Full text of Mothers' Aid, 1931, Bureau Publication No. 220

View original document

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^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

■

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

22
23
25
35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
7
1
3
« 17

4167

314
121
161
110
334

818
450
595
309
876
1,461

1919

1928
1915

120
95

1928

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 )

( 12 )

162

4 33

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

14
»15
» 13

23
30

39
»27
57

( 12 )

13
7
48
»23

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 )

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

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

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

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

MOTHERS’ A ID , 1931

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

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

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

♦

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

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

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

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

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

_______

_______
_______
_______
_______

6
6
6
6

__________
__________
__________
__________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________

5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3

___ _ __
_________

________
_______

7
7

2
2

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

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

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

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

$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

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

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

25
7

18
6
6
40
13

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:

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

24
3

631

737
200

259

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

88
86
79

77
74

21
39

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

87
70

2
1
24
33

3
6

13
22

44
6

87
8

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

1,187
474

54
83

433
28

326
9

120
24

61
13

71
26

56
33
1,346
’ 250

45
32
1,175
' 174

731
95
655
613
160
2,205
574

80
( 3)

>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

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........... .................

Number

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

17,809
98,942

7,251
1, 083
1, 497
2,962

6,806
1,-074
lj 445
2,877

361
9
51
71

73,954

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

91
1

8
(3)

(3)
(3)

1
(3)

3,807
1

16
3
13

7,682

29t995
5 264

73,069

14,622
46 778
8^720

5, 917
27 767
16,882
29,457

6
19

447
124

(3)
1

5
1
2

3 ,3 5 3

311
164

(3)

8
2
154

1,750
139
7,753

(3)

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

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
21
23
11

fi 704
12 023
14 022
33 102
IL 750

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

Per
cent

4,363
29,995
7,

finii
7,447

1.3

IQ 171
50 ! 997

4, 018
36 366
19,’ 34Ö

11
24
10
35
19

lß
17
9

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

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

30.16
19.77
21.11
» 69.31
55.09
45.91

$31.97

_____

19.98
10.33

Other
areas

$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

18
20

»13
7

*n
8

13
1
3

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

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

11.85
15.46
16.64

6.24

4
5

11
5
2

16.55

3
3

11.11

6
4

4.78
12.40

4.33
10.06
6.59
9.82

*5
3
81 2
4

3
‘ 13
4

‘ 6
11

42.88

24.78
» 13.16
22.55
19.78

‘ 6
11
8

17.25
10.94
24.76

3
19
23

19.27
15.88
« 35.41

11
8

20.20

>5
87

8
7

3
24
23
18
15

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________ ____ ____ _________

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

202

«222

(s)

4,160. 00

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

204
288
2,003

545
934
5,608

10
12
11

52.68
34.28
58.49

.40
.60
.99

13,140. 00

11,527. 50

418
381
496

1,388
1,093
L 427

8
13
24

45.86
37.63
32.64

.05
.06
.32

3, 750.00

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

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.

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

10, 200.00

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

9
7

6
2

Average
monthly
grant per
family
during
June 1931

$37.53
35.99
38.06
38.58
37.79
59.55

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

‘ 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

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

42
16
62

2
1

16
3
43

11
8

21
6

19
15
14

12
22

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

8
8
1
2
4
10
5

60
33
52

1
9
12
1
1

3
25

10
11

17
i

46
38

41
14
14
13
36
26
63

1
10

13
7
46

1
8
81
6
1

17
81
38

1
6

13
7

2
6
11

3
24
3
7
2

8
s

2
6

3
5

1
2
2_i

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

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

1932

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

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

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

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--------

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

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.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Full text of Mothers' Aid, 1931, Bureau Publication No. 220

FRASER