents, therefore, the minimum number of families, as, except in a few instances, only those receiving aid on a given day were included. This is more than twice the number reported as re ceiving aid during an entire year 10 years previous. Some of the apparent decreases in families aided in 1931, compared with those aided in 1921, are due to this difference in method of counting the families aided at these two periods. The great increase in the number of families aided— 93,620 in 1931 as compared with 45,825 in 1921—is due primarily to the increase in the number of counties granting aid and to the increase in the number of families aided in counties already granting aid in 1921 rather than to the addition of Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia, which passed mothers ’ aid laws between 1921 and 1931. Reports obtained from these States and the District of Columbia show that only 1,144 families having 3,824 children were receiving aid in these areas in 1931. In addition to the extension in the number of counties and cities granting aid, more generous financial provisions by the local units or by the State, more liberal administrative policies, growth in population, and move ment of population to the larger urban areas where mothers ’ aid was being granted, have all contributed to this increase. The increase in number of families aided was not great in most of those States in which aid was being granted throughout the State in 1921. In three of these, Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, the number of families aided remained about the same or actually decreased. In contrast to this, New Jersey, one of this group, shows a steadily increasing use of public aid to children in their own homes as a method of providing for dependent children.37 Although the largest percentage of increase is usually found in those States in which there has been great growth in the number of administrative units granting aid, some States, for example, New York, Ohio, and Wis consin, show a marked increase in families aided and a relatively small addition to the number of administrative units granting aid. In those States in which some of the counties failed to distinguish between mothers ’ aid and poor relief, it is difficult to measure progress, «« Social Statistics in Child Welfare and Related Fields—Annual Report for the Registration Area for the Year 1930, by Glenn Steele, pp. 32 and 51. U.S. Children’s Bureau Publication No. 209. Washington, 1932. 37 Before 1932 families in New Jersey were assisted under two separate legislative provisions. The Act to Promote Home Life for Dependent Children provided for families of widows only and placed a definite limitation on the amount of aid to be granted, but under the Dependent _Children’s Act any dependent child could be boarded with its mother in its own home. In 1932 the Home Life Act was revised so as to make all groups of mothers (except divorced mothers) eligible for assistance under its provisions that are usually included in mothers’ aid laws. Since the passage of this revised act, eligible families previously receiving aid under the Dependent Children’s Act are being aided under the Home Life Act. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 11 since the 1921 figures probably included many families that were actually receiving poor relief. In these States some of the counties reporting aid in 1921 were not the same as those reporting aid in 1931. Increase in the number of families aided in a State should be ac companied by provision of funds sufficiently large to make possible adequate standards of living for all families. Unfortunately, com parable statistics as to expenditures in 1921 and 1931 are not available. TYPES OF FAMILIES AIDED PERSONS CARING FOR CHILDREN AND STATUS OF FATHERS Information as to the persons caring for children receiving mothers’ aid and as to the status of the fathers was obtained for the majority of families reported by 38 States and the District of Columbia. Five State departments which provided information from their own records 38 were unable to give this information, and a number of the counties in other States failed to report on these items. Appendix table A-I (p. 25) gives information as to the status of the father in 60,119 families. Mothers’ aid is still limited largely to families of widows. In 49,477 families (82 percent) the father was dead, in 3,296 families (5 percent) he had deserted, in 2,325 families (4 percent) he was physically disabled, in 1,369 families (2 percent) the parents were divorced, in 1,984 families (3 percent) he was mentally disabled, and in 1,596 families (3 percent) he was in prison. An interesting development, when studied in the light of legal limi tations on eligibility (see p. 3), is the freedom with which some admin istrative agencies have come to interpret mothers’ aid laws and pro vide aid for some mothers not strictly eligible for assistance. Experi ence has shown that in the metropolitan centers where other agencies are available and mothers’ aid is administered by a special staff, the eligibility of the mother under the law is considered of primary importance in awarding a grant. In the smaller counties, however, lack of other agencies, ignorance of the law, or extreme liberality in its interpretation have placed families on the mothers’ aid list for other reasons. It is probable also that because records were obtained in many localities from the county clerk, who also kept records of families receiving poor relief, the failure to discriminate between these two forms of relief resulted in the inclusion of families actually receiving poor relief. Although there are special administrative problems connected with the extension of this form of aid, the need of the security of income provided by mothers’ aid is just as impor tant for families deprived of the breadwinner for causes other than death as it is for the universally accepted one of widowhood. The need for further expansion in the types of families aided by mothers’ assistance laws is evident. In 5 39 of the 10 States that do not provide in the statutes for assis tance to deserted mothers, a few such mothers were nevertheless reported to be receiving aid. Of the 22 States making no provision for mothers who are divorced, 1240 reported aid given by some coun®8 Arizona, California; Idaho, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Information obtained from California in cluded all children receiving State aid rather than those under care in their own homes. 39 Iowa» Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah. « Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah. West Virginia, and Wyoming. 1 7 2 1 0 8 ° — 3 3 --------3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 ties to divorced mothers. It is possible that in some of these States mothers who had been deserted before applying for a divorce were considered eligible on the ground of desertion. No provision is made in 8 States for families m which the father has been imprisoned; in 3 41 of these, however, aid was being granted to a few families of prisoners. With the exception of Connecticut and Utah, which provide for widows only, the needs of families in which the father is permanently disabled physically or mentally have been recognized in all States; in some of these, however, provision for the family is made only under particular conditions or for special handicaps. Michigan, Nebraska, and Tennessee have made specific provision in their statutes for granting aid to unmarried mothers, and 31 of the 55 unmarried mothers reported to have been granted aid were from these States. Although mothers’ aid has not been extended to the children of the unemployed by statute in any State (except in New Hampshire as an emergency measure), in the reports received it was definitely stated in a few cases that the reason for the grant was that the father was unemployed. This is another illustration of the occa sional inclusion of families receiving general relief in those reported as receiving mothers’ aid. In 23 States and in the District of Columbia a total of 1,012 persons other than the mothers were caring for dependent children and receiving mothers’ aid for their support. Nearly two thirds (646) of these family groups were reported by New York State, which makes legal provision for aid to such groups. Thirteen States 42 that had made no provision in the statutes for aid to such families reported scattering numbers under care. Even when the statutory provision is liberal, it is the willingness « of the community or its administrative agency to provide, through mothers’ aid, for families with different types of problems that in fluences the number of such families aided. The cases reported by administrative agencies in 17 States and the District of Columbia having liberal laws showed that in many localities widows constitute a large majority of the mothers aided. In these States the percentage of the families in which the father was dead varied from 54 in Wash ington to 93 in New Hampshire. Much difference is found in the willingness of agencies in different States to provide for families in which the father has deserted or has been divorced. In 5 States (Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, and Washington) from 21 to 35 percent of the families assisted had needed aid because of desertion or divorce, whereas in 5 other States (Missouri, Nevada, New Hamp shire, North Carolina, and Rhode Island) less than 10 percent of the families aided presented these domestic difficulties. In States having legal provisions allowing aid to deserted but not divorced mothers the number of deserted families receiving aid varied from 2 percent of the families in New York to 13 percent of the families in Wyoming. The percentage of mothers aided who were deserted by the fathers seems little affected by the specific provisions (which are found in 10 States) as to the length of time the father must have been away from the family before aid is granted.43 41 Illinois, Maryland, and West Virginia. 42 Arkansas, Kansas, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. 43 3 months—Kansas and Minnesota; 6 months—North Dakota; 1 year—South Dakota, Virginia, Wis consin, and Wyoming; 2 years—New York and Texas; 3 years—Ohio. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 01 MOTHERS’ A ID , 1931 13 The proportion of families aided in which the father was unable to support his family by reason of his imprisonment or physical or mental disability was usually small, but in 6 States (Arkansas, Massachu setts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and North Carolina) and the District of Columbia, from 15 to 22 percent of the families belonged in these groups. In North Carolina the State appropriation has been divided so that a special fund has been made available for assistance to prisoners’ families. Proportionately the State fund for prisoners’ families was much more liberal than the State grant for other mothers’ aid cases, which probably accounts for the large percentage of pris oners’ families reported for this State. The laws of Utah and Con necticut make no provision for grants to families in which the father is mentally or physically disabled. In addition, Idaho, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas make no provision for families in which the father is physically handicapped, and provide for mental cases only when the father is under care in an institution. Iowa restricts its assistance to families in which the mentally or physically disabled father is in a State institution. New York and Michigan provide for families in which the father is receiving hospital care and for those in which a tuberculous father under adequate medical care remains in the home. In the other States any family in which the father is disabled may receive aid, especially if he is receiving hospital care. Analysis of the reports received showed that 1,076 or almost half of the 2,325 fathers who were physically incapacitated, but only 53 of the 1,984 who were mentally incapacitated, were living in the home. RACE OF MOTHERS Information as to the race of the mothers aided was obtained from all reporting agencies in 18 States 44 and the District of Columbia, but from only a part of those in 20 States. No information on race of mother was available for 6 States.46 Appendix table A-II (p. 26) shows the number of families for which race was reported in these areas. Of the total number of families (46,597), 96 percent were white, 3 percent were Negro, and 1 percent belonged to other races. About half of the Negro families aided were reported by counties in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Comparison of the percentage of Negro families in the total popu lation of the counties reporting race, with the percentage of the fam ilies aided that were Negro, shows that provision for Negro families was limited in a number of States. The disproportion between prob able need and provision is even greater when the lower income level of Negro families is taken into consideration. An analysis of the returns from cities of 100,000 or more population and of counties including cities of such size is found in appendix table A -III (p. 27). Information as to the race of families receiving aid was obtained from 24 of these urban areas that had at least 10,000 Negroes in the total population in 1930. In Marion County, Ind., and Knox County, Tenn., the number of families receiving mothers’ aid was too small to admit of valid comparison between the number of Negro and white families given aid. In 11 cities or counties 46 the « Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utajj^, Vermont, and Wyoming. « Arizona, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin. W* « District of Columbia; Jefferson County, Ky.; Baltimore, M d.; Jackson County, Mo.; Cuyahoga County, Franklin County, Lucas County, and Montgomery County, Ohio; Oklahoma County, .Okla.; Allegheny County and Philadelphia, Pa. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 14 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 percentage of families aided that were Negro was larger than the percentage of Negro families in the administrative unit. In 9 coun ties 47 the percentage of families receiving mothers’ aid that were Negroes was smaller than the percentage of Negro families in the county, and in 2 counties no Negro families were given mothers’ aid. Limited provision for Negro families was particularly notable in 5 counties in which from 19 to 45 percent of the families were Negro; Shelby County, Tenn., and Harris County, Tex., had not provided mothers’ aid to Negro families; and the 3 Florida counties had aided only a few Negro families. EXPENDITURES FOR MOTHERS* AID BY STATES During the year ended June 30, 1931, $33,885,487.36 was expended for grants to mothers in the 44 States and the District of Columbia reporting to the Children’s Bureau. (See appendix table A-IY, p. 28.) This amount is an understatement of what was actually spent in grants in aid, as complete figures were not available for California 48 and New Jersey,49 and no information was received from a few locali ties known to be granting aid. During the year covered by the survey the increasing need for assistance to families because of the depression was bringing a large number of applicants for mothers’ aid in some localities. At the same time appropriations were being curtailed or entirely withdrawn because of greatly reduced public revenues. Twenty-one of the 101 counties in four States— Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia— reporting on mothers’ aid stated that aid had been discontinued during the year, or that the number of families had been reduced because of lack of public funds. Inability to collect taxes was given as the cause of such decrease in some of the counties. In one of these States only 13 of the 75 counties in the State had been giving aid, and 4 of these counties discontinued such grants before June 1931 because their funds had been exhausted. Instances of similar limitations in funds were reported from other States. The reports of most localities showed, however, that increasing need had been met by larger appro priations from local and State funds. Comparison of expenditures for mothers’ aid for the year ended June 30, 1931, with those for the year ended on the same date in 1930 80 shows that in 23 of the 30 States for which information was available, expenditures had increased. PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES Annual per capita expenditures based on the population of areas reporting grants have been calculated for each State. Per capita expenditures represent in some States expenditures of the entire State, in others the expenditures of a few counties only. In the indi vidual States expenditures ranged from 3 cents per capita in North Carolina and Louisiana to 82 cents per capita in New York, with an 47 New Castle, Del.; Dade, Duval, and Hillsborough, Fla.; Lake, Ind.; Erie and Westchester, N. Y.; Hamilton and Mahoning, Ohio. 48 For 19 counties the amount of State expenditures was the only figure available. The amount spent from county funds in these counties was not reported. «Only the expenditures under the act “ to promote home life for dependent children” were used. Infor mation as to payments to mothers for the care of children in their own homes under the Dependent Chil dren’s Act was not available. , . , to Lundberg, Emma O.: Child Dependency in the United States; methods of statistical reporting and a census of dependent children in 31 States. Child Welfare League of America, 1933. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 00 expenditure of 26 cents in the States standing midway in the list. The high per capita expenditures in a few States having large populations (Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin) brought the expenditures for all areas m the country granting mothers’ aid to 38 cents per capita. * As is shown in the following list61 the 20 States in which expenditures were above the median in 1931 represented all sections of the country except the East South Central and West South Central divisions. State ♦ 15 Annual per capita expenditure tor mothers’ assistance New York____ N evada._____ Wisconsin____ Michigan.;.__ Massachusetts Montana. ____ South Dakota. North Dakota. Minnesota___ New Jersey__ Washington . . . Rhode Island. Delaware.:___ Connecticut. Iowa_________ California____ Ohio_________ Wyoming____ Utah.......... .. Maine________ Illinois_______ Pennsylvania.. State Annual per capita expenditure tor mothers’ assistance $0. 82 Florida___ ____________________ $0. 24 . 64 Nebraska_____________________ . 24 . 62 Colorado______________________ . 23 . 20 . 61 Oregon______ . . . ______________ . 55 Kansas_______________________ . 13 . 53 Indiana_______ _______________ . 12 . 52 -Tennessee. _ _________ ._ _ . 11 . 10 . 48 West Virginia______________ . 09 . 47 New Hampshire__ _____ ______ . 43 Oklahoma________ ____________ .0 9 . 36 Idaho___________ ___________ . 09 . 35 Virginia _______ _______ _____ . 08 . 07 . 35 Vermont______________________ . 06 . 34 Texas_________________________ . 06 . 32 Arizona____________ ___________ . 31 Arkansas___ __ _____________ . 06 . 06. 29 Missouri____________________ _ . 29 Mississippi_____ _____ ____ ____ . 05 . 28 Maryland____ ____ _________ . 04 . 28 Louisiana___ ______ ______ . 03 . 03 . 26 North Carolina__ ______ __ __ . 26 In most States much variation existed in the extent to which the individual counties or cities had provided funds. Appendix table A-IV (p. 28) shows some rather interesting variations in different States, especially as to per capita expenditures in urban and rural areas. Fourteen States in which mothers’ aid was being granted contained no city of 100,000 population or over, and yet in 6 62 of these rural States per capita expenditures were well above the median. In 13 States 63 including large cities as well as rural and semirural areas, per capita expenditures in areas including large cities were smaller than in less populous areas. In several of these States this situation was influenced by the meager provision in the large cities, but in others, especially in Wisconsin, it was due to the more adequate expenditures of the less populous counties. Per capita expenditures in Baltimore and in the counties in Maryland were the same. In the remaining 14 States the per capita expenditure in urban areas was larger. Urban per capita expenditures were particularly high in Massachusetts and New York. Because of the large number of mothers’ aid families under care in urban areas, the expenditures in one or more cities may bring up the average State expenditure. This was particularly marked in New York, in which New York « Kentucky and the District of Columbia are not included since each represents only 1 administrative unit including a large city. For per capita expenditures, average monthly grants, and families aided per 10,000 population in these 2 units see appendix table A-V, p. 30. *> Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. m California, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. In California only State expenditures were available for the two larger cities. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 16 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 City was granting aid to more than three fourths of the families aided in the State and spending $1.16 per capita. In 13 States State funds had been made available for payment in whole or in part of this form of public aid to children in their own homes.54 The following list shows the per capita expenditures in each of these States and the proportion of the grants that may under the statute be provided by State funds: Per capita State provides total grant: expenditure Arizona______________________________________________ $0. 06 New Hampshire_________________________________ - — •09 State may provide one half of the grant: California____________________________________________ •31 Delaware____________________________________________ •35 Illinois...!____________________________________________ •26 •28 Maine_____________ North Carolina______________________________________ •03 Pennsylvania----------•26 Rhode Island________________________________________ •35 Vermont_____________________________________________ ■07 State may provide one third of the grant: Connecticut__________________________________________ •34 Massachusetts-----------------------------------------------------------•55 Wisconsin____________________________________________ •62 Per capita expenditures were low in the two States in which the total cost of the grants and of administration was borne by the State. Both of these are rural States. In the group in which one half of the expenditures for grants might be provided by the State, per capita expenditures varied from 3 cents in North Carolina to 35 cents in Delaware and Rhode Island. In four States (Delaware, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont) in which payment of one half of the grants was authorized by law, a State agency was administering the funds. The highest per capita expenditures were found in Massa chusetts and Wisconsin, where the State statutes provided for pay ment by the State of one third of the grants. In Wisconsin the State appropriation has been only about $30,000 a year, which is less than 2 percent of the total mothers’ aid expen ditures of the State. In North Carolina the State appropriation is limited by the law to $50,000 a year, and in 1931 one quarter of this was set aside for families of prisoners. The emphasis in the law is on matching State funds and as a result the total expenditure for grants during the ^ear was $82,368.90. In California, where matching of State funds is permissive under the statute, some counties provided only a small amount from county funds. In this connection it should be noted that the great value of State participation in this form of relief is that it results in extending provision for dependent children more generally throughout the whole State and in developing more uniform and better standards of administration in the local agencies. AVERAGE MONTHLY GRANTS The size of the monthly allowance granted to a family fluenced by the number of children eligible for aid, the other contributions to the income of the family, usually ings of its members, and the limitations imposed by the will be in amount of from earn law. The it Virginia provided for State reimbursement in the law passed in 1922 of one third of the grant, but the first State appropriation ($25,000) did not become available until July 1,1932. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 17 average monthly allowance or grant of an administrative unit, or of a group of administrative units, represents the average of the grants given during any one month to all the families, both large and small, some of which may be partly self-sustaining and others completely dependent. Both the standards of an administrative agency and the adequacy of appropriations for mothers’ aid affect the size of its average monthly grant. The average monthly grants ,are calculated on expenditures for grants made during the month of June 1931.85 The small average grant in some States would seem to indicate that in some local ad ministrative units mothers’ aid was considered as a pittance to keep the family alive rather than as a means of maintaining family life or it must be. supplemented by other forms of public or private relief. The following list shows that the average monthly grant varied from $69.31 in Massachusetts to $4.33 in Arkansas; South Dakota with an average of $21.78 was the median State. State Average monthly grant per family Massachusetts______ _________ $69. 31 _________ 55. 09 Rhode Island____ New Y o r k __ «_ _. __________ 52. 62 45. 91 Connecticut________ _______ Pennsylvania_______ __________ 37. 45 Michigan___________ __________ 37. 04 California__________ __________ 31. 40 M arylan d _________ __________ 30. 52 Maine___ _________ __________ 30. 16 New Jersey __ ___ _________ 30. 03 Minnesota__ ___ _________ 29. 35 Tennessee__________ _________ 26. 78 _________ 26. 73 Indiana ______ Colorado. ______ _________ 26. 50 M issou ri___ __ ___ _________ 26. 22 Illinois ________ _ _________ 26. 11 M o n ta n a __ __ _ _________ 24. 78 N e v a d a _______ __. _________ 24. 7b Delaware---- -------- _________ 23. 69 North Dakota______ _________ 22. 93 Wyoming _ -------- _ ______ 22. 55 21. 78 South Dakota__ __ _______ State Ohio___________ Wisconsin____ _ Oregon_________ Vermont_______ Iowa_________ _. New Hampshire Washington__ _ Nebraska______ Arizona________ North Carolina •_ Virginia___ ____ West Virginia. . . Kansas________ Idaho__________ Utah___ ______ Mississippi____ Texas_________ Louisiana____ _ Florida________ Oklahoma_____ Arkansas______ Average monthly grant per family _____$21. 68 _____ 21. 66 _____ 21. 35 _____ 21. 11 _____ 20. 81 _____ 19. 77 _____ 19. 66 _____ 17. 81 17. 25 _____ 16. 64 _____ 16.52 _____ 15. 46 _____ 14.05 _____ 13. 16 _____ 11. 77 _____ 11. 11 _____ 10. 07 _____ 10. 06 _____ 10. 01 7.29 _____ 4. 33 Except in a few States little relation is to be found between statu tory limitations on the allowance that may be provided and the size of the average monthly grant. In the States 53 that have no limita tion on the amount, the average monthly grant varied from $11.11 to $69.31. Although the three States (Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island) that provided an average grant of more than $50 a month belonged in this group, it also included Arizona, Missis sippi, and Virginia with grants much smaller than that of the median State of $21.78. In many States the average monthly grant fell far below the maximum grant that under the statutes might be given for a family of three children, showing that although an occasional family might obtain the maximum, the majority were receiving less. In a few States, however, particularly in Delaware, Montana, Pennsyl55 Figures for other months were used for a few localities, and where no expenditures for a single month were available, a twelfth of the annual expenditures was used. 56 Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York (see p. 4); Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The 1930 law of Louisiana has no limitation on the amount, but it was not in operation at the time of the study. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 18 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 vania, and Vermont, the average monthly grant was within a few dollars of the maximum allowed by law. It is probable that with more liberal laws the grants in these States would be larger. Comparison of the average grant in areas including large cities with that provided in areas with smaller population shows, as might be expected from the higher cost of living in large cities, that with few exceptions grants in urban areas are larger. In a number of States the difference in the size of the grant in the large cities and in other areas was slight. In Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania this is due to the large number of smaller cities included in “ other areas” as well as to the fairly uniform standard of admin istration throughout the State. In other States, notably in Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, and Ohio, the difference in the size of grants in these two types of areas was marked. In three States 57 (Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma) the cities were granting smaller allow ances to families than the less populous areas. The amount that may be expended by any county in Oklahoma is limited by the statutes to $8,000. This amount is quite inadequate for the more populous counties of the State and unless the number of families aided is drastically limited there is a natural pressure towards reducing the size of the grant given. It was the opinion of the mothers’ aid committee of the White House Conference on Child Health and Protection that the only administrative units whose experience could furnish satisfactory evidence as to what constituted an adequate grant were those where the maximum grant is not limited by the statutes and where the allowance is made upon an individual budget basis.58 This com mittee concluded that in 1930 “ adequate grants in large urban centers will probably average $60 or more.” Appendix table A-IV (p. 28) shows that the average grant for June 1931 in 4 States (Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Rhode Island) was more than $50 in large urban areas, but Massachusetts was the only State having an average grant of more than $60. The figures for 82 individual administrative units including a large city, given in appendix table A-V (p. 30), show that an average monthly grant of more than $60 had been provided in only 8 cities,59 6 of these being situated in Massachusetts. In interpreting these figures it should be remembered that changes in the cost of living will affect the amount of monthly allowances. FAMILIES AIDED PER 10,000 POPULATION In order to make a comparison of the number of families aided in different localities, rates have been computed on the basis of the number aided per 10,000 population. Because mothers’ aid was being granted in some States throughout the entire State and in others in only a few localities, these rates have been calculated on the populations of the governmental units actually granting aid. In these areas 93,620 families were receiving assistance. The average 87 Figures for two large cities in California were not complete, which reduces the amount of the average grant in urban areas. 58 The Dependent Child. White House Conference on Child Health and Protection. Century Co., New York City, 1933. In press. ** District of Columbia; Boston, Cambridge, Lynn, Somerville, Springfield, and Worcester, Mass.; and Westchester County, N Y . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 19 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 number of families aided per 10,000 population was 10, and the number of children was 28 per 10,000 population. Considerable variation was found in the different States as to the number of families that were receiving aid. As is shown in the following list, the rates per 10,000 population ranged from 1 in Maryland to 24 in Wisconsin, the median State, Maine, having a rate of 8. State Wisconsin____ Nevada______ South Dakota. Florida______ Utah.......... .. Montana_____ North Dakota Washington__ New York___ Minnesota___ Michigan_____ Delaware_____ Iowa_________ New Jersey__ Ohio_________ Oklahoma____ Wyoming____ Nebraska____ Oregon_______ California____ Illinois_______ Maine_______ Families aided per 10,000 population __________ __________ __________ ______ . . . __________ __________ __________ - . . . _____ __________ __________ _____ ____ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ _________ __________ __________ __________ _________ 24 23 20 20 19 18 18 16 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 8 8 8 State Kansas________ Colorado_______ Massachusetts.. Pennsylvania__ Connecticut____ Rhode Island__ Idaho__________ West Virginia. Arkansas_______ Texas____ _____ Mississippi_____ Virginia________ New Hampshire Indiana________ Tennessee______ Arizona________ Louisiana______ Vermont____ . . . Missouri».______ North Carolina. Maryland______ Families aided per 10,000 population _______ 8 _______ _______ _______ _______ 6 6 6 6 __________ __________ __________ __________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 ___ _ __ _________ ________ _______ 7 7 2 2 1 The wide variation in the number of families aided in the different States cannot be accounted for by differences in need. In localities where the income level of the majority of the population is low ôr where unusual health hazards exist, a larger number of families may be in need of assistance than in more fortunate communities. Such communities are found in many States, but they are not more num erous in those States that are granting aid to a large number of families. Administrative agencies with high standards limit their intake to the number of families that they can provide for satisfac torily, as they recognize the necessity for adequacy in the grants given. Unless appropriations are liberal this means that many families eligible for aid under the law must be cared for by other agencies. If other agencies do not exist, or if standards of adminis tration are low, monthly allowances are sometimes reduced below a level that will provide a margin of safety for the children so that more families may be aided. Both these situations are shown in table A-IV. An average monthly grant of more than $35 in urban areas or of more than $30 in other areas usually meant that the number of families to whom aid was granted had been kept to less than 10 families per 10,000 population.60 The larger proportion of families aided is usually found in the less populous areas and is almost invariably accompanied by a lower monthly grant. In a few States both the average grant and the number of families aided in such areas were low. «o The large number offamilies aided in New York City, Wayne County, Mich., and St. Louis County, Minn., raises the rates for counties including large cities in these States. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 20 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 Information as to the extent to which the agencies administering mothers ’ aid laws were limiting their intake of cases because of lack of funds was obtained for only a few localities. Pennsylvania was the only State from which complete figures were obtained. On June 30, 1931, there were in this State 6,066 families receiving aid and 2,633 families on the waiting list. As a result of this demon strated need State appropriations were increased, and when these funds became available the waiting list was promptly reduced and the rate of families aided was increased. Pennsylvania provides aid only for widows or for families in which the father is permanently confined in an institution for the insane. With legislative provision for other groups of families and correspondingly increased appropria tions, the rate in Pennsylvania would probably be materially higher. The number of families aided in a State is undoubtedly influenced by legal restrictions as to the types of families that may receive mothers’ aid, but the limitations imposed by appropriations and by administrative policies appear to be much more important factors. The number of families aided per 10,000 population in the 10 States that might grant aid to any mother varied from 23 in Nevada to 4 in Indiana, Mississippi, and in New Hampshire. As compared with other New England States, Connecticut, one of the two States granting aid to widows only, had a higher rate than New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, and only slightly lower than Maine and Massa chusetts, although all these States, except Vermont, provide for any needy mother. EXPENDITURES FOR ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICES Information as to the amounts spent for administration and services to. families was obtained from a relatively small number of adminis trative agencies. Except in urban areas providing a separate staff, and in the States that have set up a special local agency to administer mothers’ aid, it is difficult to allocate expenditures because mothers aid is only one of the many activities carried on by such local agencies as the juvenile courts, county commissioners or other poor officials, or county welfare boards authorized to administer mothers’ aid in the different States. Expenditures for all or most of the administrative agencies in the State were obtained from only six States. In two of these (Delaware and New Hampshire) the State is the administrative agency. In Maine and Rhode Island major responsibility for admin istration is placed on the State but local municipal or county boards have certain duties in regard to mothers’ aid and may employ a parttime or full-time worker. In New York and Pennsylvania a special county board has been provided to administer mothers’ aid, the State department having responsibility for supervision rather than for administration. . . . . . Table 2 gives as far as reported the amount spent for administration and the percentage of the total expenditures used in each State for this purpose. The figures for Delaware and New Hampshire include all administrative expenditures. Only State administrative expendi tures were available for Maine and Rhode Island. In both of these States some paid service had been provided by a few of the local boards that are assisting the State department in its administration of mothers’ aid. In Pennsylvania both State and local funds may be https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 21 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 used by the local administrative agency for administrative purposes, but in New York only local funds are used. The figures for these two States include all administrative expenditures of the counties which reported but do not include State expenditures for supervision of the work of the local administrative agency. T able 2.— Total expenditure for mothers’ aid and expenditures for administration and services to mothers in certain States Expenditures durine year ended June 30, 1931 Administrai ion and services to nothers State Total Amount Delaware___________ ____ Maine______ ___ ______ New Hampshire..... ......... . New York_________ _____ Pennsylvania____________ Rhode Island______ _____ $92, 215.00 238,701.75 44.999.92 ' 10,199,884.85 2,739,929.52 126,500. 00 Percent $8,650.00 18,056. 75 3,324.92 468,619.60 240,108. 50 8,500.00 9 8 7 5 9 7 ' Excluding grants to families in 8 counties not reporting administrative expenses. From 5 to 9 percent of the total expenditures in the State or in areas reporting was spent for services and administration in these six States. The expenditures for New York State are dominated by New York City, which spent only 4 percent on services and adminis'fff tration. Administrative expenditures in other sections of New York constitute 7 percent of the total budget for these areas. Experts estimate that 10 to 15 percent of the total appropriation should be used for administration, as social services for the families are neces sary to secure the largest returns from the grants.61 The proportion of the appropriation that should be used for administration will be influenced by statutory limitations on the allowances that can be given to families, as the cost of services is the same whether the allowance is large or small. The administrative expenditures of mothers’ aid agencies in 32 cities of 100,000 or more population, or in counties containing such cities, are shown in appendix table A-V, on page 30. More than half of these units (18) were using at least 7 percent of their total appropriation for administrative purposes, and 9 allowed 10 per cent or more. The need of funds for administration and services has been recognized in the mothers’ aid law of Pennsylvania, which provides that not more than one tenth of the total State and county appropriation shall be used for administrative purposes in the various counties. All the Pennsylvania counties that included large cities were using for services the maximum allowed by the law. The small administrative expenditures reported by some cities may be due to incomplete figures, resulting from the difficulty of allocating admin istrative expenditures in an agency responsible for several different types of work for which certain staff members may be used in common. It is evident, however, that in many jurisdictions inadequate provision has been made for the employment of a staff large enough to provide the services needed by the families. The Dependent Child. (In press.) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 22 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 EXPENDITURES FOR MOTHERS’ AID BY CITIES AND COUNTIES With the exception of those States in which State administration has resulted in fairly uniform provisions throughout the State, much variation existed in the per capita expenditures for mothers’ aid in individual administrative units. This situation was found even in States in which State funds had been provided, since unless mothers’ aid is financed entirely by the State the extent to which State fimds are available is influenced by the willingness or ability of the local units to make appropriations. Pennsylvania was outstanding in the comparative uniformity of the average monthly grant and in per capita expenditures for mothers’ aid families throughout the State. The excellent educational program and the close cooperation of the State department with local boards of mothers’ assistance have probably had much to do with this. Reports from the smaller administrative units showed that in many States per capita expenditures were high in some counties, whereas in adjoining counties the low per capita expenditure might indicate little understanding of the needs of dependent families. Appendix table A-VI (p. 33) gives a general picture of the per capita expenditure for mothers’ aid in the less populous counties of States administering aid on a county basis. More than half of the counties reporting aid given had spent less than 30 cents per capita for this purpose. In 10 States 62 all the counties had expended less than 30 cents per capita. In many of the remaining States a few counties had made very liberal provision for mothers’ aid. In 6 States 63 more than one tenth of the counties reporting had spent 90 cents or more per capita. Information as to larger administrative units is shown in more detail in appendix table A-V, page 30. In a number of States much uni formity is found in the amount of the average monthly grant provided in administrative units including large cities. In other States there is evidently wide variation in the standards of administrative agencies in the different cities or counties, some having a large average grant, others a small one. Little uniformity is to be found usually in the number of families aided per 10,000 population. Of the 82 adminis trative units for which figures are given in table A-V, 52 were aiding less than 10 families per 10,000 population, 26 were granting aid to at least 10 but less than 20 families, and 4 were assisting more than 20 families. In a number of administrative units providing fairly large grants, notably the District of Columbia, Marion County (Ind.), Bal timore (M d.)64, and Springfield (Mass.) the number of families aided per 10,000 population was very small. Rates of 20 or more families per 10,000 population were found in Duval County (Fla), St. Louis County (Minn.); Mercer County (N.J.), and New York (N.Y.), but the average grants in these four administrative units were smaller than those of other counties including large cities in the State in which each is located. Exclusive of the 8 counties in California and New Jersey for which complete information as to expenditures was not available, the amount of the average monthly grant was $60 or more in 8 counties or cities, 52 Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. 63 California, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wisconsin. MAppropriations in Baltimore were limited by law to $30,000 a year. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MOTHERS’ AID. 1931 23 $40 to $59 in 24 counties or cities, $20 to $39 in 30 counties or cities, and less than $20 in 12 counties or cities. Some differences exist in the cost of living in different localities, but these differences are probably not great because all the areas include a large city. Unless supplemented from other sources, many of the grants are quite limited. As was noted earlier, legal limitations on the size of the grant that can be given are seriously handicapping some of these cities in providing for dependent families. During 1931 and 1932 the Children’s Bureau received monthly reports as to the number of families receiving mothers’ aid and the total expenditures for grants during these months, from 63 of the 82 cities of 100,000 population included in appendix table A-V, page 30. An analysis of the changes in expenditures and in the number of families aided in these cities during these 2 years is presented in appendix B, page 35. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS During the 20 years since the first State-wide mothers’ aid law was enacted in 1911, special legislation providing public aid for the care in their own homes of dependent children deprived for various reasons of the support of their fathers has been enacted in all the 48 States except Georgia and South Carolina. Two States passed mothers’ aid laws in 1931— New Mexico in March and Alabama in Julv. (See footnote 2,p .l) Much variation existed in the extent to which mothers’ aid laws had been put into operation in the 44 States that reported mothers’ aid figures in 1931. In only 13 States were all the administrative units granting aid. In 16 other States three fourths or more of the counties or cities authorized were granting aid, but in 15 States little progress had been made, although in some of these States the statutes had been on the books for many years. Traditions and attitudes toward the use of public funds for the relief of dependent persons vary greatly in different parts of the country and are reflected in the extent to which mothers’ aid laws are put into operation. The appropriation of State funds to assist local administrative agencies in providing for families and the services and guidance of a State agency have had a significant place in the development of a State-wide mothers’ aid program in a number of States. Some fairly definite trends in mothers’ aid legislation can be traced through study of the amendments or revisions that have been made in existing mothers’ aid laws and of the provisions of newly enacted laws. One of the most significant of these is the gradual broadening in the definition of the persons eligible for assistance, thus making it possible to provide aid to many families that previously could not obtain this form of public assistance. The number of States that have made possible the granting of aid to children until they are at least 16 years of age is steadily increasing. Recognition of the principle that chil dren for whom the public assumes responsibility should be brought up under satisfactory standards of living has resulted, in a number of States, in increases in the amount of the maximum grant established by the law. Another definite trend found in recent legislation is increasing provision for participation by the State through the use of State funds to assist local units in providing mothers’ aid allowances https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 24 M OTHERS’ AID, 1931 or through making the services of a State agency available to local administrative agencies. The amounts provided from tax sources for the care of dependent children in their own homes in different parts of the country varied widely. Average annual expenditures in the different States for all administrative areas granting mothers’ aid ranged from 3 cents to 82 cents per capita. In individual counties or cities annual expenditures ranged from less than one half cent to as much as $2.61 per capita. In a large proportion of the administrative units that reported figures, funds were too limited to provide adequately for all the fami lies made eligible for assistance by the statutes. In localities in which standards of administration were high and in which other agencies were available to care for dependent families, there was a definite tendency, under these circumstances, to limit the number of families accepted for care, in order that allowances for families should not fall below an amount necessary to assure normal and satisfactory develop ment for the children for whom the public had accepted responsi bility. Average monthly grants for all administrative areas in the different States varied from $4.33 to $69.31. With average monthly grants in 21 States falling below the median grant of $21.78 per family, it is evident that allowances in many localities had been affected by the attempt to divide limited funds among many families. Such allowances bear no relation to the actual needs of the families. Mothers’ aid is not an emergency measure. It is a long-time program to prevent the breaking up of families and to assure care for dependent children in their own homes, often during the most formative years of their lives. Every effort should be made to provide allowances that will maintain a satisfactory standard of living in these families. # https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis APPENDIX A.— TABLES T able A -I.— Status of father in families receiving mother’s aid on June SO, 19S11 Families for which status of father was reported Father dead Division and State 2 Total Num ber Father Father Par dis desert ents di abled Per ing vorced phys cent ically 49,477 82 3,296 1,369 2,325 1,984 1,596 608 175 90 1, 564 379 959 496 163 80 1,197 '332 959 82 93 89 77 88 100 27 5 3 122 15 39 1 26 25 7 18 6 6 40 13 2 1 156 9 17,472 6,066 15,469 5,866 88 97 375 7,834 1, 018 1,389 3,060 6,436 828 1,087 lj 991 82 81 78 65 456 69 157 356 3,518 2’ 333 184 872 1,157 1,106 352 2,500 2,186 ’ 125 633 880 659 226 71 94 68 73 76 60 64 292 309 430 1,630 258 80 127 238 318 1,040 117 199 34 81 181 30 Total ............ ........... 60,119 New England: Middle Atlantic: East North Central: West North Central: South Atlantic: 93 East South Central: West South Central: Mountain: XJtab Pacifie: Washington__________ Father Father dis im Mother un Other abled prison married status men ed tally 55 17 24 3 631 737 200 259 1 33 39 22 173 397 17 60 150 253 23 46 120 255 39 14 253 4 3 3 17 329 5 12 99 23 230 45 66 1 4 43 173 75 33 335 5 18 37 25 57 19 105 44 13 31 22 26 5 182 92 10 28 33 45 16 1 88 86 79 17 3 g 77 74 21 39 64 198 1 5 2 219 8 1 12 22 11 75 6 1 10 12 6 65 8 3 10 54 33 69 91 (3) 21 5 1 4 5 5 7 6 1 2 1 14 2 1 8 3 1 1 2 87 70 2 1 24 33 3 6 13 22 44 6 87 8 1 648 69 477 589 141 89 73 73 96 88 10 12 93 15 7 5 2 45 5 4 35 4 11 3 5 9 8 22 1 21 3 2 1 1,187 474 54 83 433 28 326 9 120 24 61 13 71 26 5 56 33 1,346 ’ 250 45 32 1,175 ' 174 731 95 655 613 160 2,205 574 80 ( 3) 7 7 2 >A few administrative units in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska; New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee reported for families receiving aid during the year ended June 30,1931. . 2 Status of father not reported by Arizona, California, Idaho, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin. * Percent not shown because number was less than 50. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 26 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 A -II.— Race of mother in families receiving mothers' aid on June SO, 193) \ and number and percentage of Negro families in the areas reporting race T able Families for which race of mother was reported Negro families in areas reporting (1930 census) Division and State3 Negro Total White Other Number New England: Maine_______ ______ _____ New Hampshire__________ Vermont..................... ......... Rhode Island........ ............... Connecticut......................... Middle Atlantic: New York________ _______ Pennsylvania-..................... East North Central: Ohio...................... .............. Indiana.............................. Illinois...... ......................... . Michigan........ ..................... West North Central: Minnesota....... - .................. Iowa_________ ______ _____ Missouri............................... North Dakota____________ South Dakota...................... Nebraska.......................... . Kansas......... ........................ South Atlantic: Delaware....... ....................... Maryland________ _______ District of Columbia......... West Virginia....................... North Carolina___________ Florida............ ................. East South Central: Kentucky (Jefferson County) Tennessee...........__........... __ Mississippi_______________ West South Central: Arkansas.....................- ........ Louisiana.............................. Oklahoma______ _________ Texas............. _..................... Mountain: Montana.............................. Wyoming................... ......... Colorado............................... Utah..................................... Nevada....................... ......... Pacific: Washington.............. .......... Oregon___________________ California........... ................. 1 Number Percent Percent 608 175 90 388 959 607 175 90 384 916 4 43 1 4 3,734 6,066 3,657 * 5,700 66 366 2 6 11 17,809 98,942 1 7,251 1, 083 1, 497 2,962 6,806 1,-074 lj 445 2,877 361 9 51 71 5 84 73,954 5 3 2 1 14 4,724 3,247 1 1 3,485 2,304 173 765 1,135 948 345 3,456 2,222 159 763 1,132 945 301 16 47 14 (3) 13 35 2,592 3,704 ( 3) 2 3 44 (3) (3) 120 (3) 314 93 161 285 429 2,006 286 78 87 276 425 1,976 27 15 74 9 4 30 9 16 46 3 1 1 117 194 34 92 191 34 25 3 21 2 56 69 1,203 211 55 69 1,096 207 819 95 650 628 167 802 95 638 626 165 7 1 1,904 574 2,620 1,883 571 2,414 13 1 52 (3) 2 g ($) b 174 2 1 13 1 2 91 1 8 (3) 4 (3) (3) 1 (3) 3,807 1 16 3 13 1 2 1 7,682 13 29t995 5 264 24 73,069 27 14,622 46 778 8^720 68 5, 917 27 767 16,882 29,457 6 19 447 124 16 (3) 1 5 1 2 3 ,3 5 3 311 164 (3) 8 2 154 1,750 139 7,753 (3) 1 1 1 1 1 Some administrative units in Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York’ North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee reported for families receiving aid during the year ended June 30, 1931. * Race of mother not reported by Arizona, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin. * Less than 1 percent. * Includes white and other. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 27 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 T a b l e A -III.— Race of mother in fam ilies receiving mothers' aid on June SO, 1931, in administrative units having cities of 100,000 or more population and having at least 10 percent or 10,000 Negro population in the units reporting race State and administrative un it1 Delaware: New Castle Co______ City with 100,000 or more population Wilmington___ Washington___ Florida: Indiana: Kansas City__ New York: Ohio: Pennsylvania: Philadelphia... Tennessee: Memphis_____ Families for which race of mother was Negro families reported in adminis trative unit (1930 census) Negro Total White Num Per ber cent 2 Other Num ber 202 161 187 87 14 74 7 46 158 3 528 210 140 524 205 18 4 5 11 1 2 126 20 117 52 83 125 20 92 40 74 1 1 21 23 11 fi 704 12 023 14 022 33 102 IL 750 10 25 12 9 540 239 530 232 10 7 2 3 3 818 4,452 2 4 903 338 451 263 138 163 154 813 303 412 249 130 145 124 90 35 39 14 8 18 29 10 10 9 5 6 11 19 17 070 8, 081 14 483 3* 207 4 234 4, fil 4 4,103 907 4831 1,336' 4 1,116 76 220 8 16 336 111 110 33 111 110 3 1 Per cent 4,363 29,995 7, finii 7,447 1.3 1 IQ 171 50 ! 997 4, 018 36 366 19,’ 34Ö 11 24 10 35 19 lß 17 9 5 g g 4 g 0 7 O U 13 45 21 1 Race of mother was not reported by any administrative units in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin, nor by units having cities of 100,000 or more population and having at least 10 percent or 10,000 Negro population in California, Alameda and Los Angeles Counties; Illinois, Cook County; Michigan Wayne County; Missouri, St. Louis city; Nebraska, Douglas County; New York, New York City; Ohio, Summit County; Oklahoma, Tulsa County; Texas, Dallas County. 2 Percent not shown where the number of families was less than 50. 2 Reported for families receiving aid during the year ended June 30, 1931. 4 Includes white and other. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to T a b l e A -IV .— Expenditure for grants and number of fam ilies aided per 10,000 population 1 in areas reporting mothers’ aid grants Expenditure for grants during year ended June 30, 1931 * Average monthly grant per family Per capita State New England: Maine__________ ____ New Hampshire_____ Vermont____________ Massachusetts_______ Rhode Island________ Connecticut.......... . Middle Atlantic: New York___________ New Jersey................. . Pennsylvania________ East North Central: Ohio________________ Indiana_____________ Illinois______________ Michigan____________ Wisconsin___________ West North Central: Minnesota__________ Iowa________________ Missouri............. ......... North Dakota_______ South Dakota_______ _ Nebraska___________ Kansas_____________ South Atlantic: Delaware____________ Maryland___________ District of Columbia 9. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Total Other areas State 14 13 2 18 20 *11 8 13 16 2 14 18 20.94 16.18 13 1 * .22 .13 .23 .54 .65 167,100.40 28,951.49 « 158,581.48 242,772.14 « 152,766. 58 21.68 26.73 « 26.11 37.04 « 21.66 38.16 33.70 *48.98 55.22 *27.33 * 15.30 12.19 24.30 .41 .32 .07 . 48 . 52 .23 .16 101,415.81 » 50,808.61 8,052.00 22,428. 50 27) 118. 50 25) 878.66 4,510.73 29.35 «20.81 26.22 22.93 21.78 17.81 14.05 38.38 *18.55 33.12 .36 .04 7,437.40 3,693.10 10,598. 50 23.69 30.52 25.21 49.55 65.83 1,947,547.07 325,791.81 1,905, 206.81 2,836 , 995.93 l' 833Ì 198.92 .29 . 12 .26 .61 .62 .35 .09 .28 .68 .53 1,208, 790.86 ' 797) 195. 22 86) 516.00 .47 .32 .06 .58 .37 .06 .35 .04 .26 23.94 * 21.10 9.61 22.93 21.78 17.22 14.24 15 « 13 6 .36 «.36 .25 .35 .04 16 5 712 17 7 27 40.02 «30.22 37.25 .96 «.48 .29 83,565.00 45^ 758.70 125i 195.39 8 3 75 11 716 54.39 «29.95 37.68 .82 «.43 .26 .32 .07 25.86 *20.54 12 4 ?8 14 724 52.62 « 30.03 37.45 • 1, 753,', 665.85 2 , 499,821.02 )24 .13 8 « 11 6 969,362.95 « 161,628.34 227,185.52 .75 .34 .40 18,338.00 3 , 460.00 i) 900. 00 » 195Ì 250.00 21,374.56 44)023.74 309,373.94 58,687.75 17 15 7 *66.02 59.55 46.68 8 4 3 7 6 6 .28 .09 .07 .41 .36 .32 10,025,626.77 9 6 7 8 4 3 5 6 6 30.16 19.77 21.11 * 73.42 52.43 45.50 07 .55 .3 5 .3 4 2,343,000.00 241,705.48 553,657.53 11 30.16 19.77 21.11 » 69.31 55.09 45.91 $31.97 _____ 19.98 10.33 Other areas 10 10 $2,993,175.04 r2ft 09 Other areas $22.51 $0.29 $0.38 Areas hav ing cities of 100,000 or more population State $43.50 $0.48 $33,885,487.36 Areas hav ing cities of 100,000 or more population 6 18 20 »13 7 *n 8 13 1 3 14 2 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 Total—...................... Areas hav ing cities of 100,000 or more population Number of families reoeiving aid on June 30, 1931,* per 10,000 population Expenditure for grants in June 19319 Division and State Total 00 21,320.00 .08 .05 .10 63,838.00 82.368.90 .03 No mothers’ aid law on June 30, 1931. No mothers’ aid law on June 30, 1931. .24 282,166.42 .36 62,968. 86 .18 60.311.66 .11 .11 No mothers’ aid law on June 30, 1931. .05 6,320.00 21,426. 60 8,166.00 140; 129. 25 64,838.82 .06 .03 .09 .06 242,753. 21 .53 .09 36,314.50 25,334.40 .29 204; 854.70 .23 Law passed in 1931. 25,280.00 .06 90,538.00 .28 47,349.00 .64 558,643. 70 191,759.16 « 1,785,183.10 .36 .26 31 .15 .03 1,816.67 5,103.00 7,203.07 .16 21,794.13 .10 16.52 15.46 16.64 30.86 10 .0 1 15.69 26.78 46.40 30.54 .12 5,428. 58 5,089.00 .05 500.00 .06 .03 .04 567.25 693.84 11,983.93 5,540.27 4.33 10.06 7.29 12.07 .53 .09 .29 .18 20,790.37 ‘ 3,026.21 2,142. 50 17; 225.73 24.78 » 13.16 22.55 26.50 .26 .06 .32 .64 2,260.00 7,391.00 4,135.00 17.25 11.77 24.76 12.57 .31 .25 ».25 .41 .27 11.42 49,484.47 17,869.50 » 148,493. 51 19.66 21.35 31.40 33.29 H 27.94 .04 .07 .33 .11 i Based on population reported in the 1930 census. * In a few instances administrative units reported for a year ended on some other date. * In a few instances administrative units reported for a month other than June 1931. 4In a few instances administrative units reported for some other specified date. >Estimate. 0 Report comprises aid given under Home Life Act only. 7Number receiving mothers’ aid during the year ended June 30,1931. 1Includes for a few administrative units the number receiving aid during the year ended June 30,1931. 4Single administrative area including a large city. >o Most of the families in urban administrative units. u includes State expenditure only in counties for which county expenditure was not reported. 11.11 11 11.85 15.46 16.64 2 6.24 4 5 2 11 5 2 20 19 20 16.55 3 3 3 11.11 4 6 4 4.78 12.40 4.33 10.06 6.59 9.82 *5 3 81 2 4 5 3 ‘ 13 4 18 18 ‘ 6 11 42.88 24.78 » 13.16 22.55 19.78 7 7 ‘ 6 11 8 17.25 10.94 24.76 3 19 23 16 19.27 15.88 « 35.41 11 8 16 14 20.20 >5 87 8 7 3 24 23 18 15 10 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 Virginia............. .................................. West Virginia..____ ________________ North Carolina.......... ............................ South Carolina................... ............... Georgia_______________________ ____ _ Florida__________________ ____ _____ East South Central: Kentucky (Jefferson County) 4_______ Tennessee10________________________ Alabama___________________________ Mississippi.________________________ West South "Central: Arkansas___________________________ Louisiana_____________ ____ ____ ____ Oklahoma........................ ..................... Texas___________ ____ ______________ Mountain: Montana__________ ______ __________ Idaho._____________________________ Wyoming__________________________ Colorado___________________________ New Mexico_____ __________________ Arizona______________ ____ _________ Utah........................................................ Nevada ..... Pacific: Washington..____ __________________ Oregon___________ ____ ____________ California________ ____ ____ _________ to CD https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis T a b l e A -V . Expenditures for mothers' aid grants and administration and services, number of fam ilies and children receiving aid, and average monthly grant per fam ily m administrative units reporting which had cities of 100,000 or more population Expenditures during year ended June 30, 1931 i State and administrative unit City Total San Diego County________ San Francisco County_____ Colorado: Denver County____ Connecticut: Bridgeport (city)_________ Hartford (city)___________ New Haven (city)________ Delaware: New Castle County. District of Columbia__________ Florida: Dade County_____________ Duval County..................... Hillsborough County______ Illinois: Cook County_____________ Peoria County____________ Indiana: Allen County_____________ Lake County_____________ Marion County___________ St. Joseph County________ Vanderburgh County______ Iowa: Polk County___________ Kansas: Sedgwick County_____ Kentucky: Jefferson County___ Maryland: Baltimore (city)___ Massachusetts: Boston (city)_____________ Cambridge (city)__________ Fall River (city)__________ Lowell (city)______________ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Per capita Amount Percent of total Oakland___________ Los A n g eles, Long Beach San Diego_______ . . . San Francisco______ Denver____________ $234,421.44 4350,026. 57 $0.49 4. 16 560 1,027 1,288 2,611 $34.07 4 27.77 58,047.85 4234, 266. 97 96,360.00 .28 4. 37 .33 122 829 189 356 1,746 662 31.04 423.55 42.88 Bridgeport_________ Hartford___________ New Haven________ Wilmington________ Washington________ 41, 759.87 59,043. 00 89,584. 21 55, 565.00 125,195.39 .28 .36 .55 .35 .26 161 179 269 441 546 595 46.17 47. 31 46.48 25. 21 65.83 Miami_____________ Jacksonville________ Tampa_____________ 58,193. 00 57,669. 50 48,000. 00 .41 .37 .31 159 470 240 477 1,034 545 30.36 10.23 16.67 Chicago____________ Peoria______________ 1,108,439.50 34,060.00 .28 .24 ' 1,812 « 132 '5,547 Fort Wayne............... Gary_______________ Indianapolis________ South Bend________ Evansville__________ Des M oines.._______ Wichita____________ Louisville___________ Baltimore___________ 11,435.00 40, 206. 00 14,521. 20 24, 728. 70 7,428. 20 63,883.00 10,175. 00 62,968.86 31,913. 20 .08 .15 .03 .15 .07 .37 .07 .18 .04 Boston_____________ Cambridge__________ Fall River__________ Lowell______________ 827,908.98 99,804.70 45,684.65 91,652.18 1.06 .88 .40 .91 67 103 159 $12,993.09 9 202 '5 «222 (s) 4,160. 00 7 12,146.11 2,800. 32 16 8 1,926 280 199 361 50.98 21.50 26.30 29.90 58.01 44.00 28.19 18.55 10.33 46.40 49.55 68.38 72.52 59.92 56.49 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 California: Alameda County_________ Los Angeles County______ Administration and services Grants Number of Number of Number of families Average families children receiving monthly receiving receiving aid on grant per aid on aid on June 30, family June 30, June 30, 1931, per during 1931 * 1931 a 10,000 pop June 19313 ulation a https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .53 .44 .37 .25 .42 65 69 46 39 102 159 196 101 110 260 6 6 4 3 5 66.92 52.72 60.17 72.36 62.12 .63 .47 .71 2,069. 70 2 204 288 2,003 545 934 5,608 10 12 11 52.68 34.28 58.49 .40 .60 .99 13,140. 00 6 11,527. 50 5 418 381 496 1,388 1,093 L 427 8 13 24 45.86 37.63 32.64 .05 .06 .32 3, 750.00 13 83 134 «311 280 »496 * 1,022 2 2 « 13 24.78 38.28 19.98 «323 * 1,084 81,307 «380 «344 «328 8838 « 2,495 « 2,770 «923 «845 «947 8 13 8 13 « 19 *20 « 11 «11 «31.43 * 31. 51 * 27. 77 *28.44 « 30.19 « 33. 52 8.44 e.44 8. 57 8.66 8.39 8.38 .43 .45 .34 1.16 .70 .23 .32 .25 6,991. 50 33,271.98 12,635. 97 347,207.99 6,100. 00 3,800. 00 7 9 8 4 4 5 188 540 263 14,568 235 116 239 263 509 1,646 780 37,359 756 387 672 2 658 9 7 6 21 12 4 5 8 40.72 56.90 49.03 54.47 52.49 53.28 62.94 33.29 .43 .38 .42 .30 .28 .24 .33 .17 49,884.45 « 6,303. 45 13,876.00 7, 570.00 2,868.20 3,500.00 1,800.00 1,850.00 9 4 5 7 4 5 2 3 903 338 451 310 130 163 195 326 2,821 1,126 1,374 847 368 470 590 783 8 9 8 9 6 6 9 9 48.69 34.38 46.27 29.15 39.62 33.75 32.38 15. 32 .04 .04 1,800.00 18 154 125 358 347 7 7 4.33 5.33 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 54,569.03 Lynn_________ Lynn (city)_____________ 49,289.89 New Bedford__ New Bedford (city)-------38,088.42 Somerville_____ Somerville (city)________ 37,253.10 Springfield_____ Springfield (city)_______ 81,973.64 Worcester_____ Worcester (city)________ Michigan: 133,151.93 Flint.................. Genesee County________ 113,827.00 Grand Rapids_ Kent County___________ 1,335,029. 37 Detroit________ Wayne County------ -------Minnesota: 208,912.59 Minneapolis___ Hennepin County---------171,117. 00 St. Paul_______ Ramsey County________ 203,430. 50 Duluth________ St. Louis County_______ Missouri: 24.063.00 Kansas City___ Jackson County________ 52,846. 00 St. Louis______ St. Louis (city)_____ ____ 74,572.44 Omaha________ Nebraska: Douglas County.New Jersey: « 111, 596.02 Camden_______ Camden County________ * 363,478.67 Newark_______ Essex County---------------« 390,641. 27 Jersey City....... Hudson County------------8 123,634.65 Trenton_______ Mercer County_________ « 117,667. 46 Paterson______ Passaic County------------8 116,878. 76 Elizabeth_____ Union County..._______ New York: 91.691.00 Albany________ Albany County__ ______ 341,856. 22 Buffalo________ Erie County-----------------144,415.40 Rochester_____ Monroe County________ 8,051,637.40 New York City. New York City_________ 139,389.22 Utica_________ Oneida County_________ 68.230.00 Syracuse______ Onondaga County....... ... 166.004.00 Yonkers_______ Westchester County____ 85.475.00 Portland______ Oregon: Multnomah County. Ohio: 513,599.34 Cleveland_____ Cuyahoga County........... 137.811.00 Columbus_____ Franklin County_______ 246.091.00 Cincinnati____ Hamilton County______ 105.444.00 Toledo________ Lucas County.------ ------66.480.00 Youngstown___ Mahoning County______ 65,000.00 Dayton_______ Montgomery County----73,110. 00 Canton_______ Stark County__________ 59,708.50 Akron________ Summit County________ Oklahoma: 8, 000.00 Oklahoma City. Oklahoma County______ 8, 000.00 Tulsa_________ Tulsa County------ --------1 In a few instances the report was for a year ended on some other date. 2 In a few instances the report was as of some other specified date. * In a few instances the report was for some other month. « Only State expenditure; county expenditure not reported. * Number receiving aid during the year ended June 30, 1931. 6 Less than 1 per 10,000. 2 Estimate. • Report comprises aid given under Home Life Act only. • Includes expenditures for administration of other types of work. OO T able A-V.— Expenditures for mothers' aid grants and administration and services, number of fam ilies and children receiving aid, and average monthly grant per fam ily in administrative units reporting which had cities of 100,000 or more population— Continued Expenditures during year ended June 30, 1931 State and administrative unit City Grants Total Pennsylvania: Tennessee: Texas: Salt Lake City______ Washington: Seattle______________ Per capita $381,816.92 67,470. 00 43,026.98 107,080. 22 561,422.84 86,289. 50 $0.28 .29 .25 .34 .29 .34 10,083.56 40,000. 00 .06 .13 19,567. 00 29,726.00 49,705. 00 10,000.00 .05 .09 .26 .05 136,120. 00 65,670. 00 37,495.00 383,672.50 .29 .40 .25 .53 i Number receiving aid during the year ended June 30, 1931. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Amount $42,125. 26 7,434.40 4,696.98 11,677.86 62,364.78 Percent of total 10 10 10 10 10 907 166 112 275 1,336 145 28 126 275 229 319 27 1 664 620 300 145 ‘ 1,170 1,458 660 330 ‘ 3,326 111 110 1,860. 00 4 10, 200.00 7 4,000.00 4,360.00 6 10 2,743 471 326 923 4, 282 465 * Estimate. 330 987 80 Number of families receiving aid on June 30, 1931, per 10,000pop ulation 7 7 6 9 7 6 2 Average monthly grant per family during June 1931 $37.53 35.99 38.06 38.58 37.79 59.55 4 30.00 30.68 3 7 16 15.18 11.07 12.57 30.86 13 18 20.29 18.17 24.00 27.33 1 10 ‘ 16 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 Pittsburgh__________ Administration and services Number of Number of children families receiving receiving aid on aid on June 30, June 30, 1931 1931 CO 33 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 T able A-VI.— Counties having no cities o f 100,000 or more population, classified by per capita expenditure for mothers’ aid grants during the year ended June SO, 1931, in specified States reporting grants Counties having no cities of 100,000 or more population Per capita expenditures Division and State1 Total Less than 10cents Total_______________ 10 to 29 30 to 49 60 to 69 70 to 89 90 cents Not re and cents cents cents cents ported more 1,416 284 631 343 128 63 42 16 62 2 1 16 3 43 11 8 16 6 2 21 6 19 15 14 12 22 12 23 38 39 48 9 7 64 15 16 18 19 5 14 3 Middle Atlantic: New York____ _______ New Jersey8_______ Pennsylvania_________ East North Central: Ohio__________________ Indiana______________ Illinois_____________ Michigan_____________ Wisconsin..................... West North Central: Minnesota______ _______ Iowa_______ _________ M issouri...____________ North Dakota__________ South Dakota Nebraska______________ Kansas________________ South Atlantic: Delaware______________ Maryland______________ Virginia_______________ West Virginia__________ North Carolina_________ P Florida________ _____ _ East South Central: Tennessee________ _____ Mississippi........ .............. West South Central: Arkansas______________ Louisiana______________ Oklahoma Texas_____ _______ _____ Mountain: Montana_________ ____ _ Idaho__________________ Wyoming______________ Colorado___________ ___ Arizona________________ U tah............................... Nevada________________ Pacific: Washington____________ Oregon________________ California3............^_____ 80 65 88 72 70 82 97 9 44 60 81 31 2 6 2 3 26 10 3 3 8 8 1 2 4 10 5 60 33 52 1 9 12 1 1 21 21 2 3 25 10 11 17 i 46 38 10 41 14 14 13 36 26 63 15 1 13 1 10 3 1 2 13 7 46 20 8 6 2 3 7 22 14 17 1 8 81 6 1 17 81 38 i 53 1 6 i 3 13 7 14 4 2 6 11 3 24 3 7 2 1 8 s 12 2 6 3 5 1 2 2_i 1 3 1 14 10 1 22 9 4 1 Excludes the 6 New England States in which mothers’ aid was administered through the cities and towns and Kentucky in which mothers’ aid was granted in Louisville only. 1 Report comprises expenditure under Home Life Act only. * Includes State expenditure only in counties for which county expenditure was not reported. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis m. m APPENDIX B — EXPENDITURES FOR MOTHERS* AID IN 1931 AND IN 1932 Comparable monthly figures on the number of families receiving mothers’ aid and the expenditures for grants have been made available to the Children’s Bureau since 1929 from 63 of the 82 cities of 100,000 or more population (see table A-V, p. 30) in which mothers’ aid was being granted in June 1931 A summary of the information reported during 1931 and 1932 is presented in table B. The figures for 1931 are not identical with those given in table A-V, since the calendar year rather than the year ended June 30 was used. Furthermore, the areas covered by the reports were not always identical; some of the adminis trative agencies reported monthly figures for the city or metropolitan area rather than for the county. Other slight variations from the figures obtained in the 1931 survey are due to the use of the average number of families per month receiving aid rather than the number aided on a specified date, and to the calcu lation of an average monthly grant based on expenditures of 12 months rather than on a single month. 35 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 03 03 T a b l e B — Annual expenditure for mothers’ aid grants, average monthly number of fam ilies receiving aid, and average monthly grant per fam ily in 1931 and in 1932 in 63 cities or city areas of 100,000 or more population Average monthly number of families receiving aid Annual expenditure for grants State and city Area covered 1931 California: Average monthly grant per family 1932 Percent change Percent change 1932 1931 1931 1932 Percent change County_____________ City and county_____ ___ Jdo__ ____________ $43,355 471,097 106,250 $54,350 483,983 107,391 +25.4 +2.7 +1.1 124 889 205 160 937 208 +29.0 +5.4 +1.5 $29.18 44.17 43.19 $28.26 43.07 43.06 -3 .2 -2 .5 -0 .3 City________________ Area________________ ....... do_______________ City________________ 41,997 62,856 99,024 39,971 135,089 1,167,810 41,849 77,851 108,727 43,297 135,647 1,171,956 -0 .4 +23.9 +9.8 +8.3 +0.4 +0.4 104 160 137 162 1,875 68 73 127 175 148 178 1,909 +7.4 +22.1 +9.4 +8.0 +9.9 +1.8 51.15 50.33 51.74 24.37 69.45 51.91 47.77 51.18 51.65 24.32 63. 59 51.15 -6 .6 +1.7 -0 .2 -0 .2 —8.4 —1.5 ....... do........................... City............................. County.....................— City............................. County_____________ ....... dol......................... ....... do_______________ City............................. 15,001 9,622 15,001 30,117 63,884 -8 .7 +15.1 50 30 64 37 +27.8 +0.1 +49.9 -5 .2 +22.3 59 293 65 117 54 94 295 64,058 34,915 13,699 11,076 15,001 38,499 63,956 18,138 60,745 42,684 101 121 66 +28.0 +23.3 +5.0 +59.3 +0.7 +55.4 +7.1 +22.2 25.13 26.73 62.50 42.78 18.17 15.39 45.72 53.88 17.79 24.83 60.49 34.19 18.06 14. 99 41.92 53. 56 -2 9.2 -7 .1 -3 .2 -20.1 -0 .6 —2.6 —8.3 -0 .6 ....... do........................... ....... do....... .............. . ____do.......... ................ Area________________ City________________ 832,557 92,110 58,314 39,143 83,033 933,712 103,106 52,391 30,502 85,974 +12.1 +11.9 -10.2 -22.1 +3.5 950 133 75 44 108 1,099 142 70 41 115 +15.7 +6.8 —6.7 —6.8 +6.5 73.03 67. 53 64.79 74.13 64.22 70.80 60.61 62.15 61,37 62.39 -3 .1 +5.4 -4 .1 -1 7.2 -2 .8 County_____________ _____ _______ _________ ....... do.......... ................ ____ do_______________ 1,417,317 139,146 128,286 1,434,300 155,710 114,086 +1.2 +11.9 -11.1 2,077 519 286 2,419 604 317 +16.5 +16.4 +10.8 56.87 22.34 37.34 49.41 21.48 29.99 -13.1 -3 .8 -19.7 Part of county_______ County_____________ ____do_______________ ____ do_______________ Nebraska: Omaha............................................ ........... ....... do— __________ 107,259 238,863 172,355 24,605 82,056 116,328 272,989 178,846 39,030 71,747 +8.5 +14.3 +3.8 +58.6 -1 2.6 426 381 84 276 221 255 538 390 124 274 +15.4 +26.3 +2.4 +47.6 -0 .7 40.52 46.75 37.65 24.29 24.78 37.99 42.30 38.21 26.12 2L80 -6 .2 -9 .5 +1.5 +7.5 -1 2.0 Connecticut: County_____________ Indiana: Massachusetts: Michigan: Flint Minnesota: 12,100 0.0 20 21 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 I Washington: Seattle___________ Tacoma__________ Wisconsin: Milwaukee. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis City............................. ___ do_______________ ____ do........ ............ — 274,424 233,769 122,184 ___ do........ ................. County_____________ City............................. County........................ City............................. ___ do_______________ ___ do_______________ SI, 845 361.980 9,379,222 154,672 56,315 66,149 98,752 Area________________ ____do_______________ County_____________ ____do______________ ____do______________ ____do______________ ....... do____ _________ ____do______________ -- ...d o ______________ 59,845 51,185 262,879 545,262 148,867 65,104 111,089 56,495 98,783 County_____________ City and county_____ County_____________ ____do______________ City..................... ....... ____do______________ County_____________ 59,319 622.980 432,438 74,604 72,067 90,849 41,564 ....... do____ _______ —. ____do---------- ----------____ do______________ City and Henrico County. 29,726 17,056 50,125 10,655 County. ___ d o.. ___ d o.. 150,845 82,005 592,115 1931 New Jersey: Newark--------------------Jersey City__________ Trenton_____________ New York: Albany______________ Buffalo______________ New York___________ Rochester____________ Syracuse_____________ Utica________________ Yonkers_____________ Ohio: Akron_______ _______ _ Canton______________ Cincinnati___________ Cleveland___________ C olum bu s................. Dayton_____________ Toledo______________ Youngstown_________ Oregon: Portland________ Pennsylvania: Erie______ .................. Philadelphia____ ____ Pittsburgh__________ Reading_____________ Scranton____________ Rhode Island: Providence. Tennessee: Memphis____ Texas: D a lla s ....__________ Houston...... ................ Utah: Salt Lake City....... Virginia: Richmond-------- 38 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 The changes from 1931 to 1932 in annual expenditures, number of families aided, and amount of the average monthly grant varied greatly in the different cities. In general, annual expenditures for grants were larger in 1932 than in 1931 in about three fourths of the cities. These increased expenditures had been made necessary by the even greater number of families aided, and, as a result, the average monthly grant was smaller in 1932, not only in cities in which expendi tures were smaller but also in more than three fourths of the cities that had spent more money. The percentage of change in annual expenditures from 1931 to 1932 ranged from an increase of 58.6 in Kansas City, Mo., to a decrease of 22.1 in Springfield, Mass. The extent of the increase or decrease in different cities is shown in the following list: Percent of change from 1931 to 1932 Number Increase: of 014163 30 or more_____________________________________________ 3 20, less than 30_________________________________ _______ 9 10, less than 20________________*________________________ 15 20 Less than 10___________________________________________ No change___________________ - ______________________ ______ 1 Decrease: Less than 10_________________ ._________________________ 7 10, less than 20________________________________________ 6 20 or more----------------------------- ------------------.-------------------2 Decreases of 10 percent or more in annual expenditures were found in Lynn and Springfield, Mass.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Omaha, Nebr.; Albany, N .Y.; Youngstown, Ohio; Memphis, Tenn.; and Richmond, Va. The average number of families aided per month increased in 1932 in 53 cities and decreased in 10. The percentage of change in families aided ranged from an increase of 59.3 percent in South Bend, Ind., to a decrease of 21.6 percent in Akron, Ohio. This increase in families aided was found not only in the cities in which larger funds were provided but also in 6 cities 1 in which expenditures had decreased. Akron, Ohio, was the only one of the 10 cities 2 that reported a smaller average number of families aided in 1932 than in 1931 in which the number of families receiving aid had been greatly reduced. In the remaining cities the decrease in families was small (2 to 14 families) and was only notable because of the generally accepted opinion that the number of families of dependent children needing mothers’ aid had increased during the period of general unemployment. The average monthly grant per family provided in 10 cities 3 was larger in 1932 than in 1931, the percentage of increase ranging from 28 in Akron, Ohio, to 1.7 in Hartford, Conn. The increase in the average grant in Akron, from $16.08 to $20.58, had been accomplished with only slight increase in the total expendi ture for grants by reducing the number of families aided. In the other cities larger allowances had been paid, although the average number of families receiving mothers aid had increased from 2.4 to 47.6 percent. The average grant in 53 cities was smaller in 1932 than in 1931, the percentage decrease ranging from less than 1 percent in Denver, Colo.; New Haven, Conn.; Wilmington, Del.; Des Moines, Iowa; Baltimore, Md.; Dayton, Ohio; and Erie, Pa., to 29.2 percent in Evansville, Ind. With the cost of living lower in 1932 than in 1931, it might be expected that some reduction would be made in the size of mothers’ aid grants. On the other hand, lack of employment for older members of the family and reductions in other supplementary sources of income for the family have tended to keep grants in many localities at about the same general level, with only slight change in the amount. The average monthly grant in 7 cities,4 however, had been reduced by amounts ranging from $5.29 to $12.76. The amounts by which grants had been increased or decreased in 1932 in the 63 cities are shown in the following list: 1Bridgeport, Conn.; Evansville, Ind.; Louisville, Ky.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Portland, Oreg.; Dallas, Tex. 3Lynn and Springfield, Mass.; Omaha, Nebr.; Albany, N.Y.; Akron and Youngstown, Ohio; Memphis, Tenn.: Salt Lake City, Utah; Richmond, Va.; and Seattle, Wash. 3Hartford, Conn.; Lowell, Mass.; St. Paul, Minn.; Kansas City, Mo.; Syracuse and Utica, N.Y.; Akron and Toledo, Ohio; Houston, Tex.; and Milwaukee, Wis. 4Washington, D.C.; Evansville and South Bend, Ind.; Springfield, Mass.; Detroit and Grand Rapids, Mich.; and Scranton, Pa. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 39 MOTHERS’ AID, 1931 Amount of increase or decrease in grants Number of cities Increase: _ 4 $3 or more____ . 3 $1, less than $3 _ 3 Less than $1__ Decrease: . 19 Less than $1__ _ 19 $1, less than $3 _ 8 $3, less than $5 _ 7 $5 or more____ [n about one third of the cities the increase or decrease had been less than $1 and in more than two thirds less than $3. Even a small reduction in the amount of the average grant may mean hardship to families when the grants were already too small to meet their needs. o https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis