View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION

Harry L. Hopkins, Administrator
Corrington

G ill, Assistant Administrator

Howard

B. Myers, Director

Division of So c ia l

Research

RESEARCH BULLETIN

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA




Prepared by

Irene Link

under the supervision of
T. J. Woof ter, Jr.
Rural Research Section,
Division of So c ia l

R esearch,

Works Progress Administration
and
Carl C. Taylor,

in charge

Division of Farm Population and

Rural

Life,

Bureau of Agricultural Econom ics,
and
Social

Research for the Resettlement Administration

Washington
June

1937




CONTENTS
Page
Introduction...........................................
Summary..................... ............... ...........
Federal relief programs in eight drought States.*......
Drought relief activities............................
Work relief projects under F.E.R.A. and C.W.A.....
Provision for seed and feed......... ..............
F.E.R.A. drought expenditures......................
Cattle purchase and crop reduction programs.......
Rural rehabilitation...... ........................
Resettlement Program...............................
Works Progress Administration......................
Emergency Conservation...........................
Social Security Program..... ......................
Trend of programs....................................
Trend in cases.....................................
Trend in expenditures..............................
Intensity of Federal aid per capita...............
Relief history of rural households....................
Reasons for opening relief cases..................
Length of time on relief since January 1932.......
Number of relief periods............. .............
Average amount of relief...........................
Types of relief....................................
Personal and occupational characteristics of rural relief
households.....................................
Residence distribution.................. ..........
Age of heads of households........... .............
Sex of heads of households.........................
Size of households.................................
Family composition.................................
Employability composition..........................
Usual occupation of heads of households...........
Tenure status......... ............................
Usual occupation of members other than heads......
Current occupation of heads and other members of
households. ....................................
Size of farms...... *............................ . •
Length of continuous residence....................
Education of heads of relief households...........




iii

1
3
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
9
11
11
14
14
15
15
19
19
20
21
22
23
27
27
28
29
30
31
31
32
34
34
35
37
37
38

iv

CONTENTS

Appendix L
Appendix ’
>.

Supplementary tables.....................
Sample counties...........................
TEXT TABLES

Table 1.

Table 2.
Table 3.

Table 4.
Table 5.

Table 6.
Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.
Table 12.

Table 13.




Grants to eight States in the drought area by
theF.E.R.A. for drought relief and the cattle
purchase program, September 1933 through Au­
gust 1935..................................
Number of households in eight drought States
receiving rural rehabilitation advances, June
193 5
F.E.R.A. grants earmarked for rural rehabili­
tation in eight drought States, April 1934
through June 1936..........................
Number of Resettlement Administration loan cases
in eight drought States, August 1935 through
October 1936...............................
Grants by Resettlement Administration in eight
drought States, November 1935 through October
193 6
Reason for opening of rural cases in their first
relief period in eight drought States and the
United States, June 1935...................
Number of months since January 1932 in which
unemployment relief had been received by ru­
ral relief households in eight drought States,
by usual occupation of the head, October 1935
Rural households on relief in June 1935 which
were closed prior to December 1, 1935, in
three drought States, by number of periods
on relief..................................
Average amount of relief granted to rural house­
holds in eight drought States, by size of
household, June 1935............. .........
Average amount of relief granted to rural house­
holds in eight drought States,by usual occupa­
tion of the head, June 1935...............
Residence of rural relief households in eight
drought States, June 1935.................
Median age of male and female heads of rural
relief households and of male heads of total
rural households in eight drought States, June
1935.......................................
Sex of heads of rural relief households in eight
drought States, June 1935.................

CONTENTS
TE X T T A B L E S — C o n t i n u e d

Page
Table 14. Median size of rural relief households in eight
drought States, by residence, June 1935....
Table 15. Family composition of rural relief households
in eight drought States, June 1935........
Table 15. Employability composition of rural relief house­
holds in eight drought States, June 1935...
Table 17. Percent of farm operators on relief in eight
drought States, June 1935.................
Table 18. Usual occupation of employable heads of rural
relief households in eight drought States,
June 1935..................................
Table 19. Tenure status of farm operators on relief and
in the general population in eight drought
States, 1935...............................
Table 20. Usual occupation of workers other than heads in
rural relief households in eight drought
States, June 1935.........................
Table 21. Current occupation of employable heads of rural
relief households in eight drought States, by
usual occupation, June 1935...............
Table 22. Length of last continuous residence in county
of farm operators on relief in eight drought
States, June 1935.........................
Table 23. Grade attainment in school of heads of rural
relief households in eight drought States,
October 1935...............................

30
30
32
32

33
34
34
36

38
38

FIGURES

Figure 1. Number of persons employed by Works Progress
Administration in 57 counties in the drought
area, September 1935 through December 1936.
Figure 2. Subregions represented and counties sampled in
the drought area.............. ............
Figure 3. Number of persons employed by Works Progress
Administration in the United States and eight
drought States, 1936......................
Figure 4. Percent of total rural families in major subregions of the Great Plains receiving public
assistance in February 1935, February 1936,
and August 1936.......... .................
Figure 5. Expenditures for public and private assistance
in 57 counties of the drought area, January
1935 through December 1936................




10
12

13

14
16

vi

CONTENTS
F I G U R E S — Con t i n u e d

Page
Figure 6. Federal aid per capita in the drought area,
1933-1936..... .............................
Figure 7. Types of relief granted by F.E.R.A. in eight
drought States, June and October 1935......

18
25

S U P P L E M E N T A R Y TABLES
(Appendix A)

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.
Table 4.

Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.

Table 8.




Number of persons employed by Works Progress
Administration in 57 counties of the drought
area, by subregions, September 1935 through
December 1936...............................
Employment on Works Progress Administration
projects, as of last week in each month, in
eight drought States and the United States,
1936........................................
Reason for opening of rural cases in their first
relief period in eight drought States, by res­
idence, by States, June 1935...............
Number of months since January 1932 in which
unemployment relief had been received by rural
relief households in eight drought States, by
usual occupation of the head, by States, Oc­
tober 1935..................................
Type of relief received by rural households in
eight drought States, by States, June and Oc­
tober 1935..................................
Age and sex of heads of rural relief households
in eight drought States, by States, June 1935
Current occupation of employable heads of rural
relief households in eight drought States, by
usual occupation, by States, June 1935.....
Current occupation of workers other than heads
in rural relief households in eight drought
States, by usual occupation, by States, June
1935......... ...............................

43

44
45

46
48
49
50

52

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA




INTRODUCTI ON

Repeated droughts in the Great Plains and surrounding terri­
tory, often accompanied by wind erosion, have left in their wake
a stricken populace whose needs have far exceeded the limited
aid that could be given by local or State organizations. As a
result, Federal assistance on a large scale has been necessary.
Since the economic and social distress occasioned by recurrent
drought and other natural phenomena can be most satisfactorily
measured by the extent of public and private relief granted,1
the present study has undertaken to describe the trend and scope
of the Federal relief programs in the drought area,2 as well as
the personal and occupational characteristics of the families
who make up the relief population of the drought States.
All June and October 1935 data in the present report dealing
with reasons for opening cases, types and amounts of relief,
length of time on relief, and personal and occupational char­
acteristics of heads and members of relief families are based
on the Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population.3
Seventy-four sample counties in eight States in the Great Plains
Area were included in the survey. These States were Colorado,
Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South
Dakota.4 Supplementary data were available for 27 sample coun­
ties in the 3 States of Iowa, Montana, and South Dakota from the
Survey of Rural Households Which Received Relief in June and
Were Closed Prior to December 1, 1935.
Data on trends of relief in the drought area for five type
of farming subregions— Spring Wheat, Northern Great Plains,
Western CornBelt, Winter Wheat, and Southwestern Great Plains—
were obtained primarily from the Survey of Public and Private

See Cronin, Francis D. and Beers, Howard W . , Areas o f I nt ense Drought D i s ­
1930-1936, Research Bulletin, Series V, No. 1, Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration, 1937, p. 25.
tress,

p

Two earlier bulletins in the series were:
Cronin, Francis D. and Beers,
Howard W. , idem; and Taeuber, Conrad and Taylor, Carl C., The People o f
the Drought S t a t e s , Research Bulletin, Series V, No. 2, Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration, 1937.

3 For a description of the methodology of the survey, see Asch, Berta and
M a n g u s , A. R . , Farmers on R e l i e f and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n , Research Monograph
VIII, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, 1937.
4 For lists of sample counties, see appendix B.




2

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

Assistance in Rural and Town Areas.5 The sample in this survey
for the entire drought area encompassed 57 counties, of which
45 were in the 5 subregions. The additional counties were
scattered on the periphery of those subregions.
Amounts of expenditures by the various Federal agencies were
obtained from records of the Division of Research, Statistics,
and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Fi­
nance and Control Division, Resettlement Administration, and
the Division of Research, Statistics, and Records, Works Prog­
ress Administration.
Employment figures were obtained from
the Division of Research, Statistics, and Records, Works Prog­
ress Administration, and Civilian Conservation Corps enroll­
ment figures were obtained from Monthly Statistical Summary:
October 1936, Emergency Conservation Vork (Civilian Conservat ion Corps).
The information on employment and expenditures has been pre­
sented for the eight drought States for which data on charac­
teristics of rural relief households were available.

5The three surveys referred to in this section were made by the Division of
Social Research, Works Progress Administration.




SUMMARY

Drought was the chief factor responsible for the relief sit­
uation in the Great Plains and surrounding territory. In June
1935, conditions directly associated with drought were respon­
sible for almost three-fifths of all rural cases which were on
relief for the first time in the eight drought States with which
the present study is concerned. Almost nine-tenths of the open
country cases in North Dakota which were on relief for the first
time, over four-fifths of those in Kansas, and three-fourths
of those in South Dakota and in Colorado were receiving aid
because of factors attributable to drought.
Throughout the drought area, farm families made up a greater
proportion of the relief load than did nonfarm families; 68
percent of the heads of rural relief households in the eight
drought States were farmers or farm laborers by usual occupa­
tion. At the time this study was made, three-fourths of the
heads usually engaged in agriculture were still trying to make
a living from the land.
The early impact of drought in the Northwest is reflected in
the fact that almost three-tenths of the agricultural house­
holds on relief in October 1935 in North Dakota and over onethird of those in South Dakota had received relief from 20 to
24 months since January 1932. In the eight States as a whole,
almost three-tenths of all agricultural households had been
dependent from 15 to 19 months, and almost one-tenth had re­
ceived relief in 24 months or more.
Over 60 percent of all rural cases in the drought area in
June 1935 were on work relief only and 20 percent were on di­
rect relief only, while less than 2 0 percent received both types
of relief. The average relief grant was $17. However, both
types and amounts of relief varied considerably from State to
State.
The relief problem was complicated by the overrepresentation
of tenants on the relief rolls. Tenants made up 48 percent of
the total farmers in the eight drought States, while more than
70 percent of the farm operator heads of households on the re­
lief rolls in these States were tenants. In Iowa, Kansas, and
Nebraska, large proportions of tenants were no longer on farms
in June 1935.
The effect of drought upon the economic condition of farm
laborers is shown by the fact that in June 1935 almost seventenths of the farm laborers by usual occupation who were on
relief were unemployed and seeking work.




4

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

The typical farm family on relief in the eight drought States
was larger than that in the general population for the area,
and the average age of the head was less than that for the head
of families in the general population. However, 92 percent of
the rural relief families had one or more gainful workers, which
indicates that these families might become self-supporting if
given the opportunity.
By February 1935, over 20 percent of the rural families in
all sections of the Great Plains Area were receiving Federal
emergency relief, with the exception of the Western Corn Belt,
which showed only 13 percent. A year later, despite a good
crop yield in 1935 and the transfer of many farm families to
the rural rehabilitation program, only a slight decrease in the
relief load had occurred, and in August 1936 the total load for
the area had risen to 21 percent. In the Spring Wheat Area, 34
percent of all rural families were on relief at that date.
Federal aid to the drought States was first given in 1932,
but the first aid to the Great Plains Area earmarked for drought
relief was given in the fall of 1933.




.FEDERAL R E L I E F P R O G R A M S IN
EIGHT DROUGHT STATES

In the eight States6 in the Great Plains Area which form the
basis for this report, the distress due to depression factors
has been intensified by the somewhat localized drought of 1933
and the extensive droughts of 1934 and 1936. Hence, programs
for public assistance in the eight States have been planned on
a larger scale than would have been necessary had the distress
been due to depression ills alone.
DROUGHT RELIEF ACTIVITIES

The first Federal aid received in the Great Plains Region
was from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which made
available about 18 million dollars for relief and work relief
in the eight drought States, exclusive of Nebraska, between
February 2, 1932, and September 30, 1934.7
During the spring and summer of 1933, a serious drought de­
veloped in two large areas: the Southwest Panhandle Region and
the Northwest. Crops were impaired by deficient rainfall and
high temperatures, and by the insect infestations and dust storms
which accompanied these conditions. Several Federal agencies
cooperated in making cash, credit, and supplies available to
the needy persons residing in the drought-stricken areas.
In June 1933, 2 weeks after the organization of the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, special requests for aid were
received from regions suffering from drought, and in September
1933 the first grants earmarked for drought assistance were
authorized to be made to six States: Colorado, Kansas, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.8 By December 1933,9
three additional States— Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin—
also had been included in the designated drought area.
^Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South
Dakota.

VFrom

Quarterly Report of Reconstruction Finance Corporation, July 1 to
September 30, 1934, Inclusive, and February 2, 1932, to September 20, 1934,
Inclusive, p. 3 and table 6, p. 44.

8

Whiting, T. E., Preliminary Historical Statement Concerning Drought R e l i e f ,
(unpublished manuscript), Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance,
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, May 1934.

Q

Kirkpatrick, E. L . , Report of Activities in Drought and Storm A r e a s , Wis­
consin Emergency Relief Administration, December 1933.




5

6

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

From the first, State Emergency Relief Administrations were
authorized to liberalize their regulations to provide maintenance
for livestock which were perishing from lack of feed and pasture;
and needy families unable to obtain refinancing loans from the
Farm Credit Administration were handled by local emergency re­
lief administrations as regular relief cases.
Work Relief Projects Under F.E.R.A. and C.W.A.

In September 1933, special highway projects employing relief
labor were started in the drought area by the F.E.R.A. and were
developed by the Bureau of Public Roads. In November, the
special highway projects were taken overby the Civil Works Ad­
ministration which also developed other work projects in rural
areas to give employment to drought sufferers.
Beginning in April 1934, the Emergency Work Relief Program
was expanded in the drought areas to provide cash earnings for
needy families. Emphasis was placed on such projects as water
conservation, food preservation, and road work. These projects
were supervised by local and State E.R.A.'s.10
Provision for Seed and Feed

From December 1933 to April 1934, the Federal Surplus Relief
Corporation supplied State Emergency Relief Administrations with
wheat, corn, oats, barley, and milo to be used as feed for live­
stock in the drought area.11 Surplus agricultural and other
products in the form of foodstuffs, clothing, andfuelwere also
distributed by this agency to drought-relief families during
the winter of 1934-35. When this agency's distribution of grains
was discontinued, State E.R.A.'s were authorized to use F.E.R.A.
funds for the purchase of feed and seed.
In June 1934, the President appointed a drought committee
consisting of the Secretary of Agriculture, the F.E.R.A. Adminis­
trator, the A.A.A. Administrator, and the Governor of the Farm
Credit Administration to utilize special drought-relief funds
through their respective agencies.
Amounts were made available to the Secretary of Agriculture
for the disposition of surplus cattle in the drought area, and
for the purchase, gift, sale, or other disposition of feed and
seed. Allocations from the same special drought-relief funds
of the F.E.R.A. were made to the Farm Credit Administration for
loans for feed and. seed.12
^ F r o m reports by Division of Research, Statistics, and R ecords, Works Prog­
ress Administration.
Monthly R e p ort o f the F ed eral

1935, p. 19.

12Idem.




Emergency

R e l i e f A d m in is t r a t io n , February

FEDERAL RELIEF PROGRAMS
F.E.R.A. Drought Expenditures

Grants earmarked for drought-relief and cattle programs
totaling more than 73 million dollars were made to the eight
drought States included in this study from September 1933 through
August 1935 by the F.E.R.A. (table 1). This amount was approx­
imately 40 percent of the total funds earmarked for drought
relief in the United States. Of the grants in the eight States,
86 percent of the total amount was for human relief and 14 per­
cent for the cattle purchase program.13 After August 1935, the
Table 1— GRANTS TO EIGHT STATES IN THE DROUGHT AREA BY THE F.E.R.A. FOR DROUGHT RELIEF AND
THE CATTLE PURCHASE PROGRAM, SEPTEMBER 1933 THROUGH AUGUST 1935a

State
Total

Total

Drought Relief

Cattle Purchase
Prog ram

$72,202,093

$62,537,676

$9,664,417

Co 1o rado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana

9,106,345
4,836,750
14,710,992
7,142,274

8,437,702
4,175,900
11,645,000
5,577,500

668,643
660,850
3,065,992
1,564,774

Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota

4,764,268
8,303,356
8,849,033
14,489,075

3,199,368
7,943,356
7,444,925
14,113,925

1,564,900
360,000
1,404,108
375,150

a ln c lu d in g a u t h o r iz e d

Source:

t r a n s f e r s and the r e d e p o s it o f b a la n c e s .

D i v i s i o n of R e se a rc h , S t a t i s t i c s ,

and R e c o rd s, W orks P r o g r e s s A d m in is t r a t io n .

F.E.R.A. began to taper off its activities, and cases still re­
ceiving relief under the F.E.R.A. were gradually absorbed by
the new Works Program.
Cattle Purchase and Crop Reduction Programs

The Agricultural Adjustment Administration did much to assist
farmers in the drought area by paying crop reduction benefits,
and by purchasing livestock from distressed farmers. In the
eight drought States, the A.A.A. disbursed over 510 million
dollars14 from May 12, 1933, to June 30, 1936. Of this amount,
about 10 percent was for cattle purchases and 1 percent for the
purchase of sheep and goats, while 89 percent was in the form
of rental and benefit payments. Without the rental and benefit
payments of the A.A.A., the expenditures of strictly relief
agencies in the drought States undoubtedly would have been much
higher.
Rural Rehabilitation

From April 1934 to June 30, 1935, destitute farm families
were aided to reestablish themselves on a self-sustaining basis
^ M o n t h ly R e p o r t o f the F ed eral Emergency R e l i e f

A d m in is t r a t io n , November

1935, table B-8.
14Records of the Division of Finance, Agricultural Adjustment Administration.




8

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

through the rural rehabilitation program, which was part of the
trend toward the differentiated treatment of relief groups.
Rehabilitation of destitute families by supplying working cap­
ital and by adjusting debts was a major part of this program;
and in June 1935, the month preceding transfer to the Resettle­
ment Administration, over 44,000 families in the 8 drought States
received rural rehabilitation advances (table 2).
Table 2— NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES RECEIVING
RURAL REHABILITATION ADVANCES, JUNE 1935a

State

Number of Casesb

Total

44,591

Colorado
1owa
Kansas
Montana

6,917
1,228
7,244
649

Nebraska
North Dakota
Okl ahoma
South Dakota
a

D ata r e v is e d a s o f A p r i l

^ E x c lu siv e

Source:

2,377
33
8,210
17,933
16.

1936.

of h o u se h o ld s u nd er c a re t h a t d id

not re c e iv e

lo a n s d u r in g the month.

D i v i s i o n of R e se a rc h , S t a t i s t i c s , and R e c o rd s, W orks P r o g r e s s A d m in is t r a t io n .

From April 1934 through June 1936, $82,281,000 had been
granted by the F.E.R.A. to the States for the rural rehabilita­
tion program. Of this, $8,794,000, or nearly 11 percent, was
allocated to the eight States in the drought area (table 3).
Table 3— F.E.R.A. GRANTS EARMARKED FOR RURAL REHABILITATION IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,
APRIL 1934 THROUGH JUNE 1936

State

Amount

Total

$8,793,793

Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana

1,159,314
.1,066,040
1,443,395
336,200

Nebraska
'North Dakota
Okl ahoma
South Dakota
a R e f le c t s

S o u rce :

r e d e p o s it s to U n ite d S t a t e s T r e a s u r y o f *1 5 8 ,4 9 3

1,353,676
825,507a
1,508,66l a
.1,101,000
in N orth D akota and $ 1 9 1 ,9 1 4

in Oklahoma.

D i v i s i o n o f R e se a rc h , S t a t i s t i c s , and R e c o rd s , W orks P ro g re s s A d m in is t r a t io n .

Resettlement Program

The rural rehabilitation program of the F.E.R.A. was trans­
ferred to the Resettlement Administration as of July 1, 1935,
although many States continued to make substantial advances to
rural rehabilitation cases from Rural Rehabilitation Corporation
funds. In Kansas the first Resettlement loan was made in August
1935, while the first North Dakota loan was made in November




FEDERAL RELIEF PROGRAMS

9

1935. By October 31, 1936, almost 78,000 loan cases in the 8
States had received amounts totaling over $26,000,000 (table 4).
Table 4— NUMBER OF RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION LOAN CASES IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,
AUGUST 1935 THROUGH OCTOBER 1936

State

Number of Loan Cases

Total

77,726

Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana

8,804
4,085
7,348
2,571

Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
S o u rc e :

9,230
17,438
9,732
18,518

Com piled by the R ecord S e c tio n ,

F in a n c e and C o n t ro l

D iv isio n ,

R e se ttle m e n t A d m in is t r a t io n ,

The character of the Resettlement Program was broadened some­
what in November 1935 when, in addition to loans, emergency
grants had to be made to cope with the urgent need of agricul­
tural cases in distressed areas. Resettlement grants carried a
considerable portion of all agricultural cases needing relief
in the drought area through the winter of 1935. The regular
seasonal upturn in employment opportunities on the farm during
the spring of 1935 reduced the volume of rural distress and
brought a sharp decline in emergency grants. The rise in the
amount of such grants in the fall of 1936 reflected the impact
of the drought of that year (figure 5).
By October 31, 1936, emergency grants totaling over $10,000,000
had been made by the Resettlement Administration in eight States
of the drought area (table 5).
Table 5— GRANTS BY RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,
NOVEMBER 1935 THROUGH OCTOBER 1936

State

Amount of Grants

Total

$10,390,211

Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana

876,920
71,971
1,379,984
252,170

Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
S ou rce:

C om piled by th e R eco rd S e c tio n ,

721,757
2,395,218
1,394,940
3,297,251
F in a n c e and C o n t ro l

O iv is io n ,

R e se ttle m e n t A d m in is t r a t io n .

Works Progress Administration

With the gradual tapering off of the activities of theF.E.R.A.
in the latter part of 1935, the Works Progress Administration,
the most important agency under the Works Program, developed
its extensive organization for providing jobs for employable
147401 0 — 37-----2




10
RELIEF
AND
REHABILITATION
IN
THE

Sep

Oct

Nov

1935

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

J_

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

1936

*

Exclusive of nonrelief employees

* * As of last payroll in month
SOURCE: Division of Research, Statistics, and Records, Works Progress Administration




A F - 2207, w.ra.

AREA

FIG. I-NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED* BY WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION** IN 57 COUNTIES IN THE DROUGHT AREA

DROUGHT

Aug

FEDERAL RELIEF PROGRAMS

11

persons on the relief rolls. Figure 1 shows the number of per­
sons, exclusive of nonrelief employees, working on W.P.A. proj­
ects15 set up in 57 representative counties of the Great Plains
Area, by subregions,16 from September 1935 through December 1936.
Employment under the W.P.A. in the drought area as a whole
reached a peak at the end of January 1936 that was maintained
until spring, when employment opportunities became available
in agriculture. The load remained relatively constant from May
through July, followed by an increase in August. The effects
of the 1936 drought caused a sharp rise in September, when
special "emergency drought" projects were set up to aid dis­
tressed families. Reports for the total area, as of the last
pay roll in November 1936, showed a greater number of persons
employed on W.P.A. work projects in the 57 representative counties
than in any preceding month.
Employment on all types of W.P.A. projects reached apeak for
the United States as a whole in February 1936. After this date,
total employment declined until late summer when a marked in­
crease occurred, due largely to increases in the eight drought
States and surrounding territory (figure 3 and appendix table 2).
Emergency Conservation

The work of the Civilian Conservation Corps has beenthe major
activity of the Emergency Conservation phase of the Works Program.
Of the 346, 550 persons enrolled in the C.C.C. by October 31, 1936,
nearly 13 percent were from the 8 States in the drought area.
In addition, about half of the 6,700 Indians enrolled in the
C.C.C. were employed in camps in the 8 States.17
Social Security Program

While the W.P.A. assumed the obligation of caring for a large
majority of the persons in need because of unemployment, the
State and local governments were left with the responsibility of
caring for dependent unemployable persons. To aid in meeting
this burden, provision was made in the Social Security Act for
grants-in-aid to three large groups of unemployables: the aged,
the blind, and women with dependent children.18
Although the Social Security Program had no special drought
aspects, it began to expand rapidly in rural areas in the spring
of 1936. As it took over certain types of unemployable cases,
general relief was reduced.
15

Also, see appendix table l.

16For location of subregions, see figure 2.
17

Monthly S t a t i s t i c a l

Summary:

October 1936, Emergency Conservation Work

(Civilian Conservation Corps).
18For the trend of expenditures, see figure 5.




12 RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

FIG. 2 - SUBREGIONS

REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES
IN THE DROUGHT AREA

SOURCE- Survey of Public and Private
Assistance in Rural and Town Areas




SAMPLED

A F -2 4 0 4 , w

FEDERAL RELIEF PROGRAMS

13

Fig. 3-NUM BER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED BY WORKS PROGRESS
ADMINISTRATION* IN THE UNITED STATES
AND EIGHT DROUGHT STATES
* As of lost week in each month
SOURCE: Division of Research, Statistics, and Records,
Works Progress Administration




a f - 2 2 0 i, w.p.a.

14 RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA
TREND OF PROGRAMS
Trend in Cases

After reaching a peak in the early months of 1935, the num­
ber of cases receiving public assistance in rural areas of the
United States decreased during the remainder of the year.19
The same general trend was evident in cases receiving public
assistance in the drought area. However, this area experienced
a marked upturn in public assistance in the summer of 1936 as
the drought took effect.
Percent
Percent °
TOTAL- FIVE SUBREGIONS

_____£ ____ ?0 L _ 2 5 ____ 30_

35

40

22
20

21

SPRING WHEAT

28
31
34

NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS

21

r

30
27

WESTERN CORN BELT

WINTER WHEAT

February 1935
February 1936
August 1936

SOUTHWESTERN GREAT PLAINS

FIG.4 - PERCENT OF TOTAL RURAL FAMILIES IN MAJOR SUBREGIONS
OF THE GREAT PLAINS RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
IN FEBRUARY 1935? FEBRUARY I936t* AND AUGUST 1936**
* Emergency relief
** All relief financed by federal, state or local public funds,
including W.PA. employment and Resettlement emergency grants

AF-2 28 4, w. r a .

Figure 4 shows the percent of total rural families in major
agricultural subregions of the drought area receiving public
aid in February 1935, February 1936, and August 1936.20 In
February 1935, 20 percent or more of all rural families were
19

20

See Asch, Berta and Mangus, A. R., Farmers on R e l i e f and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n ,
Research Monograph VIII, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Ad­
ministration, chapter VII.
Data include all cases receiving relief financed by public funds, persons
employed by Works Progress Administration, and Resettlement grant clients
in 47 sample counties. In addition to the 45 counties listed in appendix
B, page 55, Johnson County, Nebraska, is included in the Western Corn
Belt sample and Teller County, Colorado, in the Southwestern Great Plains
sa m p l e .




FEDERAL RELIEF PROGRAMS

15

receiving emergency relief in the Great Plains Area with the
exception of the Western Corn Belt,which showed only 13 percent.
By February 1936, after a fairly good crop yield in 1935, a
small decrease had occurred in the total relief load. However,
by August 1936, a slight increase occurred once more, when the
general total for the area was 21 percent.
In the Western Corn Belt and the Spring Wheat Area,the load
was higher in August 1936 than during either of the two previous
periods. Of the five subregions, the Winter Wheat Area and the
Western Corn Belt suffered the least during the three periods.
Trend in Expenditures

Expenditures for public and private assistance in the 57
drought counties decreased slowly during the early months of
1935 and more rapidly during the summer (figure 5).
As the W.P.A. got under way, expenditures of general relief
agencies began to fall off rapidly. The increasing importance
of the Social Security Frogram in rural areas also contributed
to the decline in general relief expenditures, which showed
further decreases in the spring of 1936, and remained on a level
during the summer.
The emergency grants to farmers in the drought area by the
Resettlement Administration, starting in November 1935, showed
an increase in the spring of 1936, and decreased during the
summer months. In the fall of 1936, as the effects of the
summer's drought were felt, expenditures for emergency grants
again rose.
Both because of its larger case load and because earnings
per person generally exceeddirect relief grants, W.P.A. expend­
itures were far greater than the total expenditures of the other
agencies. After reaching a peak in March 1936, W.P.A. expend­
itures declined wiNth the seasonal demands of agriculture. The
impact of the drought of 1936 began to be felt early in the
summer, however, and expenditures mounted rapidly throughout
the fall. In December a sharp decline occurred, due largely
to the shifting of responsibility for drought cases to the Re­
settlement Administration.
Intensity of Federal Aid per Capita

The total amount of Federal expenditures per capita in the
counties of the drought area21 since 1933 is one measure of the
degree of distress caused by recurring droughts. A large num­
ber of counties had per capita expenditures of $175 and over

21For methods of delimiting the drought area, see Cronin, Francis D. and
Beers, Howard W., Areas o f In te n s e Drought D i s t r e s s , 1930-1936 , op. c i t .




Stf
d*3
t—•
m
>•
z
a
w
Ed
W
•—3
>•
»-3

•H
Ed
W
O
td
O
cd
O
cd
1-9
¡3>
¡3d
GS
>>
F IG . 5

-EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ASSISTANCE IN 57 COUNTIES OF THE DROUGHT AREA

* Exclusive of earnings of nonrelief employees
SOURCES: Survey of Public and Private Assistance in Rural and Town Areas, and
Division of Research, Statistics, and Records, Works Progress Administration




a f - 2 2 0 9 ,w .p.a.

FEDERAL RELIEF PROGRAMS

17

(figure 6).22 These were concentrated in the "Dust Bowl" re­
gion23 and in the Spring Wheat section of the Dakotas and east­
ern Montana. The lightly shaded areas on the map indicate the
counties where the need for relief was less serious. In these
less severely stricken counties, per capita expenditures ranged
from $119 to less than $58.
22

Per capita expenditures Include total amounts in dollars obtained by
counties and related to total county population, urban and rural.
Parts of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.




18

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

FIG. 6 - FEDERAL AID PER CAPITA IN THE DROUGHT AREA
1933-1936

Less than $ 5 8
$ 58 to $ 8 4
$ 8 4 to $ 119
$ 119 to $ 175
$ 175 or more
SOURCES: F E .R .A ., C.W.A., A .A .A ., R A , W.RA.,
and Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, Population




AF- 2264, W.RA.

R E L I E F H I S T O R Y OF R U R A L H O U S E H O L D S
Reasons for Opening Relief Cases

While the amount of Federal relief expenditures in the drought
States is one index of the need of rural households, the extent
to which drought was the chief causative factor in rural dis­
tress can be appreciated only by an analysis of the reasons
which forced households to apply for relief.
Conditions directly associated with drought were responsible
for the opening of almost three-fifths of the June rural relief
cases in sample counties of the eight drought States that were
in their first relief period (table 6). "Loss of job" was the
direct cause for the opening of only 14 percent of the cases in
their first relief period. However, a considerable portion of
the cases on relief in this region were farm operators who were
still on their farms. Consequently, alt hough they had not "lost"
their jobs, they were in need of relief because of either crop
failure or depletion of assets.
Crop failure and loss of livestock24 were found to have catised
one-third of the openings of rural cases in the eight drought
States that were in their first relief period in June 1935.
Loss or depletion of assets was responsible for almost one-fourth
of the cases. These two types of economic losses, which are
closely related, are directly associated with drought effects.
In the total rural United States, these two factors were spec­
ified as the causes of only 47 percent of the first openings of
rural relief cases (table 6).
Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota showed the
highest proportions of rural households whose need for relief
in June 1935 was directly caused by loss or depletion of assets
and by crop failure or loss of livestock (appendix table 3).
The needs of families living in the open country in these
States were particularly affected by these two factors. They
caused almost nine-tenths of the first openings of open country
relief cases in North Dakota, over four-fifths of the openings in
Kansas, and three-fourths of those in Colorado and South Dakota.
24

A study of 13 sample counties in the Winter Wheat Area in June 1934 showed
that about 46 percent of all families— 90 percent of the farm families—
were receivingrellef because of crop failure. See Beck, P. G. and Forster,
M. C., Six Rural Problem A reas, Relief— Resources— Rehabilitation, Research
Monograph I, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emer­
gency Relief Administration, 1935, p. 54.




19

20

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

Iowa had the lowest proportion (11 percent) of first openings of rural relief cases caused by loss of livestock and crop
failure, due to the fact that nonagricultural cases were pre­
dominant on the relief rolls of that State and also to the lesser
severity of the drought. This State showed the highest number
of rural relief openings caused by loss of job (38 percent).
Table 6— REASON FOR OPENING OF RURAL CASES IN THEIR FIRST RELIEF PERIOD IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES9
AND THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 1935

Reason for Opening
T o ta l:

Eight Drought Statesc

United otatesd

14,410
100.0

69,063
100.0

13.8
23.6

22.5
32.6
14.2
13.2
13.3
4.2

Number
percent

Loss of job in ordinary employment
Loss or depletion of assets
Crop fa ilu re or lo ss of livestock
In su fficie n t income
Old age, death, illn e ss, e tc .b
Mi§cellaneous
a Se e a p p e n d ix t a b le 3 f o r d a ta by i n d i v i d u a l
k 'L a S S o f a id

33.2
14.2
7.6
7.6
S ta te s.

from r e l a t i v e s " and ’t r a n s f e r to o t h e r a g e n c y * in c lu d e d .

^ B a se d on d a ta f o r 74 sam ple c o u n t ie s .
^ Ba sed on d a ta f o r 300 c o u n t ie s and 83 N@w E n gla n d to w n sh ip s .
Sou fe e :

Su rve y o f C u rre n t C h ange s in the R u ra l

R e l i e f P o p u la t io n ,

June 1935.

Length of Time on Relief Since January 1932

Almost three-tenths of all rural cases which were on relief
in October 1935 in the eight drought States, whose heads were
usually engaged in agriculture, had been on relief from 15 to
19 months since January 1932 (table 7). Almost one-tenth had
received relief in 24 months or more.25 In Oklahoma, over onethird of the agricultural households had received relief from
15 to 19 months, and an additional two-fifths (37 percent) had
been on relief from 10 to 14 months (appendix table 4). In
Montana, almost one-fifth of the relief households had received
assistance in 30 months or more.
The early impact of drought conditions in the Northwest is
reflected in the fact that while one-fourth of the agricultural
households in North and South Dakota in October 1935 had re­
ceived relief from 15 to 19 months, almost three-tenths of the
households in North Dakota and over one-third of those in South
Dakota had received relief from 20 to 24 months. Almost onefifth of the farm households in North Dakota and almost onesixth of those in South Dakota had received relief in 24 months
or more.
Depletion of agricultural and economic resources had early
been experienced by an even greater proportion of farm families

Data are not available a s t 6 the number of continuous months In which re­
lief was received. It is probable, however, that most of the cases which
had been on relief tor as long as 2 years had received relief continuously.




RELIEF HISTORY OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS

21

in Montana, where over two-fifths of the households had received
relief in 24 months or more prior to October 1935. In the eight
drought States, the proportions of farm operators and farm la­
borers who had received relief for 15 to 24 months since Jan­
uary 1932 were approximately the same.
Table 7— NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE JANUARY 1932 IN WHICH UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF HAD BEEN RECEIVED21
BY RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,b
BY USUAL OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD, OCTOBER 1935
(74 Sample Counties)
Number of Months

Total
Usual Occupation0 of Head
Number

Percent

1-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

Total

19,294

100.0

6.7

11.2

25.8

28.6

18.1

6.1

2.8

0.7

Agri culture
Farm operators
Farm laborers

11,736
8,298
3,438

100.0
100.0
100.0

5.2
4.1
7.7

10.8
9.7
13-4

27.1
28.0
25.2

29.9
29.9
29.9

17.9
17.8
18.0

6.1
7.2
3.6

2.6
3.0
1.6

0.4
0.3
0.6

5,210
546
770
638
3,256

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

9.1
13.2
7.8
10.6
8.4

11.8
17.6
9.1
17.9
10.3

24.5
23.8
22.1
21.3
25.8

27.2
23.1
30.9
29.8
26.6

18.1
16.9
21.3
13.5
18.4

5.6
2.9
6.8
2.5
6.4

3.0
1.8
1.0
3.8
3.4

0.7
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.7

314

100.0

15.9

15.3

28.7

26.1

5.1

3.8

2.6

2.5

2,034

100.0

7.5

11.8

20.7

25.3

21.8

7.3

3.6

2.0

Nonagricul ture
Whi te c o lla r
S kille d
Semi ski 11ed
Unsk i 11ed
No usual occupation
Not working or seeking work

a Da ta a re not a v a i l a b l e a s to the number of c o n t in u o u s m onths
^See a p p e n d ix t a b le

U f o r d a ta by i n d i v i d u a l

C "U su a l

is d e f in e d a s an y n o n r e l ie f job h e ld

So u rc e :

o c c u p a t io n "

Su rv e y o f C u rre n t C hanges

35-46

in w hich r e l i e f was r e c e iv e d .

S ta te s.

in the R ura l

R e lie f

fo r at

le a s t 4 c o n s e c u t iv e weeks w it h in the l a s t

P o p u la t io n ,

10 y e a rs .

O ctob er 1935.

More than one-fourthof the heads of households on relief who
were nonagricultural workers, who were not workers, or who had
no usual occupation had been dependent from 15 to 19 months.
The largest proportion (29 percent) of the heads with no usual
occupation had been on relief from 10 to 14 months. These per­
sons, however, constituted a relatively small group.
Number of Relief Periods

The number of relief periods, or times on relief, varied
widely from State to State, due both to differences in the se­
verity of need and to administrative policies with respect to
the opening and closing of cases. Detailed data on number of
relief periods are available for only three of the drought
States, Iowa, Montana, and South Dakota. Of all rural cases
in Montana which were on relief in June 1935 and were closed
prior to December 1 of chat year, almost two-fifths had been
on relief four times or more, whereas in South Dakota only onefifth of the rural relief households had had as many relief
periods. Over one-fourth of the farm operators in Montana had
been on relief five times or more, whereas in South Dakota less
than one-twentieth of the farm operators had this relief record
(table 8). The length of each period cannot be determined from
the available information.




22

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

Table 8— RURAL HOUSEHOLDS ON RELIEF IN JUNE 1935 WHICH WERE CLOSED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1,
1935, IN THREE DROUGHT STATES, BY NUMBER OF PERIODS ON RELIEF

Usual Occupation

Total Households
Number

Percent

Number of Periods on Relief
1

2

4

3

5 and Over

Montana (8 sample counties)
Total

449

100.0

18.5

23.9

19.8

18.9

18.9

Farm operators
Farm laborers
A11 others

200
19

100.0

15.5

19.5

18.5

20.5

230

t
100.0

t
21.7

t
27.9

t
19.6

t
19.1

26.0
t
11.7

Total

667

100.0

20.7

33.2

26.2

11.8

8.1

Farm operators
Farm laborers
Al 1 others

336
81
250

100.0
100.0
100.0

23.5
14.8
18.8

34.2
37.1
30.4

26.5
22.2
27.2

11.3
9.9
13.2

4.5
16.0
10.4

Total

592

100.0

22.8

31.8

21.8

13.5

10.1

Farm operators
Farm laborers
Al 1 others

80
161
351

100.0
100.0
100.0

25.0
16.8
25.1

37.4
32.3
30.2

20.0
20.5
22.8

8.8
16.8
13.1

8.8
13.6
8.8

South Dakota (9 sample counties)

Iowa (10 sample counties)

^Percent not computed on a base of l ess than 50 cases.
So u rc e :

Survey of Rural Households Which Received Relief

in June and were Closed Prior to December 1.

1935.

Average Amount of Relief

Variations in the amounts of relief granted to families in
the eight drought States in June 1935 reflect, to some extent,
the varying intensity of drought effect in those States, although
differences in administrative policies in each State account for
some of the differences in expenditures.
The highest average relief benefits were granted to rural
households in Colorado ($23), North Dakota ($21), and Nebraska
($20). The average June 1935 grant in the eight drought States
was $1726 (table 9), and this varied according to size of house­
hold from $12 for a single person to $25 for a family of nine
or more persons. In Oklahoma, the average grant per household
was only $11, and all grants by size of household were corre­
spondingly low in comparison with the other drought States sur­
veyed.
The amount of relief granted each household was also related
to the type of occupation pursued by the head of the family.
Nonagricultural workers received the largest average grants,
$18, as compared with an average of $16 for agricultural workers
and for those with no usual occupation. The lowest average
amount, $15, was granted to those families whose heads were not
workers (table 10). The contribution of farm products to the
family living was taken into consideration in determining the
26The average benefit for all rural relief households in the United States
was $16.90.
(Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population,
June 1935.)




RELIEF HISTORY OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS

23

size of grants, which accounts for the comparatively lower
amounts for agricultural than for nonagricultural workers.

Table 9— AVERAGE AMOUNT OF RELIEF GRANTED TO RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,
BY SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD, JUNE 1935a
(74 Sample Counties)

Average Grant by Size of Household
Total

State

9 and Over
Total
Colorado
low.a
Kansas
Montana

23
18
19
17

Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota

20

$12

$13

$15

$16

$18

$19

$21

$22

14
8

18
14
14
13

23
15
18
15

25
19
20
16

28

27
22
27

32

22
19

22

26
24

33
25
24
25

41
27
29
29

16
15

18
19
9
14

20

24
23
12
18

29
26
13
18

31
26
14
20

32
29
15
19

12

21
11

13
13
7

16

10

20

22
23
11
17

20
10
17

22

”a Exc1 u s i v e o f c a s e s opened o r reopened d u r in g the-m onth.

Source:

S u rv e y o f C u rre n t C h a nge s

in the R u ra l R e l i e f P o p u la t io n , June 1935.

In the agricultural group, farm owners and laborers received
larger grants than tenants. In the nonagricultural group, white
collar workers had the highest average grant ($22), skilled and
semiskilled workers received the same amount of relief ($20), and
unskilled workers were granted the smallest average amount ($17).
Table 10— AVERAGE AMOUNT OF RELIEF GRANTED TO RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES, BY USUAL
OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD, JUNE 1935a
(74 Sample Counties)

Average Grant
of Head

Total

Col orado

Iowa

Kansas

Montana Nebraska

North 0k1ahoma
Dakota

South
Dakota

$17

$23

$18

$19

$17

$20

$21

$11

$16

Agricul ture
Farm operators
Owners
Tenants
Farm laborers

16
17
17
15
17

26
26
26
26
24

20
20
19
20
20

19
18
16
18
21

17
17
17
17
19

20
20
21
20
19

21
21
21
21
20

11
11
11
11
10

13
12
11
13
19

Nonagri cul ture
Wh i te col Ia r
S kille d
Sem i sk i 11 ed
Unsk i 11ed

18
22
20
20
17

24
31
- 23
28
22

17
20
17
20
17

22
23
21
22
21

20
t
21
19
20

22
t
t
t
20

26
32
26
24
22

11
11
12
12
11

21
22
21
23
20

Total

No usual occupation

16

t

t

t

t

t

t

10

17

Not working or seeking work

15

17

15

14

13

16

16

10

14

'A v e ra g e not computed f o r l e s s th a n 50 c a s e s .
a E x c lu s i v e o f c a s e s opened o r re opened d u r in g the mor.th.
So u rc e :

Su rve y o f C u rre n t C h ange s in the R ura l

R e l i e f P o p u la t io n ,

June 1935.

Types of Relief

During June 1935, as figure 7 indicates, over 60 percent of
all cases in the drought area were on work relief only and 20
percent were on direct relief only. Less than 20 percent of the




24 RELIEF AMD REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA
cases in the entire area received both direct and work relief
during that month.27 The proportion of cases receiving each
type of relief varied widely by States, however, largely because
of differences in State and local administrative policies with
regard to the type of relief given. South Dakota did not have
any cases receiving both types of relief, but in Colorado and
North Dakota about 35 percent of the cases were on direct and
work relief during the month (figure 7 and appendix table 5).
The situat ion had changed considerably by October 1935, since
many E.R.A. work projects had oeen discontinued with the transfer
of workers to the Works Program. Of those remaining on relief
rolls in the drought States, 57 percent were given direct relief
only and 33 percent work relief only, while 10 percent received
both types of relief.
In October, more than three-fifths of all relief cases in
seven of the eight States were receiving direct relief only.
In Oklahoma, however, only about 7 percent of the cases were
receiving direct relief only, and 77 percent were still receiving
work relief only.
Montana showed the least change in type of relief granted
between June and October 1935. Because of the isolated, sparsely
settled nature of the rural areas in this State, there had never
been an extensive work program in operation. Practically all
small projects which had been in operation in rural areas were
liquidated in the spring of 1935 in anticipation of the Works
Program.
27

In some instances, cases received both types of felief concurrently; in
others, they were transferred from one type of aid to the other during
the month.




RELIEF HISTORY OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS

25

C O LO RAD O

IOW A

KANSAS

M O N TA N A

N EBR A SKA

N O RT H DAKOTA

O KLAHO M A

SO U T H DAKOTA
October

Fig. 7 - T Y P E S OF RELIEF GRANTED BY FE.R.A.
IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES
June and October 1935
SO U R C E: Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population
147401 0 — 37-----3




A F - 2 1 99 , W.RA.




P E R S O N A L AND O C C U P A T I O N A L C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF
RURAL RELIEF HO U S E H O L D S

A study of the personal and occupational characteristics of
rural relief households is an important means of determining the
nature of the relief problem and the ability of the households
to cope with economic disaster. This section will attempt to
describe the human factors involved in the relief problem in
the drought States by presenting statistical data pertaining
to residence distribution, age of heads, size of households,
family composition, employability composition, usual and current
occupations of heads and members, tenure status, size of farms,
and education of heads of relief households.
In June 1935, 92 percent of the relief households had one or
more gainful workers, which would indicate that, given the op­
portunity, most of the relief families in the drought States
could sustain themselves.
When this study was made, threefourths of the heads usually engaged in agriculture were still
trying to make a living from the land.
In its efforts to remain self-supporting, the average relief
family in the drought States in the summer of 1935 was somewhat
handicapped by having more members than did the average family
in the general rural population in the same area. The head of
the household was somewhat younger than the average head in the
rural population. In most cases, the household consisted of
husband, wife, and children, and, in the majority of cases, the
relief household was entirely dependent on the husband and fa­
ther, who was the sole worker. The average farm of relief fam­
ilies was much smaller than the average for the area.
The rural relief problem in the drought States was intensified
by the high percentage of tenants who came on relief. In all
eight States, tenants were overrepresented on relief rolls.
There was also a relatively high rate of displacement among the
tenants in June 1935 as measured by the number who had current
employment on farms,
Residence Distribution

In the eight drought States as a whole, 61 percent of the rural
relief households were in the open country28 and 39 percent in
28

Open country— outside of centers of 50 inhabitants or more.
centers of 50 to 2,499 Inhabitants.




27

Villages—

28 RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA
villages (table 11). In Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska, 68, 61, and
70 percent, respectively, of the relief households lived in
villages, which was not surprising since a large proportion of
relief heads in these States followed nonagricultural pursuits.
North Dakota and Oklahoma had the highest proportion of relief
cases in the open country as might be expected from the fact
that the great majority of the heads of households were farm
operators or farm laborers.
Table 11— RESIDENCE OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,
JUNE 1935
(74 Sample Counties)

Total Rural

State

Open Country

V ili age

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

29,760

100.0

18,130

60.9

11,630

39.1

Colorado
1owa
Kansas
Montana

2,128
2,156
2,796
1,594

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

984
690
1,098
1,024

46.2
32,0
39.3
64.2

1,144
1,466
1,698
570

53-8
68.0
60.7
35.8

Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota

2,286
6,230
9,430
3,140

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

698
4,634
7,318
1,684

30.5
74.4
77.6
53.6

1,588
1,596
2,112
1,456

69.5
25.6
22.4
46.4

Total

So u rc e :

S u r v e y of C u rre n t C h ange s

in the R u ra l R e l i e f P o p u la t io n ,

Percent

June 1935.

Age of Heads of Households

Age of heads of households is closely related to family com­
position, since dependent children are usually associated with
young households. Heads of rural relief households in the eight
drought States were much younger than those in the general pop­
ulation of those States.
The median age of male relief heads was 40.4 years (table 12),
while, according to the 1930 Census, 44.3 years was the median
for all rural male heads in the same area. Oklahoma, with a
median age of only 36.2 years, had the youngest male relief
heads, while North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa had the next
youngest (41.4 years for theDakotas, and 41.2 years for Iowa).
The median age for male heads in the general rural populat ion
in Oklahoma was 42.2 years; in North Dakota, 44.7 years; in
South Dakota, 43.9 years; and in Iowa, 45.5 years. The median
ages for male relief heads in Colorado, Montana, and Nebraska
were practically identical with the census median ages for rural
male heads (table 12).
In five of the eight drought States, the greatest number of
male heads were in the 25 to 34-year age group (appendix table
6). In Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota, only a little over
two-fifths of the male heads were 45 years of age or older, while
the proportion of male heads in this group in other States (ex­
cepting Oklahoma with only 32 percent) ranged from 46 to 51 per­
cent .




CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS

29

These data agree with the results of a study29 in October
1933 which included the Cash Grain and Wheat Areas. At that
time, also, heads on relief were found to be younger than heads
in the general population.
Table 12— MEDIAN AGE OF MALE AND FEMALE HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS AND OF MALE HEADS OF
TOTAL RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,a JUNE 1935

Al 1 Heads

Mal e

Female

Median Age of Male
Heads in Total Rural
Households, 1930

Total

40.9

40.4

46.9

44.3

Colorado
1owa
Kansas
Montana

44.9
41.5
42.9
45.4

44.1
41.2
42.3
44.8

51.7
47.0
46.7
49.4

44.1
45.5
45.4
45.0

Nebraska
North Dakota
Ok1ahoma
South Dakota

45.1
41.8
36.7
41.7

44.9
41.4
36.2
41.4

46.4
47.7
44.5
46.3

44.0
44.7
42.2
43.9

State

Median Age of Heads of Relief Households6

See appendix tab le 6 for dist ri but io n of heads of r el i e f households in indi vi du al , St at es by age.
°8ased on data for 74 sample counties.
Sour ce s:

Survey of Current Changes in the Rural R elief Population, June 1935 and F i f t e e n t h C en su s o f the
U n ite d S t a t e s :
1 9 3 0 , Population Vol. VI, tabl e 13 .

Female heads of relief households were older than male heads,
their median age being 46.9 yearsforthe eight States. However,
there was considerable variation from State to State, the median
age of female heads ranging from 44.5 years in Oklahoma to 51.7
years in Colorado.
Sex of Heads of Households

Of all heads of rural relief households in the eight drought
States, 92 percent were males and 8 percent were females (table 13).

Table 13— 2EX OF HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,a JUNE 1935
(74 Sample Counties)

Total
State

Male
Number

Total

Female

Percent

29,760

100.0

91.8

8.2

Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana

2,128
2,156
2,796
1,594

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

86.8
94.2
88.6
89.7

13.2
5.8
11.4
10.3

Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota

2,286
6,230
9,430
3,140

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

84.3
93.2
95.4
89.6

15.7
6.8
4.6
10.4

a See appendix table 6 for dis t ri b ut io n of heads of households in individual

Source:

States by sex.

Survey of Current Changes in the Rural R el ie f Population, June 1935.

McCormick, T. C., Comparative Study of Rural Relief and Non-Relief H o u s e ­
holds, Research Monograph II, Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration. 1935, p. 89, table 21.




30

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

Oklahoma had the highest percentage of male heads of households
(95 percent), while Nebraska had the highest percentage of fe­
male heads (16 percent).
Size of Households

In general, rural relief households in June 1935 were larger
than households in the general rural population in 1930. The
median size of rural relief families was 4.5 persons for the 8
States (table 14) in comparison with a median size of 4.1 persons
for all rural households.
Table 14— MEDIAN SIZE OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES, BY RESIDENCE, JUNE 1935

Average Number of Persons
State

Rel ief Householdsa
Vi 11 age

All Rural Households
(1930 Census)

4.8

4.0

4.1

4.2
4.7
4.4
4.7

3.6
4.6
3-6
4.0

4.0
3-9
3-9
3.7

4.6
5.3
4.9
4.3

3-7
4.3
4.5
3.7

4.1
4.6
4.4
4.3

Total

Open Country

Total

4.5

Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana

3.9
4.6
3-9
4.5

Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahorna
South Dakota

4.0
5.0
4.8
4.0

a Based on data for 74 sample counties.
Sour ce s:

Survey of Current Changes in the Rural
19 3 0 , Population Vol. VI, tabl e 5.

R elief Population, June 1935 and f i f t e e n t h C e n sus o f the U n ite d S t a t e s :

The average size of rural relief families varied considerably
from State to State. In both Kansas and Colorado the median
size of rural relief families was only 3.9 persons. The small
median size of the family in Kansas was due in part to the un­
usually high percentage of families consisting of husband and
Table 15— FAi.1ILY COMPOSITION OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES, JUNE 1935
(74 Sample Counties)

Family Composition

T°ta,;

Number
Percent

Husband-wi fe
Husband-wi fe-ch il dren
Nonfamily man
Nonfamily woman
Father-ch i Idren
Mother-ch i ldren
Source:

Total

Col orado

Iowa

Kansas

Montana

Ne­
braska

South
North
Oklahoma
Dakota
Dakota

29,760
100.0

2,128
100.0

2,156
100.0

2,796
100.0

1,594
10Ó.0

2,286
100,0

6,230
100.0

9,430
100.0

3,140
100.0

13.0

14.0
53.8
16.6
5.9
2.8
6.9

11.6
73-3
7.4
1.3
2.2
4.2

18.2
53.6
14.2
5.2
2.6
6.2

11.5
62.5
13.6
4.0
2.4
6.0

15.4
54.3
13.0
7.0
2.1
3.2

10.0
70.4
10.6
2.1
2.7
4.2

12.5
71.7
8.6
1.2
2.7
3-3

14.8
58.3
14.5
5.0
2.1
5.3

65.3
11.3
3.1
2.5
4.8

Survey of Current Changes in the Rural R elief Population, June 1935.

wife without children (table 15). In Colorado, the small me­
dian size was the result of the exceptionally high proportion
of single men on the relief rolls. The largest rural relief




CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS

31

families were in North Dakota, where they averaged five persons,
and in Oklahoma, where they averaged almost as many persons.
In all drought States, families residing in the open country
were larger than those in villages. The large size of opencountry families in these States has particular bearing on the
relief problem in view of the fact that such large percentages
of rural relief households lived in the open country.
Family Composition

The composition of families receiving relief is a good indi­
cation of the kind of relief and rehabilitation problems in
each State. Normal families, consisting of husband and wife,
or of husband, wife, and children, formed 78 percent of all
rural relief households in the eight drought States in June
1935 (table 15). The percentages of normal families were high­
est in Iowa (85 percent), Oklahoma (84 percent), and North Da­
kota (80 percent). Of all rural families in the United States
in 1930, 81 percent were normal according to the present defi­
nition.30
Single men and women constituted a relatively large propor­
tion of the total rural relief load in the area (14 percent).
Colorado had the highest proportion of such cases on the relief
rolls (23 percent).
Broken families, consisting of father or mother with children,
did not occur in large enough numbers to constitute a special
relief problem. Only 7 percent of the rural relief families in
all eight States were of this type. Nebraska and Colorado had
the largest number of households containing broken families
(10 percent each).
Employability Composition

The number of gainful workers,31 especially male workers, in
a family is directly related to the prospects of a family sus­
taining itself if given the economic opportunity. Only 8 per­
cent of all rural relief households in the eight drought States
had no gainful workers, but almost two-thirds of them (63 per­
cent) were dependent on one male worker (table 16). The pro­
portions of such households ranged from 55 percent in Nebraska
to 72 percent in Iowa. In Nebraska, 19 percent of the relief
households had no gainful workers; in Kansas, 16 percent had
none; and in Montana, 13 percent had none. Less than 5 percent
of the total households were entirely dependent on female workers.
30

"Types of Families in the United States," Fifteenth Census of the United
States: 1930, Special release, August 5, 1935, table 1.

31Persons

16 to 64 years of age inclusive, working or seeking work.




32

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

Usual Occupation of Heads of Households

Another important aspect of the relief situation is the oc­
cupational background of the heads of families. The proportion
of farmers on relief in the eight drought States was far higher
than the proportion of farmers on relief in all rural areas of
Table 16— EMPLOYABILITY COMPOSITION OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES, JUNE 1935
(74 Sample Counties)

Empl oyab i 1 i ty Compos i t i on

T o ta l:
One
Two
One
Two
One

Number
Percent

29,760
100.0

male worker only
or more male workers only
female worker only
or more female workers only
male and one female worker

One male and two or more female workers
Two males and one female worker
Two males and two or more female workers
No workers
Source:

Total

S u rv e y o f C u rre n t C hanges

Col orado

1owa

Kan­
sas

Mon­
tana

2,128 2,156 2,796 1,594
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ne­
North Okl a- South
braska Dakota homa Dakota
2,286
100.0

6,230 9,430 3,140
100.0 100.0 100.0

62.8
12.5
3.9
0.7
5.4

57.9
9.4
6.2
0.4
5.0

72.2
12.1
2.8
0.5
6.9

59.7
10.5
5.1
0.4
4.5

59.7
10.8
4.8
1.1
6.3

55.2
9.0
7.0
0.9
4.3

57.7
12.9
2.3
0.6
5.7

68.4
15.0
2.7
0.8
5.7

63.3
11.6
6.1
0.5
4.7

1.6
4.0
1.2
7.9

0.9
2.7
0.2
17.3

0.6
1.8
0.2
2.9

1.2
2.4
0.5
15.7

0.6
3.2
0.6
12.9

0.9
2.9
0.9
18.9

2.7
7.5
3-0
7.6

1.9
3.6
0.8
1.1

1.1
3.1
1.1
8.5

in the R u ra l R e l i e f

P o p u la t io n , June 1935.

the United States. In June 1935, 12 percent of the farm oper­
ators by usual occupation32 in the eight drought States were
on relief rolls (table 17) in comparison with only 6 percent
for the country as a whole. Within the eight States, 68 per­
cent of all heads of rural relief households were farmers (ta­
ble 18) while the comparable proportion for all sample counties
in the United States was only 53 percent.33
Table 17— PERCENT OF FARM OPERATORS21 ON RELIEF IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,
JUNE 1935
(74 Sampl e Counties)

Percent of Total Farmers on Rel ief, 1935

State
Total

12.1

Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana

11.0
2.1
3.7
11.6

Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota

4.2
26.6
23.3
11.7

a By u su a l

o c c u p a t io n .

S o u rc e s:

S u rv e y o f C u rre n t C h a nge s
o f A g r i c u lt u r e :
19 3 5 .

in the R u ra l R e l i e f P o p u la t io n ,

June 1935 and U n ite d S t a t e s Census

The proportions of heads of relief households who were farm­
ers and farm laborers varied somewhat among the drought States.
rzo

Usual occupation Is defined as
weeks within the last 10 years.

33

any Job held for at least 4 consecutive

Survey of Current Changes In the Rural Relief Population, June 1935.




CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS

Table 18— USUAL OCCUPATION OF EMPLOYABLE HEADS3 OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS
IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES, JUNE 1935
{74 Sample Counti es)

Usual Occupation

Number

Percent

Total

26,796

100.0

Agri cul ture

18,282

68.2

7,954

29.7

560

2.1

Total

1,718

100.0

Agricul ture

1,016

59.1

666

38.8

36

2.1

2,032

100.0

914

45.0

1,106

54.4

12

0.6

Total

2,290

100.0

Agricul ture

1,246

54.4

Nonagricul ture

1,000

43-7

44

1.9

1.342

100.0

Al 1 8 States

Nonagri culture
No usual occupation
Col orado

Nonagri culture
No usual occupation
lowa
Total
Agriculture
Nonagricul ture
No usual occupation
Kansas

No usual occupation
Montana
Total
Agri cul ture

946

70.5

Nonagricul ture

382

28.5

14

1.0

No usual occupation
Nebraska
Total

1,792

100-.0

Agricul ture

974

Nonagricul ture

774

54.3
43.2

44

2.5

Total

5,608

100.0

Agri cul ture

4,580

81.6

Nonagri eu 1ture

1,002

17.9

26

0.5

No usual occupation
North Dakota

No usual occupation
Oklahoma
Total

9,222

100.0

Agri cul ture

6,844

74.2

Nonagricul ture

2,232

24.2

146

1.6

Total

2,792

100.0

Agri cul ture

1,762

63.1

Nonag ri cul ture

792

28.4

No usual occupation

238

8.5

No usual occupation
South Dakota

aPersons 16 to 64 years of age i nc lusive,
Source:

working or seeking work.

Survey of Current Changes in the Rural




Relief

Population,

June 1935.

33

34 RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA
North Dakota had the highest proportion (82 percent) of agri­
cultural workers in the relief load, followed by Oklahoma (74
percent), and Montana (71 percent). Iowa was the only State in
which nonagricultural workers predominated on the relief rolls.
Tenure Status

In June 1935, more than seven-tenths of the farm-operator
heads of relief households in the drought States were tenants
(table 19). The percentage of farm operators on relief who
were tenants was highest in Oklahoma (87 percent) and lowest in
Montana (44 percent). In each of the eight States, tenants were
greatly overrepresented on relief.
Table 19— TENURE STATUS OF FARM OPERATORS ON RELIEF AND IN THE GENERAL POPULATION
IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES, 1935

Farm Operators3 on Rel i ef,b June 1935
State

Total

Owners

Number
Total
Co 1o rado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota

Tenants0

Percent of Tenants
Among Total Farm
Operators, 1935

Percent

14,530

100.0

28.9

71.1

48.3

700
472
728
838

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

31.7
26.3
22.8
56.3

68.3
73.7
77.2
43.7

39.0
49.6
44.0
27.7

544
4,154
5,648
1,446

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

26.0
43.4
12.9
37.5

74.0
56.6
87.1
62.5

49.3
39.1
61.2
48.6

a By u su a l o c c u p a t io n .
'■’ Based on d a ta f o r 74 sam ple c o u n t ie s .
c In c lu d in g sh a r e c r o p p e r s .
So u rc e s:

S u rve y o f C u rre n t C h a nge s in the R u ra l

R e l i e f P o p u la t io n ,

June 1935 and U n ite d S t a t e s C ensus o f A g r i c u lt u r e :

19 3 5 .

Usual Occupation of Members Other Than Heads

One-half of the members of relief households other than heads
who were gainful workers reported agriculture as their usual
occupation (table 20), as compared with 68percentof the heads.
Table 20— USUAL OCCUPATION OF WORKERS OTHER THAN HEADS IN RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS
IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES, JUNE 1935
(74 Sampl e Counties)

Usual Occupation

Colorado

Iowa

Kansas

12,598
100.0

624
100.0

698
100.0

840
100.0

548
100.0

754
100.0

3,978
100.0

4,004
100.0

1,152
100.0

Agri cul ture
Farm operators
Farm laborers

50.5
1.3
49.2

49.3
0.6
48.7

32.6

23.8

0.7
31.9

41.6
2.6
39.0

46.4
1.9
44.5

63-1
1.4
61.7

49.7
1.1
48.6

46.2
1.6
44.6

Nonagricul ture
Whi te col 1ar
Skille d
Semi ski 11 ed
Unsk i 11ed

19.1
3.7
0.6
1.4
13.4

27.9
3-8
0.6
3.8
19.7

55.9
8.1
1.4
3-7
42.7

35.0
10.7
1.4
1.9
21.0

20.8
2.6
2.5
15.7

32.9
6.9
0.3
3-2
22.5

15.5
3-5
0.4
1.0
10.6

10.4
1.2
0.3
0.4
8.5

13.4
4.3
1.6
1.2
6.3

No usual occupation

30.4

22.8

20.0

32.4

37.6

20.7

21.4

39.9

40.4

T o ta l:

Source:

Number
percent

S u rv e y o f C u rre n t C hanges in th e R ura l




24.1
0.3

R e l i e f P o p u la t io n ,

Montana Nebraska

North
South
Oklahoma
Dakota
Dakota

Total

Ju n e 1935.

-

CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS

35

Practically all of these agricultural workers were farm labor­
ers, chiefly on the home farm. The smallest proportions of ag­
ricultural workers were found in Iowa and Kansas; the largest
proportion, in North Dakota.
Two-thirds of the members whose usual occupations were in
nonagricultural industries had worked at unskilled occupations.
About one-third of the members who were reported as workers had
not yet acquired experience at any occupation. The proportion
was as high as 40 percent in both Oklahoma and South Dakota.
Current Occupation of Heads and Other Members of Households

A much higher proportion of agricultural than of nonagricul­
tural workers was employed34 at the usual occupation in June 1935
(table 21 and appendix tables 7 and 8). Of workers usually
engaged in agriculture, 76 percent of the heads and 88 percent
of the other members were currently employed at their usual oc­
cupation, as compared with 25 percent of the heads and 45 per­
cent of the other members who were nonagricultural workers.
Since practically all of the agricultural workers other than
heads in rural relief households were farm laborers, it is as­
sumed t hey were working on the home fafms and were not comparable
to farm laborers who were heads of families.
Only 5 percent of the farm owners by usual occupation were
unemployed in June 1935. As farm owners made up only 16 per­
cent of the total employable relief loads in the eight States,
this displacement was a relatively minor factor in the relief
situation. However, since farmers still on their farms were con­
sidered employed, the above percentage cannot be compared to
unemployed groups with nonagricultural occupations.
Displacement of tenants, on the other hand, was a more serious
factor, since tenants by usual occupation made up 39 percent of
the employable relief load. In Kansas, where tenants constituted
one-fourth of the relief load, over one-fourth of them were un­
employed and seeking work (appendix table 8). Almost one-third
of the tenants by usual occupation in Nebraska were unemployed
and seeking work. The greatest proportionate displacement of
tenants was in Iowa with almost two-fifths of the tenants in
this category.
Almost seven-tenths of the heads of rural relief households
who were farm laborers were unemployed and seeking work in the
eight drought States in June 1935— a situation obviously the
result of adverse economic conditions on farms.
Only a little more than 2 percent of those whose usual occu­
pation was agriculture had shifted to nonagricultural employment
by June 1935. The shift from nonagricultural to agricultural
34A farm operator residing on a farm was considered employed.




Table 21— CURRENT OCCUPATION OF EMPLOYABLE HEADS3 OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,15 BY USUAL OCCUPATION, JUNE 1935
(74 Sample Count ies)

cn

Total
Agri cui ture
Number

Percent

To tal

Farm
Owners

Nonagriculture

Farm
Tenants0

Farm
Laborers

Total

Wh i te Collar

Sk ille d

Semi sk i 11 ed

Unski 1led

Unemployed and
Seeking Work

100.0

54.2

15.1

34.3

4.8

9.0

1.2

0.7

0.6

6.5

36.8

100.0

76.3

21.6

48.6

6.1

2.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

1.8

21.5

14,530
4,200
10,330

100.0
100.0
100.0

88.7
94.2
86.5

27.0
92.4
0.4

60.3
1.5
84.3

1.4
0.3
1.8

1.7
0.8
2.1

0.2
0.2
0-3

0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1

1.3
0.4
1.6

9.6
5.0
11.4

3,752

100.0

28.3

0.6

3.4

24.3

4.0

0.2

0.3

0.1

3.4

67.7

7,954

100.0

7.2

1.1

3.9

2.2

25.4

3.4

2.2

1.8

18.0

67.4
62.0

Farm operators
Owners
Tenants0
Farm laborers
Nonagriculture
Whi te col 1ar

1,066

100.0

9.2

2.8

28.8

22.3

0.8

0.8

4.9

1.338

100.0

7.5

1.0

4.3
4.6

2.1

Sk i 11ed

1.9

20.8

0.9

11.7

0.6

7.6

71.7

Semi sk i 11 ed

1,060

100.0

9.4

0.9

5.3

3-2

20.8

0.4

0.4

10.7

9.3

69.8

Unski11ed

4,490

100.0

6.1

0.7

3.3

2.1

27.1

0.4

0.1

0.2

26.4

66.8

560

100.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100.0

No usual occupation

-

^See appendix tabl e

7 for data by individual

States.

Survey of Current Changes in the Rural

DROUGHT
AREA




R elief Population, June 19 35.

THE

C l ncludlng sharecroppers.
Source:

-

IN

a Persons 16 to 64 years of age inc l us i ve , Working or seeking work.

REHABILITATION

26,796
18,282

AND

Total
Agricul ture

RELIEF

Current Occupation
Usual Occupation

CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS

37

employment was slightly larger (7 percent). This shift was
greatest in Oklahoma, where 14 percent of the nonagricultural
workers had become farmers or farm laborers.
The shift from ownership to tenancy was not great in the
eight drought States (2 percent). The financial aid given to
owners by Federal agencies can be assumed to be the reason for
this small occupational change in a period of acute agricultural
distress.
Size of Farms

The ability of a farmer to succeed in agriculture is related
to whether or not he has sufficient acreage for the type of
farming practiced in a given area. In 13 representative counties
in drought States studied during the spring of 1935,35 farm
owners and tenants on relief were found to be operating farms
considerably smaller in size than the average farm operated by
nonrelief farmers.
The average farm of operators on relief in the two Wheat
Areas in June 1935 was much smaller in size than that operated
by farmers in the general population. In the Spring Wheat Area,
the average-sized farm of owners on relief was 338 acres, against
745 acres for all owners; and the average-sized farm of tenants
on relief was 310 acres against 483 acres for all tenants. The
Winter Wheat Area reported average sizes of 146 and 115 acres
for owners and tenants on relief, as compared with 423 and 304
acres for all owners and tenants.36
Length of Continuous Residence

In general, relief clients had settled in the drought States
long before the recent drought period. Over one-half of the
farm operators in the June 1935 sample had resided in the same
county for 20 years or more. Only 13 percent of the operators
had been living in their county of residence for less than 5
years. However, there had been a fairly constant rate of mi­
gration into the drought States during each of the 5 preceding
years (table 22).
The proportions of farm operators who had maintained con­
tinuous residence in the county for 20 years or more ranged
from 39 percent in Colorado to 71 percent in North Dakota.

35

See series of bulletins on natural and economic factors affecting rural
relief and rehabilitation in the drought area, Research Bulletins K-l to
K-13, Resettlement .Administration, 1936.

36Asch, Berta and Mangus, A. R . , Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation, op,
cit., chapter V I .




38

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

However, 64 percent of the cases in Colorado reported residences
in the county for at least 10 years.
Table 22— LENGTH OF LAST CONTINUOUS RESIDENCE IN COUNTY OF FARM OPERATORS ON RELIEF
IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES, JUNE 1935
(74 Sample Counties)

Years

Totala
State
Number
Total
Col orado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Okl ahorna
South Dakota

Percent

Less
Than 1

1

2

3

4

5

6-9

10-19

20 and
Over

12,660

100.0

0.4

2.8

3.0

3-2

3-5

3-8

12.0

19.0

52.3

698
472
728
836

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

0.9
0.9
-

2.0
1.7
4.7
3-1

3-7
4.2
3-3
1.4

4.9
2.5
3.6
1.7

4.9
4.7
6.6
2.4

5.1
3.0
2.7
2.2

14.6
8.5
12.9
16.5

25.2
13.1
11.5
26.1

38.7
61.4
54.7
46.6

536
3,812
5,370
208

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

0.4
0.2
0.5
1.0

4.1
1.1
3-8
1.0

5.2
1.3
4.1
2.9

6.3
1.1
4.5
1.0

3-4
1.3
4.6
2.9

4.5
1.6
5.4
6.7

12.3
8.8
13.4
14.4

21.3
14.0
22.0
17.3

42.5
70.6
41.7
52.8

-

a Exalusive of unknowns.
Source:

Survey of Current Changes in the Rural

Relief Population,

June 1935.

Education of Heads of Relief Households

Relief heads of households in October 1935 in eight drought
States usually had had only an elementary school education.
The median grade completed varied little from State to State
(table 23).
Table 23— GRADE ATTAINMENT IN SCHOOL OF HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,
OCTOBER 1935
(74 Sample Counties)

School Grade or
Year Completed

Iowa

17,556
100.0

1,156
100.0

1,238
100.0

1,756
100.0

766
100.0

1,200
100.0

3.440
100.0

6,660
100.0

1,340
100.0

3-5
7.2
17.8
10.3
9.7
36.3

2.2
6.4
12.6
6.6
8.7
43.5

1.6
6.0
16.2
12.6
5.3
43.5

2.1
4.1
13.9
7.5
9.6
46.5

4.2
4.2
15.9
9.1
8.4
41.3

1.8
6.5
11.0
9.0
5.5
41.1

4.2
6.2
14.4
8.3
12.0
41.7

4.7
10.1
24.9
13.0
10.2
24.9

1.8
4.0
9.6
8.7
10.4
46.1

High school
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years

4.7
3-4
1.5
4.3

6.6
5.0
1.7
4.5

2.6
4.4
2.1
5.3

4.8
3.2
1.0
6.7

5.2
4.4
0.5
3.9

5.3
5.0
3-2
9.5

2.9
3-6
1.5
3.7

5.3
2.6
1.3
2.4

Col 1ege
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years

0.5
0.5
0.1
0.2

0.9
1.0

0.2

0.3

0.2

1.0

0.8
0.3
0.3
0.7

0.5
0.6
0.3
0.1

0.2
0.4

-

0.3
0.1
0.2
-

0.8
0.8

-

-

0.9
1.2
0.3
0.4

*

-

-

-

0.3

-

-

-

-

8.0

8.3

8.2

8.3

8.2

8.4

8.1

6.8

8.3

Number
Percent

No schooling
Less than 4 years
4-5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years

Graduate
Median year completed

If--'— 1------- -

-

Montana

North
Oklahoma South
Dakota
Dakota

Col orado

T o ta l:

Kansas

Ne­
braska

Total

-

_

5.2

3-3
1.2
6.9

Less than 0.05 percent.

Source:

Survey of Current Changes in the Rural

Relief Population,

October 1935.

Only in Oklahoma did the median fall below the eighth grade.
In that State it was 6.8, reflecting the limited educational




CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS
op portu n ities
Montana

and

households
heads

in

as
a ll

p r a c tic a lly




in most

North

no

s o u t h e r n and s o u t h w e s t e r n

D a k o t a had a l m o s t

as

did

Oklahom a,

O nly

eigh t

States

com bined

co lleg e

graduates

1

were

many

percent
had

States,

illit e r a t e
of

the

attended

reported.

39

However,
heads

of

household

co lleg e

and




Appendix A
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

147401 0 — 37---- 4







APPENDIX A

T a b le

1— NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED® BY WORKS PROGRESS ADM IN ISTR AT IO N 13
IN 57 COUNTIES OF THE DROUGHT AREA,

BY SUBREGIONS,

SEPTEMBER 1935 THROUGH DECEMBER 1936

Month
and
Year

Subreg i on

Total
57
Count i es

Total
45
Counties

278
1,172
11,073
17,772

147
822
5,847
10,414

c
147
361
749

January
February
March
Apri 1
May
June

19,225
19,254
19,243
14,838
12,894
11,702

10,155
10,398
,10,460
8,272
6,894
6,214

July
August
September
October
November
December

12,587
17,638
26,829
32,846
34,019
24,709

7,755
12,905
19,234
22,208
22,919
15,288

Northern
Great Plains

Western
Corn Belt

Wi nter
Wheat

Spring
Wheat

Southwestern
Great Plains

20
153
1,026
2,233

127
434
2,513
3,527

c
73
1,190
2,428

15
757
1,477

705
781
740
626
578
498

2,100
2,440
2,563
1,893
1,529
1,423

3,686
3,659
3,621
2,903
2,611
2,337

2,098
1,939
1,968
1,509
1,002
931

1,566
1,579
1,568
1,341
1,174
1,025

1,271
2,330
3,618
4,171
4,098
3,215

1,291
1,842
3,456
4,524
5,020
3,733

1,704
2,241
2,882
3,206
3,404
3,506

2,566
5,282
8,029
9,089
9,269
3,958

923
1,210
1,249
1,218
1,128
876

1935
September
October
November
December

C

1936

a E x c lu s i v e of n o n r e l ie f e m p lo y ee s.
^ As of la s t

pay r o l l

C No work p ro je c t
S o u rc e :

in month.

in o p e r a t io n .

D i v i s i o n o f R e s e a r c h , 'S t a t 1 s t ic s , and R e c o rd s , W orks P ro g re ss A d m in is t r a t io n .




43

T a b le 2 — EMPLOYMENT ON WORKS PROGRESS ADM INISTRATIO N PROJECTS,

AS OF LAST WEEK

IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES AND THE UNITED STATES,

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

2,871,637

2,570,315

2,339,740

2,255,898

2,249,357

2,376,565

2,476,966

2,576,691

2,478,062

2,187,976

2 79,910

286,991

252,672

204,842

185,518

176,534

206,731

272,831

329,695

365,954

321,607

207,069

Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
Montana

42,186
33,679
43,863
16,296

42,764
35,198
47,398
18,522

39,033
30,760
45,076
19,861

33,281
26,527
39,298
14,162

29,625
21,113
34,473
10,773

28,328
19,408
30,402
10,489

27, 902
19,047
31,988
13,475

29,631
23,139
40,989
18,319

28,641
28,472
47,899
20,791

27,278
33,658
53,995
21,706

27,307
28, 594
53,507
21,993

20,018
21,420
40,301
9,239

Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota

20,424
13,476
93,051
16,935

23,945
12,980
90,593
15,591

21,497
11,997
69,669
14,779

19,125
10,990
49,654
11,805

16,238
8,717
54,503
10,076

14,512
8,399
55,596
9,400

14,194
23,462
55,063
21,600

23,468
41,378
58,357
37,550

24,981
42,708
82,093
54,110

31,385
45,541
87,257
65,134

29,562
32,120
87,162
41,362

19,253
17,997
58,118
20,723

Total 8 States

S o u rc e :

D iv is io n

S t a t is t ic s ,

and R e c o rd s ,

W orks P r o g r e s s A d m in is t r a t io n .

IN THE
DROUGHT
AREA




o f R e s e a rc h ,

REHABILITATION

February
3,035,852

AND

January
2,925,605

United States

RELIEF

State

IN EACH MONTH,

1936

APPENDIX A

45

Table 3— REASON FOR OPENING OF RURAL CASES IN THEIR FIRST RELIEF PERIOD IN
EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,

BY RES.I DENCE, BY STATES, JUNE 1935

(74 Sample C o u n tie s)

Reason for Opening, by Residence
Total rural:

Number
Rercent

Loss of job in ordinary employment
Loss or depletion of assets
Crop failure or loss of livestock
Insufficient income
Old age, death, illness, loss of aid from
relatives, or transfer to other agency
Mi seellaneous
Total open country:

Number
Percent

Loss of job in ordinary employment
Loss or depletion of assets
Crop failure or loss of livestock
Insufficient income
Old age, death, illness, loss of aid from
relatives, or transfer to other agency
Mi seel 1aneous
Total villa g e :

Number
Percent

Loss of job in ordinary employment
Loss or depletion of assets
Crop failure or loss of livestock
Insufficient income
Old age, death, illness, loss of aid from
relatives, or transfer to other agency
Mi seellaneous
So u rc e :

Total

Colo­
rado

Iowa

Kansas

Mon­
tana

Ne­
braska

North
Dakota

Okla­
homa

South
Dakota

14,410
100.0

858
100.0

1,212
100.0

1,790
100.0

534
100.0

1,906
100.0

2,130
100.0

4,158
100.0

1,822
100.0

13.8
23.6
33-2
14.2

23.8
21.9
28.4
10.5

38.3
9.7
11.1
26.2

19.9
44.0
21.2
5.4

19.4
16.5
39.7
9.4

13.3
25.8
18.5
18.6

14.4
9.5
57.4
8.6

3.6
20.4
40.5
22.3

8.2
37.1
30.9
1.2

7.6
7.6

13.5
1.9

9.7
5.0

7.6
1.9

14.6
0.4

15.5
8.3

8.9
1.2

2.5
10.7

3.5
19.1

8,132
ioo.o

374
100.0

396
100.0

788
100.0

326
100.0

602
100.0

1,410 3,184
100.0 100.0

1,052
100.0

5.8
16.0
55.0
12.0

12.3
13.4
60.4
4.3

20.2
7.1
30.3
27.7

10.2
35.5
45.1
4.1

9.2
12.3
62.6
6.7

9.0
17.3
47.1
16.3

5.7
3-7
83.1
3-8

2.6
14.9
50.0
20.2

1.7
25.9
49.2
0.4

4.0
7.2

8.0
1.6

8.1
6.6

4.6
0.5

9.2
-

8.3
2.0

3.7
-

2.1
10.2

2.5
20.3

6,278
100.0

484
100.0

816
100.0

1,002
100.0

208
100.0

1,304
100.0

720
100.0

974
100.0

770
100.0

24.1
33-5
5.1
16.9

32.7
28.5
3.7
15.3

47.1
11.0
1.7
25.5

27.5
50.7
2.4
6.4

35.6
23.1
3-8
13.5

15.3
29.8
5.2
19/6

31.4
20.8
6.9
18.1

6.6
38.6
9.7
29.1

17.1
52.5
5.7
2.3

12.4
8.0

17.7
2.1

10.5
4.2

10.0
3.0

23.0
1.0

18.9
11.2

19.2
3.6

3.7
12.3

4.9
17.5

Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population, June 1935.




46 RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

T a b le 4— NUMBER OF MONTHS SIN C E JANUARY 1932 IN WHICH UNEMPLOYMENT R E 1 IE F HAD
BEEN RE CE IV ED 3 BY RURAL R E L IE F HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT
DROUGHT STATES,

BY USUAL OCCUPATION OF

THE HEAD, BY STATES, OCTOBER 1935
(74 Sample C o u n t ie s )

Usual Occupation13
of Head

Total
Number

Number of Months

Percent

1 -4

10-14 15- 19 20 - 24 25 -2 9 3 0-34 35 - 46

5 -9

Col o rad o
Total

1,180

100.0

13.9

11.9

20.3

24.1 ! 14.9

7.4

6.1

1.4

Agri cul ture
Farm operators
Farm laborers

702
542
160

100.0
100.0
100.0

11.4
8.1
22.5

12.0
10.7
16.2

22.8
25.1
15.0

25.3
24.7
27.5

15.1
16.6
10.0

7.47.0
8.8

5.1
6.7
-

0.9
1.1
-

Nonagricul tureWh i te col 1ar
Sk i 11 ed
Semi ski 11ed
Unsk i 11ed

372
52
46
30
244

100.0
100.0

16.7
34.6

14.5
11.5

17.7
11.5

23.1
23.1

15.6
3-9

6.5
7.7

5.4
7.7

0.5

t

t

t
t

t
t

t
t

t
t

100.0

15-. 6

t
10.7

18.8

23.0

18.0

-

8.2

-

-

t
4.9

0.8

No usual occupation

36

t

t

-

t

t

t

-

t

t

Not working or seeking work

70

100.0

11.4

2.9

14.3

20.0

14.3

17.1

14.3

5.7

0.7

Iowa
Total

1,258

100.0

5.7

9.5

19.2

32.8

20.5

8.1

3.5

Agri cul ture
Farm operators
Farm laborers

462
192
270

100.0
100.0
100.0

8.3
10.4
6.7

12.1
15.6
9.6

15.6
16.7
14.8

34.2
38.5
31.1

22.9
10.4
31.9

4.3
5.2
3.7

2.6
3-2
2.2

Nonagriculture
Whi te col 1ar
Sk i 11ed
Semi ski 11ed
Unski 11ed

742
48
78
56
560

100.0

4.6

8.4

21.3

31.4

18.6

3-3

100.0
100.0
100.0

10.7
3-6

No usual occupation

14

t

Not working or seeking work

40

t

t

-

-

-

t

t

t

5.1
17.9
7.5

20.5
25.0
22.5

30.8
25.0
30.7

33.3
17.9
17.1

10.8
2.6
3-5
13.6

-

t

t

t

-

-

-

-

-

-

t

t

t

t

t

-

t
7.7
3.6

t

t

1.1
1.4

Kansas
Total

2,246

100.0

8.4

13.7

22.9

22.8

19.2

6.4

3-8

2.8

Agri cul ture
Farm operators
Farm laborers

980
320
660

100.0
100.0
100.0

6.3
3-7
7.6

12.9
18.1
10.3

27.7
28.7
27.3

25.1
24.4
25.5

18.2
15.0
19.7

4.5
4.4
4.5

4.1
4.4
3.9

1.2
1.3
1.2

Nonagricul ture
Wh i te col 1ar
Sk i 11ed
Semi ski 11ed
Unsk i 11ed

652
62
138
100
352

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

8.6
6.5
8.7
14.0
7.4

15.6
29.0
11.6
18.0
14.2

20.6
25.8
23.2
12.0
21.0

24.8
3.2
29.0
30.0
25.6

18.1
29.0
14.5
16.0
18.2

7.4
7.2
4.0
9.7

2.8
2.9
2.0
3.4

2.1
6.5
2.9
4.0
0.5

No usual occupation
Not working or seeking work

44

t

t

t

t

t

-

-

-

t

570

100.0

10.2

13.0

16.5

16.8

23.8

9.1

4.6

6.0

Montana
Total

892

100.0

7.4

8.3

17.5

18.1

13.7

16.4

16.6

2.0

Agri cul ture
Farm operators
Farm laborers

580
520
60

100.0
100.0
100.0

6.2
3-5

30.0

7.9
6.5
20.0

15.9
14.6
26.7

16.2
16.5
13.4

12.8
13.9
3-3

18.3
20.4
-

20.3
22.3
3-3

2.4
2.3
3-3

Nonagricul ture
Wh ite col 1ar
Ski 11ed
Semi sk i 11ed
Unski 1led

210
18
32
42
118

100.0

13.3

10.5

20.0

11.4

-

8.6
t

1.9

t

20.0
t

14.3

t

t

-

No usual occupation
Not working or seeking work

t

t

100.0

t
11.9

t

13.6

t
t
t
16.9

t
t
15.3

t
t
t

11.9

-

t
t

16.9

-

t
t

11.8

1.7

4

t

-

t

98

100.0

2.0

6.1

22.5

24.5

18.4

16.3

1,536

100.0

11.6

16.4

19.0

2.1

-

100.0
100.0

7.0
9.2

21.0
15.4

26.3
26.0
28.5

24.6

570
260

27.4
32.3

17.2
13-1

1.4
1.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

t

-

10.2

-

Nebraska
Total
Agri cul ture
Farm operators




-

APPENDIX A

T a b le 4— NUMBER OF MONTHS SIN C E JANUARY 1932

47

IN WHICH UNEMPLOYMENT R E L IE F HAD

BEEN RECEIV ED 3 BY RURAL RE L IE F HOUSEHOLDS
DROUGHT STATES,

IN EIGHT

BY USUAL OCCUPATION OF THE HEAD,

BY STATES, OCTOBER 1935— C o n tin u e d
(74 Sample C o u n t ie s )

Usual Occupation*1
of Head

Total

Number of Months

Number Percent

1 -4

5 - 9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-46

Nebraska— Cont ¡nued
Agriculture— Conti nued
Farm laborers

310

100.0

5.2

25.8

23.9

23.2

20.6

1.3

-

T

Nonagri culture
Wh i te col 1ar
Sk i 11 ed
Semi sk i 11ed
Unsk i 11ed

500
74
82
80
264

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

16.0
10.8
14.6
15.0
18.2

12.0
16.2

20.0
10.8
26.8
32.5
16.7

26.4
27.0
29.3
10.0
30.3

1.2
-

-

-

25.0
10.6

24.4
35.2
29.3
17.5
21.9

2.3

-

-

24

t

t

-

t

-

-

t

-

-

442

100.0

10.4

16.3

28.5

27.6

14.0

3.2

-

7.3
7.2
6.9
10.1

16.8

25.9

28.9

13.9

3-8

0.1

17.1
17.8
10.8

25.5
2$.3
26.6

28.7 15.6
28.1 '15.9
34.5 12.2

2.8
2.7
2.9

0.1
0.2
-

14.2
26.1
7.3
. 10.0
13-3

28.3
13.0
41.5
33-3.
28.3

29.6
17.4
17.1
30.0
35.6

7.4
13.1
21.9
6.7
2.8

7.4
-

No usual occupation
Not working or seeking work

-

-

-

-

North Dakota
Total

3,696

100.0

3-3

Agricul ture
Farm operators
Farm laborers

2,766
2,488
278

100.0
100.0
100.0

3.0
3-1
2.9

594
92
82
60
360

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

4.7
8.7
6.7
4.4

8.4
21.7
12.2
5.6

18

t

-

-

t

t

-

t

318

100.0

3-1

5.7

18.2

24.5

31.5

Nonagri culture
White c o lla r
Sk i 11ed
Semi s k ille d
Unsk i 11ed
No usual occupation
Not working or seeking work

-

-

13.3
10.0

_
-

-

-

-

10.7

6.3

-

Oklahoma
Total

6,926

100.0

5.7

12.3

37.3

35.2

9.4

0.1

-

-

Agricul ture
Farm operators
Farm laborers

5,124
3,748
1,376

100.0
100.0
100.0

4.8
3-7
7.7

11.4
10.7
13.5

37.2
38.6
33-6

35.8
35.8
35.9

10.7
11.1
9.3

0.1
0.1
-

-

-

_
-

-

-

Nonagri cul ture
Mi i te col 1ar
S k ille d
Semi sk i 11ed
Unsk i 11ed

1,514
112
180
210
1,012

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

9.2
3-6
. 11.1
11.4
9.1

13-3
19.6
7.8
19.1
12.5

38.1
28.6
32.2
33.3
41.1

33-3
39.3
43-3
30.5
31.4

6.1
8.9
5.6
5.7
5.9

-

-

92

100.0

4.4

32.6

39.1

19.6

196

100.0

4.1

18.4

32.6

40.8'

No usual occupation
Not working or seeking work

<-

-

-

-

-

-

4.3

-

-

-

4.1

-

-

-

South Dakota
Total

1,560

100.0

6-3

9.6

13.8

24.4

31.9

9.1

3.2

1.7

Agricul ture
Farm operators
Farm laborers

552
228
324

100.0
100.0
100.0

4.7
6.2
3-7

8.0
4.4
10.5

11.6
10.5
12.3

25.0
23-7
25.9

35.1
42.1
30.3

9.8
10.5
9.3

3-6
2.6
4.3

3-7

Nonagri cul ture
White c o lla r
Sk ille d
Sem i sk i 11 ed
Unski 11ed

626
88
132
60
346

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

7.0
22.7
1.5
6.7
5.2

10.2

15.0
22.7
10.6
13.3
15.0.

19.5
18.2
16.7

31.6

10.6

1.9

20.5
40.9
20.0
32.9

4.2
2.3

10.6
16.7
8.1

15.2
6.7
12.2

3.0
3-3

1.5

5.2

2.9

82

100.0

9.7

12.2

17.1

43.9

12.2

4.9

-

-

300

100.0

6.7

10.7

14.7

28.0

32.0

6.0

1.3

0.6

No usual occupation
Not working or seeking work

•

13.6

33-3
18.5

-

'Percent not computed on a base of less than 50 cases.
3 0ata are not a vailable as to the number of continuous months in which r el i e f was received.
"Usual occupation" is defined as any nonrelief job held for at l eas t 4 consecutive weeks within the l as t 10 years.

Sou rce:

Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population, October 1935.




2.2
-

-

48

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

T a b le 5— TYPE OF RE L IE F RECEIVED BY RURAL HOUSEHOLDS

IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,

BY STATES, JUNE AND OCTOBER 1935
(74 Samp 1e Count ie s )

October

June
Type of Rel iefa
Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Total

28,040

100.0

16,114

100.0

Direct only
Work only
Work and direct

5,652
17,632
4,756

20.2
62.8
17.0

9,232
5,330
1,552

57.3
33-1
9.6

1,990

100.0

1,044

100.0

742
536
712

37.3
26.9
35.8

850
108
86

81.5
10.3
8.2

1,934

100.0

1,100

100.0

836
590
508

43.2
30.5
26.3

674
172
254

61.3
15.6
23.1

Total

2,712

100.0

2,052

100.0

Di rect only
Work only
Work and direct

396
2,178
138

14.6
80.?
5.1

2,048
4
-

99.8
0.2
-

Total

1,466

100.0

752

100.0

Di rect only
Work only
Work and direct

1,340
84
42

91.4
5.7
2.9

732
16
4

97.4
2.1
0.5

Total

2,170

100.0

1,230

100.0

Direct only
Work only
Work and direct

450
1,520
200

20.7
70.1
9.2

1,122
70
38

91.2
5.7
3.1

Total

5,850

100.0

2,836

100.0

Di rect only
Work only
Work and d i rect

1,638
2,188
2,024

28.0
37.4
34.6

2,424
240
172

85.4
8.5
6.1

Total

8,862

100.0

5,920

100.0

Di rect only
Work only
Work and d i rect

190
7,540
1,132

2.1
85.1
12.8

388
4,570
962

6.6
77.1
16.3

Total

3,056

100.0

1,180

100.0

Direct only
Work only
Work and direct

60
2,996
-

2.0
98.0
-

994
150
36

84.2
12.7
3-1

A11 8 States

Colorado
Total
Direct only
Work only
Work and direct
Iowa
Total
Direct only
Work only
Work and d i rect
Kansas

Montana

Nebraska

North Dakota

Oklahoma

South Dakota

a ln some in s t a n c e s , c a se s re c e iv e d b o th t y p e s o f r e l i e f c o n c u r r e n t ly ;
to the o t h e r d u r in g the month.

Source:

S u rv e y of C u rre n t C h a nge s in t h e -R u r a l




in o t h e r s ,

t h e y were t r a n s f e r r e d

R e l i e f P o p u la t io n , June and O c to b er 1935.

from one type o f a id

APPENDIX A

49

T a b le 6— AGE AND SEX OF HEADS OF RURAL RE L IE F HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,
BY STATES, JUNE 1935
(74 Samp 1e Count i e s )

Sex and Age

27,316
100.0

1,848
100.0

2,032
100.0

2,476
100.0

1,430
100.0

1,924
100.0

5,802
100.0

16-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
65 years and over

8.7
27.3
23.5
20.3

5.6
22.3

7.8
26.7
19.8
19.6

6.4

20.0
16.3
12.8

5.4
27.1
26.3
20.9
16.9
3.4

12.3

5.3
17.9
26.0
23.5
17.2
10.1

6.0
21.8
21.3
21.1
17.5
12.3

5.3
27.1
25.4
23.1
12.6
6.5

Med i an age

40.4

44.1

41.2

42.3

44.8

44.9

2,426
100.0

280
100.0

124
100.0

318
100.0

164
100.0

6.5
9.7
27.4 •
27.4
22.6
6.4

6.3
13.8
25.8
19.5
12.0
22.6

47.0

46.7

Number
fercent

Total females:

Number
Rercent

16-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
65 years and over
Median age
So u rce :

S u rv e y o f C u rre n t C hanges




13.8

23.0

6.4

8.5
14,9
20.6
25.2
16.8
14.0

17.9
17.1
24.3
20.7

46.9

51.7

in the R u ra l

13.6

R e lie f

Kan sas Montana

North
Dakota Oklahoma

Co1o rado

Total males:

Iowa

Ne­
braska

Total

13-8

P o p u la t io n , June 1935.

South
Dakota

8,992
100.0

2,812
100.0

14.5
22.2
18.2
11.8
1.7

6.2
26.7
24.9
19.8
14.9
7.5

41.4

36.2

41.4

358
100.0

416
100.0

438
100.0

328
100.0

1.2
8.5
25.6
30.5
19.5
14.7

10.6
19.0
16.2
22.4
10.6
21.2

9.1
12.0
19.2
30.8
17.8
11.1

8.7
17.4
24.2
32.4
16.0
1.3

13.4
18.3
14.6
20.7
18.3
14.7

49.4

46.4

47.7

44.5

46.3

31.6

50

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

T a b le

7— CURRENT OCCUPATION OF EMPLOYABLE HEADS 4 OF RURAL R E L IE F HOUSEHOLDS
STATES,

BY USUAL OCCUPATION,
(74

BY ST A T ES,

IN

EIG H T DROUGHT

JUNE 1935

Sam p le Count i e s )

Current Occupation
Usual
Occupation

Total

A gric u ltu re

Total
Number

Percent

Farm
Owners

Farm
Ten­
an ts 6

N onagriculture
Farm
Labor­
e rs

Total

White
Col 1ar

S k ille d

Semi­
ski 1led

Un­
s k ille d

Unemployed
and Seek­
ing Work

Colorado
Total

1,718

100.0

40.3

13.6

24.1

2.6

9.5

1.4

0.9

0.6

6.6

50.2

A g r ic u ltu re
Farm operators
Owners
Tenantsb
Farm laborers

1,016
700

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

62.6
82.0
91.0
77.8
19.6

21.1

38.4
51.1
2.7
73.6

3-1
1.7
2.5
6.3

1.4
1.4

0.4

0.4

_

0.2

-

0.6
0.6

36.0

0.6

-

Nonagriculture
Whi te col 1ar
Sk i 11 ed
Semi ski 1led
Unski 1led
No usual occupation

222
478

316
666
68

430

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

36

t

82

86

8.4

11.8
7.3
9-3
7.9

29.2
88.3
1.7
3-2
3.0
2.9
2.4
2.3
3-3

10.1
3-6
8.9
4.7
3-3

1.8
4.9
2.3
1.3

-

2.1

0.8

0.5

_
-

16.6
9.0

0.8

20.1

1-3

-

0.6

-

0.7

79.1

22.5
29.4
9.8
16.3
25.1

3-0
26.5
0.5

1.8

1.5
7.0
0.9

16.2
7.0
23.7

69.1
58.8
82.9
74.4
67.0

-

-

2.9
9.8
2.3

-

t

Iowa
Total

2,032

100.0

20.8

914
472
124
348
442

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

41.4
62.3
79.0
56.3
19.0

1,106
142
152
692

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

4.0
4.2
3-9
5.0
3.8

12

t

Total

2,290

100.0

31.0

5.9

18.4

6.7

11.4

1.8

1.6

1.4

6.6

57.6

Agri cul tu re
Farm operators
Owners
Tenants6
Farm laborers

1,246
728
166
562
519

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

53.2
72.5
79.5
70.5
25.9

10.0

31.8

1.0
1 .1

0.2

53.0
4.8
67.3
1.9

3.5
3-3
3.6
3-2
3-9

0.2

17.0
73.5
0.4
-

11.4
2.5

0.3
0.4
0.4

43-3
24.2
16.9
26.3

0.8

0.3
0.4
-

2 .1
1.6
1.2

Nonagricul tu re
Whi te col 1ar
S k ille d
Se m iskille d
Unski 1led

1,000
134
180
152
534

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

4.8
9.0
6.7
10.5
1.5

1.2
4.5
1.1
1.3
0.4

2.4
3.0
3-4
5.3
1.1

3-0
16.4
3.3
1.3
-

3-4
1.5
16.7
0.4

2.8
1.5
17.2
-

44

t

A gric u ltu re
Farm operators
Owners
Tenants 6
Farm lab o re rs
Nonagriculture
White c o lla r
S k ille d
Se m iskille d
Unski 11ed
No usual occupation

120

5.1

10.5

5.2

15.8

2.5

1.8

0.6

10.9

63.4

10.9

20.4
36.9

10.1
1.6

49.4
2.7

5.2
16.3

1.7

-

12.2

0.5

1.8

-

7.1
4.2
3-2
4.6
9.9

49.6

1.6

1.5
1.3
-

0.2

75.8
1.7
-

9.0
5.9
4.8
6.3

0.2

21.2

0,4
-

2-3
1.4

1.3

21.7
35.2

2.0
2.8

0.9
-

1.3
0.3

2.6

2 1.1

4.3
25.4
1-3

14.5
7.0
7.9

18.3
19.7

8.3
-

10.0

1.4

74.3
60.6
75.0
76.7
76.5

3-3
2.3

4.2

2.8
1.7

1.2

_

11.9
-

0.4

1.6

18.3

31.8
16.2
37.4

68.-8

t

Kansas

No usual occupation

1.2
2.8
23.9
1.2
1.5
2.2
3-9

21.8
22.4
24.4
22.4
20.6

2.4
0.7

1.7
2.7
12.6
3-0
4.4
3-9
20.2

70.3
73-4
68.6
68.9
67.1
77.9

t

Montana
Total

1.342

100.0

60.4

33-3

26.4

0.7

3.1

0.9

0.4

A gricul ture
Farm operators
Owners
Tenants6
Farm lab orers

946
838
472
366
108

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

85.2
95.0
97.5
91.8
9.3

46.9
53.0
94.1
-

37.2
42.0
3-4
91.8

1.1
-

0.2
-

-

-

-

-

-

9.3

1.9

-

-

-

N onagriculture
White c o lla r
S k ille d
Se m iskille d
Unski 1led

382
40
66
90
186

100.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

_

10.5

3-1

1.6

1.0

t

t

t

t

t

9.1

-

-

-

2.2

-

4.5

-

-

-

2.2
8.6

14

t

No usual occupation

100.0
100.0
100.0

2.2
-

-

-

9.1
6.7
8.6

-

-

-

-

0.3
-

-

1.5

36.5

0.2
-

1.9

14.6
5.0
2.5
8.2
88.8

4.8

88.5

t
90.9
91.1
91.4

t

Nebraska
Total

1,792

100.0

31.0

5.9

14.2

10.9

16.0

2.4

1.3

1.3

11.0

53-0

A gric u ltu re
Farm operators
Owners
Tenants6
Farm laborers

974
544
142
402
430

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

51.1
64.3
74.6
60.7
,34.4

10.3
18.0
67.6
0.5
0.5

24.4
42.3
4.2
55.7
1.9

16.4
4.0
2.8
4.5

0.2
0.4

-

0.4
0.7

32.0

4.5
6.2
2.8
7.5
2-3

3-9
5.1
2.8
6.0
2.3

44.4
29.5
22.6
31.8
63-3

Nonagriculture
White c o lla r
S k ille d
Sem i sk i 11 ed
U n skille d

774
118
140
130
386

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

7.5
6.8
7.2
7.7
7.8

0.8
3.4

2.1
1.7
2.9
3-1
1.6

4.6
1.7
4.3
4.6
5.7

20.4
6.8
10.0
6.2
33.2

61.2
55.9
65.7
72.3
57.5

44

t

No usual occupation




-

0.5

31.3
37.3
27.1
20.0
34.7

0.5

-

-

-

-

3.1

-

2.6
1.7

15.7

-

0.5

12.3
0.5

-

5.2
28.8
1.4
1.5
0.5

-

-

1.0

t

G.M.C.

.

51

APPENDIX A

T a b le 7 — CURRENT OCCUPATION OF EMPLOYABLE HEADS® OF RURAL R E L IE F HOUSEHOLDS
STA TES,

BY USUAL OCCUPATION,

BY ST A T ES,

IN EIG H T DROUGHT

JUNE 1935— C o n t i nued

(7 4 Sa m p le C o u n t i e s )

Current Occupation
Usual
Occupat ion

Total

Number

Nonagriculture

Agriculture
Total

Farm
Owners

Percent

Farm
Ten­
ants6

Farm
Labo rers

Total

White
Col la r

Sk i 11ed

Semisk i 11ed

Unemployed
and Seek­
ing Work

Un­
s k ille d

North Dakota
Total

5,608

100.0

73-7

31.9

39.6

2.2

4.4

0.9

0.7

0.7

^.1

21.9

A gric u ltu re
Farm operators

4,580
4,154
1,802
2,352
426

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

89.4
95.5
98.2
93-5
29.1

38.8
42.6
97.8
0.3
1.4

48.1
52.6
0.4
92.7
3.8

2.5
0.3

0.1
0.1
0.1
*

*
*
0.1

0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1

-

-

0.5
23-9

0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.5

-

-

-

0.2
-

0.2
0.5

10.3
4.2
1.6
6.1
70.4

1,002
206
244
100
452

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

4.0
5.8
4.1
2.0
3.5

1.0
1.9
0.8

2.0
2.9
2.5
1.7

1.0
1.0
0.8
2.0
0.9

23.2
25.3
20.5
26.0
23-0

5.0
23-3
0.8
-

3.6

3.4

14.7
-

-

-

2.5
24.0
0.9

11.2
2.0
2.5
2.0
22.1

72.8
68.9
75.4
72.0
73.5

26

t

Total

9,222

100.0

64.3

8.0

49.5

6.8

10.6

0.5

0.3

9.5

25.1

Agricul ture
Farm o perators
Owners
Tenants6
Farm laborers

6,844
5,648
730
4,918
1,196

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

82.1
91.4
96.2
90.7
38.5

10.3
12.5
94.8
0.3
0.2

64.1
76.9
0.8
88.2
3.5

7.7
2.0
0.6
2.2
34.8

2.8
2.4
1.6
2.5
4.7

0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
-

0.1
0.1
0.3
*

2.5
2.1
1.0
2.2
4.7

15.1
6.2
2.2
6.8
56.8

Nonagricul ture
White c o l la r
Sk i 11ed
Semi ski 11ed
Unski 1led

2,232
194
302
284
1,452

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

13.6
22.7
17.2
19.0
10.6

1.2
5.2
2.0
1.4
0.4

8.3
11.3
11.9
12.0
6.5

4.1
6.2

35.2
28.9
27.2
26.1
39.5

1.7
16.5

31.6

51.2
48.4
55.6
54.9
49.9

146

100.0

Owners

Tenants6
Farm lab o re rs
Nonagricul ture
White c o lla r
Sk i 11ed
Semi ski 11 ed
Unski.l led
No usual occupation

-

0.9

-

-

-

'

t

Okl ahoma

No usual occupation

3-3
5.6

3-7

-

0.4

0.3
*
*
*

-

-

1.0
6.6
0.7

0.9
1.0
0.7
5.6

-

-

'11.4
19.9
19.8
39.1

100.0

South Dakota
Total

2,792

100.0

45.4

17.5

26.8

1.1

4.4

1.5

0.6

0.6

1.7

50.2

Agricul ture
Farm operators
Owners
Tenants6
Farm laborers

1,762
1,446
542
904
316

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

71.0
83.8
90.0
80.1
12.0

27.5
33.3
88.2
0.5
0.6

41.8
50.4
1.8
79.4
2.5

1.7
0.1

0.5
0.6

0.2
0.2

0.1
0.1

0.1
0.2

0.1
0.1

0.2
8.9

0.8
0.6

0.2
0.6

0.2

0.2

0.2

-

-

-

28.5
15.6
10.0
19.1
87.4

792
164
172

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

2.3
3-7

0.5
1.2

1.8
2.5

-

4.5
21.9

2.0

1.8

-

1.2

5.8
2.5

2-3

-

2.3

-

9.3

2.0
1.7

2.0

-

-

14.1
25.6
10.5

18.4

-

-

1.7

-

Nonagriculture
White c o lla r
S k ille d
Semi ski 1led
Unski 11ed

98
358

No usual occupation

238

100.0
100.0

*L e s s than 0.05 percent.
'Percent not computed on a base of less than 50 cases.
a Persons 16 to 6» years of age in clusive, working or seeking work.
^In clu din g sharecroppers.
Source: Survey of Current Changes in the Rural R e lie f Population, June 1935.




-

9.5

-

-

-

12.3
-

1.2
6.1
9.5

83.6
70.7
87.2
79.6

88.8

100.0

52

RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA

T a b le

R— CURRENT OCCUPATION OF WORKERS OTHER THAN HEADS
R E L IE F HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT DROUGHT STATES,
USUAL OCCUPATION,

IN RURAL

BY

BY STATES, JUNE 1935

(74 Sample Count i es )

Current Occupation

Total

Usual Occupation
Number

Percent

Agriculture

Nonagri­
culture

Unemployed and
Seeking Work

Al 1 8 States
Total

12,598

A griculture
Nonagricul ture
No usual occupation

6,358
2,408
3,832

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

45.1

88.0
2.8

9.0

45.9

0.4

0.6
45.2
0.1

11.4
52.0
99.5

34.0

13.8

52.2

Colorado
Total

624

Agriculture
Nonagriculture
No usual occupation

308
174
142

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

68.2
1.1

29,9
52.9

-

1.9
46.0
-

100.0

1owa
Total

698

Agricul ture
Nonagricultu re
No usual occupation

168
390
140

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

18.3

30.4

51.3

72.6
1.4

2.4
52.8
1.4

25.0
46.2
97.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

27.2

22.6

50.2

81.8

-

-

64.6
-

18.2
35.4
98.5

1.0

Kansas
Total

840

Agriculture
Nonagr¡culture
No usual occupation

274
294
272

1.5

Montana
Total

548

Agriculture
Nonagriculture
No usual occupation

228
114
206

38.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

5.8

56.2

90.4

-

9.6
70.1

-

28.1
-

100.0

34.7

19.4

45.9

74.3
1.3

4.0
52.4
1.3

21.7
47.6
97.4

35.7

1.8

Nebraska
Total

754

Agriculture
Nonagriculture
No usual occupation

350
248
156

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

-

North Dakota
Total

3,978

Agriculture
Nonagriculture
No usual occupation

2,510
616
852

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

59.3

5.0

92.3
7.1
-

31.5

44.8

4.5

50.7

89.2
3.8
0.3

0.5
41.2
-

10.3
55.0
99*7

42.2

7.3

50.5

90.6

_

-

54.5
-

9.4
45.5
99.1

0.2
-

7.5
61.4

100.0

Oklahoma
Total

4,004

Agriculture
Nonagriculture
No usual occupation

1,988
418
1,598

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

South Dakota
Total

1,152

Agriculture
Nonagriculture
No usual occupation
Source:

532
154
466

Su rv e y of C u rre n t C hanges in the R u ra l R e l i e f




100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
P o p u la t io n ,

0.9
June 1935.




Appendix B
SAMPLE COUNTIES




APPENDIX B
4 5 S A M P L E C O U N T I E S IN 5 TY P E O F F A R M I N G S U B R E G I O N S
O F THE G R E A T P L A I N S A R E A
Winter Wheat— Continued

Northern Great Plains

Montana
Garfield
South Dakota
Custer
Hand
Jackson
Meade
Nebraska
Sheridan
Box Butte

Oklahoma
Custer
Harper
Kingfisher
Texas
Carson
Floyd
Hansford
Colorado
Sedgwick

Western Corn Belt

Spring Wheat

Kansas
Jefferson
Smith
Wabaunsee
Nebraska
Hall
Hitchcock
Pierce
Richardson
Thayer
South Dakota
Brookings
Hutchinson

Montana
Chouteau
Daniels
Prairie
North Dakota
Burke
Emmons
Hettinger
McHenry
Ramsey
Stutsman
South Dakota
Corson
Edmunds

Winter Wheat

Kansas
Barber
Ford
Gove
Pawnee
Saline
Russell
Seward
Source:

Southwestern Great Plains

Colorado
Otero
Kit Carson
Kansas
Hamilton

Survey of Public and Private Assistance in Rural and Town Areas.




55

56 RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE DROUGHT AREA
12 S A M P L E C O U N T I E S U S E D T O A U G M E N T 45 C O U N T I E S
IN 5 T Y P E OF F A R M I N G S U B R E G I O N S
State

C ounty

Colorado

Routt

Iowa

Monona
Page

Kansas

Neosho

North Dakota

Richland

Oklahoma

Carter
Hughes
Jackson
Lincoln
Pushmataha
Rogers

South Dakota

Grant

Source:

Survey of Public and Private Assistance in Rural and Town Areas.

27 S A M P L E C O U N T I E S

IN 3 D R O U G H T S T A T E S

Iowa

Montana

South Dakota

Appanoose
Black Hawk
Calhoun
Emmet
Guthrie
Ida
Mahaska
Marshall
Monona
Washington

Chouteau
Dan ie Is
Garfield
Granite
Lake
Madison
Meagher
Prairie

Brookings
Corson
Custer
Edmunds
Grant
Hutchinson
Hand
Jackson
Meade

Source:

Survey of Rural Households Which Received Relief in June and Were
Closed Prior to December 1, 1935.




APPENDIX B
74

SAMPLE

COUNTIES

IN

8 DROUGHT STATES

Colorado
Alamosa
Archuleta
Garfield
Kiowa
Kit Carson
Routt
Sedgwick
Teller

Montana— Continued
Meagher
Prairie
Nebraska
Box Butte
Hall
Hitchcock
Johnson
Morrill
Pierce
Richardson
Sheridan
Thayer

Iowa
Appanoose
Black Hawk
Calhoun
Emmet
Guthrie
Ida
Mahaska
Marshall
Monona
Washington

North Dakota
Burke
Emmons
Hettinger
McHenry
MeKenzie
Ramsey
Richland
Stutsman

Kansas
Barber
Ford
Gove
Greenwood
Hamilton
Jefferson
Neosho
Pawnee
Russell
Saline
Seward
Smith
Wabaunsee

Oklahoma
Carter
Custer
Harper
Hughes
Jackson
Kingfisher
Lincoln
Pushmataha
Rogers
South Dakota
Brookings
Corson
Custer
Edmunds
Grant
Hutchinson
Hand
Jackson
Meade

Montana
Chouteau
Daniels
Garfield
Granite
Lake
Madison
Source:

57

Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population.

147401 0 — 37----- 5




U. S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1937