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