Full text of Rural Families on Relief, Research Monograph XVII
The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
F. C. Hanlnston, A.d•lnldrotor
Conlnston GIii, A.,,idont A.d•lnldrofor
DIVISION OF SOCIAL RESEARCH
Howard 8. My•, Dllffftw
RURAL FAMILIES
ON RELIEF
By
Carle C. Zimmerman
and
Nathan L. Whetten
RESEARCH MONOGRAPH XVII
1938
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON
Digitized by
Google
GIANNINI FUUNDATIOK
Digitized by
Google
Letter of Transmittal
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D. 0., December 27, 1938.
SIR: I have the honor to transmit an analysis of the social characteristics of rural families receiving assistance under the general relief
program. The report evaluates the various characteristics of rural
families on relief in terms of their effect on the families' need for aid.
The findings of this analysis will be of distinct value to relief administrators in rural areas. At the same time it is a contribution to the
general study of rural families in the lower income groups.
Not only are rural relief families found to differ in their characteristics according to their position in the local rural community, but, in
addition, even wider differences exist among the various geographical
areas of the country. The predominant industries determine the
extent to which the head of a family will be able to care for his dependents continuously, and the cultural traditions largely determine the
composition and solidarity of the family unit. Four factors are of
particular importance in determining the incidence and amount of
relief for rural families: (1) The number of employable members in the
family and their capabilities; (2) unemployment because of the business
cycle; (3) unemployment and underemployment because of the weather
cycle; and (4) social action for improving the standard of living.
The study was made in the Division of Social Research under the
direction of Howard B. Myers, Director of the Division. The data
were collected under the supervision of A. R. Mangus and T. C.
McCormick. Acknowledgment is made of the cooperation of the
State Supervisors and Assistant State Supervisors of Rural Research
who were in direct charge of the field work. The analysis of the data
was made under the supervision of T. J. Woofter, Jr., Coordinator of
Rural Research.
The report was prepared by Carle C. Zimmerman of Harvard University and Nathan L. Whetten of Storrs Agricultural Experiment
Station, with the assistance of Wendell H. Bash of Harvard University. It was edited by Ellen Winston of the Division of Social
Research.
Respectfully submitted.
CORRINGTON GILL,
Assistant Administrator.
CoL.
F.
C. HARRINGTON,
Works Progress Administrator.
Ill
Diglized by
Google
019 •1
d by
Google
Contents
Page
lntrocludlon _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _
XI
Summary _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
XIII
Chapter
I. Typa of farm
families and the incidence of relief_ _ - _
1
Types of farm families _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1
The incidence of relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
8
Chapter II. Occupational origin of the heads of rural relief families-
13
Occupational origin by area _ _ _
Occupational origin by residence _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Occupational origin by color _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16
20
Chapter Ill. Peno11al charac:teriltlcs of the heads of rural relief
families- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - -
23
Age of family heads _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
Sex of family heads _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
23
26
Marital condition of family heads _ _ _
29
15
35
Chapter IV. Size and composition of rural relief families-
Size of rural relief families _ _ _
Age composition _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Sex composition _____ _
36
Chapter V. Dependent age group, - -
45
40
42
Dependents by area _ _ _ _ _
Dependents by color_ _ _ _ _ _
45
Aged and juvenile dependents in the same household_
Dependent children _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Aged dependents_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
47
47
49
50
General significance of dependent age groups _
51
Chapter VI. Family strudural types - - - - - _ - - -
53
Family structural types by area and residence _
Family structural types by occupation_
Family structural types by color
One-person households_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
54
55
57
58
V
o,gtizedb;
Google
VI • CONTENTS
Page
Chapter VII. Fertility of rural relief families _ _
59
Fertility of general rural population
59
_____ _
Fertility of rural relief families _ _ _ _
61
Strong and weak family systems _ _
67
Chapter VIII. Employability, employment, and amount of relief
69
Employability composition ______ _
69
Occupational displacement and shifting
72
Unemployment prior to relief
75
Reason for accession to relief
Relief history _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Amount of relief ______ _
77
78
79
Chapter IX. Mobility of rural relief families
83
Mobility by area _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
84
Mobility by occupation _ _ _ _ _ _
89
92
Relation between mobility and family type
Chapter X. Education of rural relief families _
Education of heads by area
95
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Education of heads by occupation
95
98
_ _ _
Education of members other than heads __
100
Significance of educational attainment
103
Appendix A. Meaning of terms - - - - - - - -
107
Appendix B. Supplementary tables
113
Appendix C. List of tables
151
Index - - - - - _ _ _ -
155
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figura
Figure
1. Agricultural regions
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2. Farm population, January 1, 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3. Value of products sold from farm and used by family classified into groups, by values, United States, 1929 _ _
4. Officially designated drought counties. 1934 and 1936 _ _
01g111zedbyGoogle
2
3
4
6
CONTENTS • VII
Page
5. Intensity of general relief in the United States, by residence
(estimated), July 1933 through December 1935 _ _ _ _
6. Federal aid per capita, 1933-1936 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7. Usual occupation of heads of open country and village
families receiving general relief, by area, June 1935 _ _ _
8. Median age of heads of rural families receiving general
relief, by area. and residence, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9. Median age of heads of rural families receiving general relief,
by usual occupation, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
10. Percent of females among heads of rural families receiving
general relief, by area, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11. Age of heads of rural families receiving general relief, by
sex,June1935 ________ - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _
12. Marital condition of beads of rural families receiving general relief, by sex and age, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
13. Size of rural relief and nonrelief households, October 1933 _
14. Rural families receiving general relief with persons in
dependent age groups, by residence, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _
15. Structural type of rural families receiving general relief,
by area, June 1935 ________ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16. Structural type of rural families receiving general relief,
by usual occupation of head, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
17. Children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20 through
44 yea.rs of age, white rural-farm population, 1930 _ _ _
18. Children under 5 yea.rs of age per 1,000 women 20 through
44 yea.rs of age, colored rural-farm population, 1930 _ _
19. Rural families receiving general relief with no worker or
with female workers only, by area, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _
20. Employment status of workers in rural femilies receiving
general relief, by usual occupation, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _
21. Occupational change of workers in rural families receiving
general relief, by usual occupation, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _
22. Occupational change of white and Negro workers in rural
families receiving general relief in the Ee.stem and
Western Cotton Areas, by usual occupation, June 1935 _
23. Average a.mount of general relief received by rural families,
by area, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
24. Length of le.st continuous residence in county of heads of
rural families receiving general relief, by usual occupation, June 1935 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
25. Median school grade completed by heads of rural families
receiving general relief, by area, October 1935 _
26. Areas represented and counties sampled _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Oig,•ized by
10
11
17
24
26
27
28
32
37
46
54
56
64
65
71
73
74
75
81
91
98
112
G oog Ie
VIII • CONTENTS
Photosraphs
On relief _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Farm owner family in the drought area
Tenant family in the Midwest _ _
Sharecropper's family at home _ _ _
Lunch time for cotton pickers _ _
Pe.rents and children _ _ _ _ _ _
After the children have left home _
A motherless home _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Sharecropper's widow and child _ _
Old age _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
Homeless _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Penniless and alone _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No breadwinner in this home _ _ _ _
Drought victims _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Moving time _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Migratory laborer family _ _ _ _ _ _
Teaching Aunt Nancy to read _ _ _ _
Relief children go to school _ _ _ _ _
PQJJI
_ _ _ _
_
_ _ _
_
_ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _
_
_
_ _
_
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _
_
_ Facing xn
_ Facing 8
_ Facing 16
_ Facing 20
_ Facing 21
_ Facing 30
_ Facing 38
_ Facing 42
_ Facing 48
_ Facing 49
_ Facing 58
_ Facing 59
_ Facing 70
_ Facing 78
_ Facing 84
_ Facing 92
_ Facing 96
_ Facingl02
D1gt1zedbyGoogle
Rural Families on RelieF
IX
Diglized by
Google
01gl•1zeo by
G oo g I('.
INTRODUCTION
IN
1930 there were approximately 30 million families in the United
States.1 Of these, 17,372,500 were classified as urban; 6,604,600, as
rural-farm; and 5,927,500, as rural-nonfarm. Thus, about 42 percent
of America's families were classified as rural, 22 percent being farm
and 20 percent being nonfarm.
Since 1930 more than one out of four of these rural families have
been forced to seek public or private assistance. In January 1935, for
instance, almost 2 million of them received general relief grants.
The purpose of this study is to give a general description of rural relief
families and to point out some of their characteristic features. It
summarizes information concerning their occupational origin, their
size and composition, the age and sex characteristics of the heads, the
marital condition of the heads, the number and types of dependents,
the composition of the families from the standpoint of relationship,
their fertility rates, their employability, employment, and amount of
relief, and the mobility and education of their members. These
various factors are analyzed on the basis of geographical distribution.
Information is given about the racial backgrounds of the families,
their former agricultural experience, and their forms of land tenure
if they have been engaged in agriculture.
The data for this monograph are from the records of the Rural
Section, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration.
The materials consist of information gathered by means of a survey
1 "The termfamily, as it is used in the tabulation of the results of the 1930 Census, is limited in the main to what might be called private families, excluding the
institutions and hotel or boarding-house groups which have been counted as
families in prior censuses. A family may therefore be defined in general as a
group of persons related either by blood or by marriage or adoption, who live
together as one household, usually sharing the same table. Single persons living
alone are counted as families, however, as are a few small groups of unrelated
persons sharing the same living accommodations as 'partners.' Households reporting more than 10 lodgers are classified as boarding or lodging houses rather
than as families. Two or more related persons occupying permanent quarters in a
hotel are counted as a private family rather than as a part of the hotel group.''
Bureau of the Census, Abstract of the Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1990,
U. 8. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1933, p. 401.
XI
Dig trzed by
Goog Ie
XII • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
covering 138 counties, representative of 9 major agricultural areaa,1
and 116 New England townships (fig. 26, p. 112). The data were
taken as of June 1935 with the exceptions of those for education and
marital condition. These were taken as of October 1935 since items
to secure such information were not included on the June schedules.•
1 Eastern Cotton, Western Cotton, Appalachian-Ozark, Lake States Cut-Over,
Bay and Dairy, Com Belt, Spring Wheat, Winter Wheat, and Ranching.
• For a detailed diacuBBion of the methodology of the survey, see Mangus, A. R.,
Cha,afling Aspect, of Rural Relief, Research Monograph XIV, Division of Social
Research, Works ProgreBB Administration, Washington, D. C., 1938, appendix B.
For the meaning of terms used in this monograph, see appendix A.
Digitized by
Google
On Relief.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
RuRAL FAMILIES in the United States were subjected to a number
of unusual forces during the period 1930-1935 which resulted in
severe economic distress in all sections. Some regions suffered directly from only one force or received the diffuse effects of several. In
other regions the full brunt of various forces focused on the area
and resulted in the almost complete collapse of normal economic and
social activities.
While rural distress was caused in considerable part by long-range
factors, the effects of the business depression were nevertheless of
great importance in the rural relief situation. The drop in the price
of farm commodities, because of cyclical fluctuations in the money
market, was only one factor in this situation as it affected the farmer
and the village dweller. Included also were price movements resulting
from the weather and from crop conditions in foreign countries and
the long-time trend in agricultural production and exportation.
Thus, all of the agricultural price movements resulted in a decline
in prices and sales. This included both the drop in value and quantity of exported goods and the change in the urban market with the
depression.
Another force bearing on the rural population and helping to determine relief needs, which can also be identified with the business depression, was the change in nonagricultural work opportunities which
accompanied the decline in industry and commerce. This affected
primarily the large numbers of part-time farmers who live in densely
settled and relatively urbanized areas. These families were forced
to a more complete dependence on the soil and to a more self-sufficient
type of farm economy.
Partly connected with the business depression and partly dependent
upon a long-time trend has been the decline in the utilization of natural
resources. Activity in isolated coal and iron mining areas has decreased or stopped entirely, and the lumber industry has been sharply
curtailed. These are typical examples of industries which give
employment to rural families either on a part-time or full-time basis.
In some areas the depression coincided approximately with the exhaustion of natural resources so that the shutdown has been permanent
rather than temporary. For the most part rural families suffering
under the pressure of these forces are located in mountain and wooded
areas.
XIII
Diglized by
Google
XIV• RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
A factor which was not connected with the business ciepression
was the drought. Short-time cyclical movements of rainfall and dry
weather have not been unusual on the plains of the great West, but
in 1934 and 1936 there were droughts which have been unequalled
for both extensity and severity during this generation. The most
extreme effects of the drought were found in a belt running north
and south through the two Wheat Areas and bordering both the Com
Belt and Westem Cotton Areas, but minor effects of the drought were
found in almost every section of the country.
TYPES OF FARM FAMILIES
Aside from their regional incidence, the forces leading to the need
for assistance were found to affect rural families in different ways
and different degrees according to the type of farming in which they
were engaged. Commercial farmers may be accurately described
as small-scale entrepreneurs. All of their efforts are concentrated
on the production of cash crops, generally only one, and usually they
grow comparatively little for home use. They live under relatively
the same type of money economy as city people, and their prosperity
is determined by the price of these goods in the market. It is also
significant that for most of the products included under this type of
production the price is largely determined by the surplus which is
exported. Since they are goods of relatively inelastic demand and
subject to wide fluctuations in supply, such products at times undergo
violent fluctuations in price in accordance with weather and economic
conditions. Consequently, the business depression and the decline
in the exportation of foreign products have been the most important
factors in every area in the need for relief of commercial farmers.
One governmental action which has ameliorated conditions for these
farmers has been the agricultural adjustment program. As a result
relief needs have not been as extensive for these farmers as they otherwise would have been.
A second category of farm families may be called noncommercial.
It consists largely of those families which combine part-time farming
for home consumption with part-time industrial or commercial work
and those which lead a relatively self-sufficing life in the more isolated
areas. For these families the most important influence has been the
decline in industry in the isolated areas together with the depletion of
natural resources. This includes also the decline in employment in
and around cities. These families are influenced to a certain extent,
however, by the decline in the agricultural market since they sell their
surplus for cash. These families are helped relatively little by agricultural price-raising.
Cutting across both the commercial and noncommercial groups, a
third category of the agricultural population may be called the chron-
Diglized by
Google
SUMMARY• XV
ically poverty-stricken. This includes chiefly the farm laborers in all
areas and the sharecroppers and tenants of the Cotton Areas. These
agricultural groups work for commercial farmers and seldom produce
much food for home consumption. They are directly affected by the
prosperity of the farmers who hire them so that their prosperity and
depression are concurrent with those of commercial producers. Moreover, it is safe to say that in the current situation the troubles of commercial farmers have been passed on to these groups and accentuated
in the process.
ANALYSIS OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES BY AREA
Although the diversity of occupations and the different types of
families within occupations have been repeatedly pointed out, there
is still a tendency to think of the rural population as a homogeneous
unit. Since rural was defined for purposes of this study as including
the open country and villages of less than 2,500 inhabitants, it is
easy to see that nearly all classes and all occupations were included
in one way or another. The rural relief families not only differed
in their characteristics according to their position in the local rural
community but also even wider differences existed among the various geographical areas of the country. Major differences in the
average family on relief in June 1935 were found, for example, between
the Eastern Cotton and Spring Wheat Areas. In addition it was
found that, when classified on the basis of type-of-farming area, relatively homogeneous groups in the rural population were set up, even
if all the occupations were included. Consequently, the average family in different sections of the country was studied on the basis of a
regional analysis, resulting in a better understanding of the peculiar
problems in each section.
In the Eastern Cotton Area more of the relief families were engaged
in agriculture than the average for the country as a whole, but the proportion was still less than 50 percent. However, because of its comparatively slight urbanization, agriculture and family solidarity still
set the prevailing tone. The relative multiplicity of social classes
within agriculture, including owners, tenants, croppers, and laborers,
determines a social stratification which is more pronounced than in other
agricultural areas. The relatively small size of the average relief
family (3.7 persons) was due partly to the splitting of plantation families and partly to the fact that the median age (43.7 years) of the head
of the family was less than for many other areas. Dependent family
members were found in about the same proportions as in the country
as a whole, but there were more broken families. The excessively
high mobility within short distances and the low level of formal education are two of the factors leading to an unusually low material
standard of living. Considering all factors, however, this area has
019 tized by
Goos le
XVI • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
preeerved its social vitality to a greater extent than have many of the
more wealthy sections.
In the Western Cotton Area more of the relief families (54.3 percent) were customarily engaged in agriculture. The average family
was a little larger than in the Eastern Cotton Area (3.8 persons) but
was still smaller than the average for the country. The splitting of
plantation families was probably more widely practiced here than in
the older and more traditional East, and here also the heads of families
were relatively young (41.7 yea.rs of age). Slightly more of these
families were normal families consisting of husband and wife or husband, wife, and children than in the Eastern Cotton Area. Although
they had more dependents, this did not result from an unduly higher
birth rate. In many ways material standards are slightly higher in the
Westem Cotton Area, but the improvement in material levels has
meant a regression or at least no advance in the stability and vitality
of social relations.
In the Appalachian-Ozarks is found the best example of self-sufficing
farm family living. Four out of ten of the heads of rural relief
families were customarily employed in agriculture. Here the average
family was the largest (4.3 persons) of any area with the exception of
the Spring Wheat Area. The fertility of the rural relief population
was the highest of any of the areas surveyed. Although families in
this area frequently have a meager existence, a minimum living is
assured to them as long as they remain on the land. The chief function of this area continues to be the production of new workers for the
cities.
The Corn Belt is a relatively prosperous and highly commercialized
area. Here com is produced either for sale directly or for the feeding
of livestock. Commercial production is dominant, and agriculture is
on. a relatively large scale. The average head of a rural relief family
was 43.5 years of age, and 4 out of 10 heads were engaged in agriculture. The tendency toward a small family system is evident; and,
although there was a high proportion of normal families, the fertility
rate was below the average. In this area farm families as a whole
have achieved a level of living seldom paralleled in agricultural history,
but the social system does not give great evidence of stability, and the
farm family is not maintaining its strength and vitality.
The Hay and Dairy Area cuts through some of the most highly
urbanized sections of the country. It forms a belt from the Atlantic
seaboard to the fertile lands of Wisconsin which supplies dairy and
other products demanded by the highly industrialized and commercialized culture of that section of the country. Only a small
proportion of agriculturalists (28.9 percent) was found among the
relief families in this area. The median family was about the same
size as the average for the country, but the head was about 2 yea.rs
019 tized by
Goos le
SUMMARY • XVII
older on the average. Although 76.0 percent ol the rural relief
families were normal families, the birth rate was lower than for all
areas surveyed. Since most workers gain their living in nonagricultural occupations and since most of the farmers are directly
dependent upon the prosperity of the urban market for the sale of
their products, the problems of this area are essentially the same as,
or are ultimately tied up with, those of the contiguous cities.
The Lake States Cut-Over Area is ma.de up of isolated farming sections and mining communities. Only 26.0 percent of the heads of
rural relief families were agriculturalists, and the problems are in
many ways different from those in the neighboring Hay and Dairy
Area. Its recent settlement, its relative cultural heterogeneity, its
isolation, and the depletion of its natural resources are all factors
which help to determine its extremely high relief rate, its meager
standard of living, and its as yet unstable culture.
Although there are differences between the two Wheat Areas, in
contrast with other agricultural areas they present many similarities.
A higher proportion of the families is engaged in agriculture than
in other areas, with the exception of the Western Cotton Area, and
most of this agriculture is of the extensive, commercial _type. Like
the Corn Belt, the Wheat Areas have had periods of great material
prosperity; educational standards are advanced; and material comforts are highly valued. However, the comparatively recent settlement and development of the Wheat Areas, the ethnic heterogeneity,
the high rates of social mobility, and the wide fluctuations in climatic
conditions are all factors leading to a social instability which markedly
affected relief rates.
In the extensiveness of its agricultural production, the Ranching
Area is but a step removed from the Wheat Areas. However, mining
and lumbering occupations raise the proportion of nonagricultural
workers and help account for the large proportion of nonfamily
groups in the rural relief population. In many respects this area
presents problems which are different from those in other areas, but
the probability is that these differences in family statistics are influenced particularly by factors associated with an area of new
settlement.
The New England Area represents a further intensification of the
factors found in the Hay and Dairy Area. Urbanization has proceeded farther, and the rural culture is even more highly commercialized and industrialized. Only one out of eight of the rural relief families in this area in June 1935 was engaged in agriculture, and the
proportion of nonagricultural families in the reliAf population was
higher than in any other area surveyed. This is due both to the large
number of local rural industries and to the presence of large numbers
of city workers living in the surrounding countryside.
Diglized by
Google
XVIII • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN OF THE HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
Agricultural occupations accounted for about the same proportion
of the heads of rural relief families in June 1935 as did the nonagricultural occupations, 40.6 percent as compared with 41.2 percent.
Considering that relief represented only one of four public measures
to assist agriculture, it is disheartening that so many farm families
had to have this form of assistance. The proportion of agriculturalists
among the heads of rural relief families varied from more than two
out of three in the Spring Wheat Area to one out of eight in New
England.
Among the agriculturalists there were two and one-half times as
many farm operator as farm laborer families on relief. This is not
surprising since there are considerably more than twice as many
farm operators as hired farm laborers in the United States. Within
the farm operator group, however, tenant families constituted a
greater proportion of the relief cases than did farm owner families
although the country as a whole contains about three farm owners
for every two tenants.
Unskilled laborers accounted for by far the largest proportion of
heads of nonagricultural families. In New England there were also
a large number of relief families whose heads were skilled and semiskilled workers.
Families whose heads were nonworkers accounted for 15.6 percent
of all relief cases, reflecting the tendency for relief rolls to include a
large number of families that for various reasons contain no breltdwinner. In 2.5 percent of the cases the head of the family had no
usual occupation.
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
The average head of a rural relief family was in the prime of life,
the early forties. Village heads, on the whole, were about 2 years
older than those in the open country. The heads of families in New
England had the highest average age (46.6 years), while the lowest
average age was found in the Winter Wheat Area (39.0 years). The
median age of heads of agricultural families on relief was about the
same as that of heads of nonagricultural families. Farm owners,
however, had the highest average age of any occupational group on
relief (46.5 years). On the other hand, farm laborers were the
youngest group, averaging only 36.4 years. Among the nonagriculturalists the skilled laborers with an average age of 43.7 years had
the highest average of any subgroup. Negro family heads on relief
were much older than white heads on the average. In the Eastern
Cotton Area the difference was 4.9 years and in the Western Cotton
Area 7.5 years.
o,gtizedb;
Google
SUMMARY • XIX
The western areas of extensive, commercialized agriculture had
the smallest proportions of rural relief families with female heads
while the southern areas, including the Ea.stem and Western Cotton
and the Appalachian-Ozark Areas, had the highest proportions of
such families. An exception to this rule was found in the Ranching
Area which ranked with the South in the proportion of families with
female heads. Significant differences also existed between village
and open country residents in that almost half again as many village
heads of rural relief families were women as was the case among open
country heads.
Most of the male heads of relief families were married, while most
of the female heads were either unmarried or had had their homes
broken by divorce, separation, or death. For all areas the highest
proportion of female heads married was 15.7 percent for the age
group 45-64 years, while the lowest proportion was 0.6 percent for
those aged 65 years and over. In contrast, the highest proportion
married among the male heads was 90.9 percent in the age group
25-34 years, and the lowest was 61.5 percent in the age group 65 years
and over. The proportion of family heads that was married was
greater in the open country than in the villages, while the proportion
of widowed, divorced, or separated heads tended to be greater in the
villages. Differences in marital condition among the areas were con.;.
sistent with differences in social and economic backgrounds. The
greater industrialization of New England and the North has led to a
greater participation in industry by women, and consequently the
emancipation of women has reached its most advanced stages in these
regions. Accompanying this emancipation is a rapidly rising divorce
rate and a general disintegration of former social rules which have
regulated the distribution of rights and duties of the sexes.
SIZE AND COMPOSmON OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
The problem of the size and composition of relief families is important to relief programs from a number of points of view, but principally because large families, or those with numerous dependents and
few gainfully employed or employable, may need relief more frequently and in larger amounts than smaller families or those with
relatively more productive units.
The median size of the rural relief family in June 1935 was 3.9
members. The open country families were larger than those in the
villages. Averages, however, do not give an adequate picture of the
situation with respect to size of family. Of all the rural households
receiving relief in June 1935, 9.9 percent were one-person households.
This was a 2 percent greater proportion of one-person households
than was found for the whole rural United States in the 1930 Census
(7.7 percent). Since severe economic depressions usually tend to
Drgmed by
G oog lC
XX• RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
increase social solida.rity, at least for a time, it would seem from these
data that the proportion of one-person households receiving relief was
very much greater than could be expected from a normal sample of
the rural population. Further compa.risons with census data suggest
that a larger proportion of rural relief families consisted of six persons
or more, whereas a larger proportion of families in the general population consisted of two or three members. Families with four or five
members were found in about equal proportions among both relief
families and families in the general population.
Rural relief families had relatively more young members (children
under 16 years of age) than are found in the general rural population,
and they contained a smaller proportion of adults of working age.
DEPENDENT AGE GROUPS
Four out of five of the rural relief families contained persons in the
dependent age groups, i.e., persons under 16 years of age or 65 years
of age and over. Three out of five relief families had children under
16 years of age but no one over 64 years; one-eighth of the families
had aged individuals 65 years of age and over but no children under
16; while one out of twenty families contained both children and aged
persons. These proportions va.ried somewhat among the agricultural
areas of the country and were related to the type of economy and
the "age" of the area.
In general a large number of dependents in a family may be an indication of a prolific population, where a high birth rate results in large
families, or it may indicate a high degree of family solida.rity. Ago.in
there is the possibility, as shown in the Cotton Areas, that there may
be a splitting of families so as to place aged persons on relief and to
leave the younger employables to fend for themselves without the
responsibility for other individuals. All of these factors may operate
to increase the number of old or young dependents on relief. The
question of dependency and relief is, however, related principally to
the basic economic and cultural factors in any particular region. The
predominant industries and occupations determine the extent to which
the head of a family will be able to care for his dependents continuously, and the cultural traditions to a large extent determine the internal solida.rity and cohesiveness of the family unit.
Background factors of an economic, sociological, or even medical
nature, when viewed in their full complexity, are agents which determine the number of dependents on relief. Families in the South,
including the Appalachian-Ozark Area, for example, are likely to be
large as a result of high birth rates; they tend to cling together in a
large cohesive aggregate. Loss of economic support, or the injury or
death of the chief provider, quickly forces the whole aggregation on
relief. Therefore, it is easy to understand why the proportion of
o,gmzedbyGooglc,
SUMMARY • XXI
families with no persons in the dependent age groups should be
sma.llest in the South, where rural cultural traditions are strong, and
greatest in the North, where the strong Yankee traditions are now
nearly submerged by the newer mores of an industrialized and urbanized society.
FAMILY STRUCTURAL TYPES
For purposes of analysis family units were divided into three main
types-normal families, broken families, and nonfamily types. In
the normal group were found 72.5 percent of a.11 rural relief families,
while 10.9 percent were broken families and 16.6 percent were
nonfamily types. The great majority of the normal families consisted
of husband and wife or of parents and children alone, while about
one out of nine also had relatives or friends present. Normal families
were relatively more frequent in the open country than in the villages,
and a larger proportion in the open country consisted of husband,
wife, and children, as compared with husband and wife only in the
villages. Likewise there were more broken families in the villages
than in the open country, and broken families with female heads
especia.lly tended to congregate in the villages. Normal families were
relatively more prevalent among the agricultural (82.2 percent) than
among the nonagricultural (77.4 percent) families.
Broken families occurred most frequently in the southern areas.
Nonfamily types were most evident among the Negroes of the South
and in the industrial and urban areas of the North and East.
FERTILITY OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
The relationship between fertility and relief is difficult to measure.
A comparison of the relief data with the 1930 Census data was ma.de
for identical counties, and certain relationships were noted concerning
the number of children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20 to
44 years of age in the population. The comparison is subject to qualification on several scoreti, however. One difficulty is the fact that there
was a difference of 5 yea.rs between the census figures and the relief
figures, and the depression of the early thirties had far-reaching effects
on marriage and birth rates. Another was that relief practices in
certain areas, particularly in the Western Cotton Area, resulted in the
splitting of tenant and cropper families and resulted in the placing on
relief ot aged or unemployable members while the younger and more
able members were kept under the care of the landlord. This natura.lly would tend to affect the size of the relief family. From such
data as were available, however, it appears that for the country as a
whole the fertility ratio for the relief families was considerably higher
than that for the general population. This is to be expected since
relief families, for the most part, come from the lower 1c1ocial and
economic strata where the birth rates are higher than those in the
Drgmed by
G oog lC
XXII • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
higher strata.. Furthermore, since population traits a.re well grounded
in the mores, relief families with more children may continue, at least
for a time, to have children while still on relief.
The relationship between fertility and relief, however, was by no
means uniform. In some areas fertility was much higher among relief
families than among census families, particularly in the AppalachianOzark and Ranching Areas. In other areas the differences were smaller, while in the Ee.stem Cotton Area the number of children under
5 years of age per 1,000 women aged 20 to 44 years was actually
slightly smaller for the relief families than for all families in 1930.
EMPLOYABILITY, EMPLOYMENT, AND AMOUNT OF RELIEF
Employability and employment are directly related to relief and
are vital factors in family status in either prosperity or depression.
The employability composition of a family i;,ets the outside limits for
its employment success, and many families are greatly handicapped
by the lack of any capable member between the ages of 16 and 64
years. The plight of many rural relief families can be shown by the
fact that one-eighth of them had no employable worker and an
additional 7.8 percent of these families had female workers only.
These two type!" of unemployability taken together were relatively
most important in the two Cotton Areas. Unemployability was
especially high among the Negroes of the South and relatively lower
among the whites.
During times of depression work in agriculture is relatively more
stable than in nonagriculture, although the pa.st unusual period in agricultural production forced a large number of normally self-supporting
agricultural families on relief. However, only 29.2 percent of the gainful workers who had usually been employed in agriculture were unemployed at the time of the survey in contrast with 72.1 percent of the
nonagricultural workers. The small proportion of unemployed in
agriculture, however, was partly due to the fact that farm operators
were arbitrarily defined as employed if they were still on their farms,
even if they had no cash income. For the groups that were actually
employed within these broad classes, much more occupational shifting
had taken place among the nonagricultural occupations. Only 1
percent of the former workers in agriculture had shifted into nonagricultural jobs, but almost 11 percent of the nonagricultural workers were
employed in agriculture at the time of survey. This difference was
also shown by the fact that 95.8 percent of all the workers in agriculture who were employed were engaged in their usual occupations as
contrasted with 55.7 percent of the workers in nonagriculture. In
part this reflects a widespread movement back to the farm during the
depression, and in part it also represents a reversed current of occupational mobility, which caused a general shifting down the scale for
workers at all levels.
1Jig1•ized by
G oog Ie
SUMMARY • XXIII
When rural relief families were analyzed according to continuity of
their relief histories, certain trends were observable. Of all cases on
relief in June 1935, 74.3 percent had received assistance continuously
since February. Another 14.2 percent of the cases had been reopened
between March and June, and only 11.5 percent were new cases.
Slightly more new cases appeared in the villages than in the open country. Continuous relief histories were found most frequently among
groups of a. generally low economic level or among groups especially
affected during the depression period by unusual circumstances.
The Negroes in the South are an example of the first type, and the
farmers in the drought area are an example of the second type.
The average amount of relief per family was influenced ma.inly by
these same factors, low economic levels or unusual conditions of stress.
Also of importance in the determination of a.mount of relief were comparative price levels and costs of living. Lowest amounts of relief
were found in the three southern areas, particularly among the
Negroes, and the highest amounts were spent in the industrialized
areas of the North and East. Indeed, the cost of relief per family in
the Eastern and Wes tern Cotton Areas was not more than one-third
the cost in New England. Four factors were most important in determining the incidence and a.mount of relief for rural families: (1) The
number of employables in the family and their capabilities; (2) unemployment because of the business cycle; (3) unemployment and underemployment because of the weather cycle; and (4) social action for
improving the standard of living.
MOBILITY OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
Only crude measures of the mobility of rural relief families were
available. For the most part the families. were divided into three
groups as follows: lifelong residents, referring to those families whose
head was born in the county in which he was living at the time of the
survey; predepression migrants, referring to those families whose head
moved to the county at any time prior to 1930; and depression migrants, including those families whose head moved to the county some
time during the period 1930 to June 1935.
Of the heads of rural families on relief in June 1935, 40.5 percent were
lifelong residents of the county; 45.6 percent had moved to the county
before the depression; and the remaining 13.9 percent were depression
migrants. As might be expected, smaller proportions of the heads of
rural relief families were lifelong residents in the more recently settled
areas than in the areas of older settlement. The proportion of lifelong
residents was 14.4 percent in the Winter Wheat Area, 17 .8 percent in
the Lake States Cut-Over Area, 22.4 percent in the Ranching Area,
and 28.0 percent in the Spring Wheat Area. All of these are areas of
comparatively recent settlement. Portions of the two Wheat Areas
and of the LA.ke States Cut-Over Area were settled as recently as the
019 tized by
Goos le
XXIV • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
World War. Proportionately more lifelong residents were found in
the South and in other sections of older settlement. Migration during
the depression was characterized by two main types. The first was
migration because of the drought. This was most noticeable in the
Wheat Areas and the Westem Cotton Area, resulting in a shifting of
population within those areas and also a movement to the villages and
to the States in the far West. The second form of depression migration
was the back-to-the-farm movement from the depression-stricken
cities. This was important in the self-sufficing areas of the Northeast.
It was also of great importance in the mountain areas of the South.
Agriculture is an occupation which encourages stability as contrasted
with nonagriculture. Within agriculture farm operators were more
stable than farm laborers, but among the nonagricultural occupations
unskilled laborers were the most stable group. More nonagricultural
than agricultural workers had moved during the depression. The
depression meant a move to the village for farm operators and a move
to the country for nonagricultural workers while many farm laborers
simply moved to another location in the open country.
EDUCATION OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
Heads of rural relief families were found to be on a comparatively
low educational level since less than 4 percent were high school graduates and only about 35 percent had completed as much as a grammar
school education. Wide differences appeared among the various areas,
however, as well as between village and open country residents, between agricultural and nonagricultural workers, and between whites
and Negroes. In general, the educational level was higher in the more
industrialized and urbanized areas than it was in the more agricultural
areas. Similarly, within each area the agricultural workers had a
lower educational level than the nonagricultural workers. In every
area a larger proportion of the heads of village families had completed
a grammar school education than had the heads of families living in
the open country; for all areas combined the difference reached approximately 11 percent. In the South Negroes were on a lower educational level than whites. The median school grade completed by
heads of white relief families in the Eastern Cotton Area was 5.9
years, while for heads of Negro relief families it was only 2.9 years.
The median school grade completed for all heads of rural relief families in all areas was 6.4 years.
The contrast between the education of heads and of other family
members, particularly of youth and children, reflects the fact that
educational levels have been rising during the past generation. This
was most noticeable in areas of low standards where the requirements
have been raised rather rapidly and are beginning to approximate the
standards of the country as a whole.
o,gtizedb;
Google
•
Chapter I
... _...
.
...
. .. . ....
0
,
V
¥
.
'
,.,
'
..... -: .·• :' .
.,
..
~
,
.,
'
TYPES OF FARM FAMILIES AND THE
INCIDENCE OF RELIEF
THE
RURAL population of the United States is not homogeneous
according to residence. It is not only distributed among farm, open
country nonfarm, and village residences, but it is also broken up into
major agricultural regions (fig. 1 ). The farm population of the United
States is unevenly distributed over these regions (fig. 2), being more
concentrated in the hilly regions, on poor soils, and in the South than
it is in the richer regions of the Com Belt of the North, in the wheat
regions, and in the arid plains of the West. This leads to a differentiation of the farm population into broad categories.
TYPES OF FARM FAMILIES
The first category in the farm population is that of the commercial
farmers, including both owners and tenants, who produce most of the
products sold from American farms. The importance of this group
can be seen from a study of figure 3 which gives the value of the products sold from the farm and used by farm families classified into groups,
by values, for the United States in 1929. Farm families having products valued at more,than $1,000 comprised 51.2 percent of such families and produced 89.2 percent of the products sold. These families
under ordinary circumstances are relatively well-to-do. They comprise a. good part of the farm population in the Corn Belt, the Spring
and Winter Wheat Areas, and the Hay and Dairy Area. They also
comprise a. large proportion of the upper economic classes in the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas and some of the families in the Lake
States Cut-Over and Ranching Areas and in certain areas of New
England. They comprise only a very few of the families in the Appalachian-Ozark Area (see fig. 1 and fig. 26, p. 112).
These families are commercial producers and consumers and to a
large extent are under the direct influence of the export markets of the
United States, because of the fact that the prices of their products are
determined largely by the commercial surplus which is exported. Relief
for these families, and for the regions where they predominate, is determined to a great extent by the fluctuations in quantities and prices
D1g111zedbyGoogle
.
....
,.a..
FIG. I -AGRICULTURAL
.•.
,.c:
-~·...
REGIONS
,0
i'"'•
·i·.E, .
u;
0
z
,,,
,0
,,,C
'Tl
Source: Adapted f rom u. s. Dep artmen t or Agriculture,
Bureau or Agricultural Economics.
AF-279~, W'4
F18. 2 - FARM POPULATION
·r· :•···· •·:•
·~·/itflt
..
0
ca·
;i"
(1)
a.
.
0
&
n"
~
····i;
.
;:J
.· -.. . ~-p~.:
. ,: .
!l
0
.
0
...,
>
"'
>
~
··x::-.v;-:.
•. •
~-
:_.~~~~
"""' • •.-..,••,,
Source: A0apteo from u.s.Department of
Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
en
~
_
e resents
I••
2.500 peop
Eaoh aot ' p
r-
iji
AF-2797, .,,.
I•
w
4 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
of farm products. One of the major factors in their relation to the
li'ederal Government is the matter of agricultural adjustment. Consequently, in discussing relief among such farm families, one must
think in terms of agricultural prices and of programs for the limitation
of production.
A second category of the farm population, likewise including both
owners and tenants, may be called noncommercial. This includes the
Farms
(thousands)
1500 1000
500
Cumwlative
O percenfa91
Fcrrns havino
totol value of
products
Cumulatiw
percentaae
Sold \lied
Under S 251
0.1
42
IS.3
251-
400
1.0
97
28.0
401-
600
3.4 21.7
48.8
601-
1,000
10.8 41.7
6.6
0
Dollen (millions)
500
1500 2500
Products sold
64.4
1,001- 1,500 20.6 S8.4
80.8
1,501 -
91.2
2,501- 4,000 S7.7 87.2
Ill
Products used ~
2,500 38.S 7S.3
96.1
4,001 - 6,000 71.7 93.4
98.S
6,001 -10,000 82.3 97.1
99.6
10,001-20,000 91.0 99.1
100.0
Over 20,000 l00.0 1000
FIG. 3-VALUE OF PRODUCTS SOLO FROM FARM AM> USED BY FAMILY
CLASSIFIED INTO GROUPS, BY VALUES, UNITED STATES
1929
Source; Adopted from U.S. Deportment of
Aoriculture, Bureau of Aoriculturol Economic1.
1#•2101,WPA
·other 48.8 percent of the farmers who in 1929 produced only 10.8 percent of the value of farm products sold. This noncommercial group
consists largely of the farm operators classified by the census as selfsufficing or part-time. The noncommercial farm family or subsistence
unit comprises much of the population to be found in the AppalachianOzark Area and in the Piedmont Regions, a number of settlers in the
Lake States Cut-Over Area, a large proportion of the poorer families
in the Ranching Area, and a good many part-time farmers around the
cities in the Hay and Dairy Area and in New England. The most
representative region for this group is the Appalachian-Ozark Area.
These families, as a rule, do not have much good land but what they
have is generally capable of producing some of the food, fuel, building
materials, and other essentials of life for a fairly dependable but meager
living. They generally supplement their income in direct consump-
1Jig1•ized by
G oog Ie
TYPES OF FARM FAMILIES • 5
tion goods from these poor land resources by labor in other occupations, such as those connected with timber and mineral resources and
decentralized factories. These families are helped relatively little by
agricultural price-raising in the United States since their products are
consumed rather than sold and since to some extent they must purchase the products whose prices have been increased by the program.
On the other hand, restricted production in the coal, copper, and iron
mines and in the factories located in the rural districts has a direct
influence upon their living. The depletion of timber resources is also
very important. This explains why these families form a category of
their own and why they are, to a large extent, to be found in the Appalachian-Ozark Area (with formerly abundant timber and coal resources) more frequently than in the richer agricultural areas. This
also explains why they are found in the Lake States Cut-Over Area
with its former timber resources and its copper and iron mines and in
New England with its decentralized industries. The presence of these
families, to a limited extent, in the grazing area is determined by the
fact that this is a mountainous region with some timber and mineral
resources.
Cutting across both the commercial and noncommercial groups, a
third category of the agricultural population may be called the
chronically poverty-stricken. Some rural families of this type, both
owner and tenant, are to be found in all areas. It includes chiefly,
however, the farm laborers in all areas and the sharecroppers and tenants of the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas. In the South relief
among them is complicated by the problem of race because a high
proportion of the poverty-stricken families are Negro families. A
great many of them, however, are white families living under the same
economic conditions. As laborers, croppers, and tenants upon farms
chiefly in the South, they produce goods primarily for commercial
sale. In spite of the fact that they are chronically poverty-stricken,
they seldom produce much food for ·home consumption. This is
due partly to the system of agriculture and partly to ignorance, disease, and the fact that they either have lost or have never developed
sufficiently the type of culture which emphasizes production of goods
for home consumption. These poverty-stricken rural families include
also the migratory laborers to be found in the West, particularly in
California. During the depression, and especially since the droughts
of 1934 and 1936, they have been joined by a number of the former
farmers of the drought region 1 (fig. 4). Many of these lost everything they had and migrated westward to join the group of relatively
poverty-stricken laborers. Whereas in the South the problem of
l
See Taeuber, Conrad and Taylor, Carl C., The People of the Drought State,,
Research Bulletin Series V, No. 2, Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937, pp. 45-47.
Dig !tzed by
Goog Ie
f'tG . 4 -OF'F'ICIALLY DESIGNATED DROUGHT COUNTIES
°'•
Al
1934
AND
C
1936
Al
)>
...,r)>
I:
;=
rn
0
z
Al
m
r;;;
...,
0
~~·
ro
a.
!;{
0
~
-~
iJ.
r?
~
~~
,
\J
~
c-
~
z
rg
[8
~
1934
19 36
Both years
0
0
00
,.._
n
Sources: Drouqht Area Designation Committee ( 1934 );
U. S. Deportment of Agriculture Drought Committee ( 1936).
AF-2400,W PA
TYPES OF FARM FAMILIES • 7
poverty-stricken laborers is complicated by the fact that a great
many of them are Negroes, in the West there are many persons of
Mexican, oriental, or South European origin.
A large proportion of the poverty-stricken, whether laborers, sharetenants, or sharecroppers, work for commercial farmers. In many
cases they live on the farms the year round, but the migratory workers
live on them only during the crop season. During the other parts of
the year they tend to become attached to the rural-nonfarm population, chiefly in the villages. As a general rule they work solely for
wages or for a part of the crop. Supplies are furnished by the landlord or employer, and they do little subsistence farming for home
supplies on their own account. As a result they share the sufferings
caused by fluctuations in the business cycle along with the commercial
farmer. If agricultural adjustment keeps them on the farms or furnishes them employment during a period of production restriction and
higher prices, they gain in higher wages and more return for their crop
from the change. If, under any process, they are not kept on or rehired in their former seasonal employment during such a period, they
are forced upon relief providing they cannot find alternative opportunities for work.
From the point of view of these categories of farm families, three
important types of influences came to bear upon rural life in America
during the depression of the early thirties. These were, respectively,
the decline in prices and sales for the commercial farmers, either the
decline in utilization or the disappearance of other natural resources
for the noncommercial farmers, and the change in work opportunities
for the poverty-stricken laborers, croppers, and tenants. In analyzing
the problem of relief and of the depression in any rural area one should
consider it in terms of how far the area is influenced by the predominance of one of these broad rural classes on relief.
Another problem in American rural life which has had an influence
upon the relief needs of farm families is that of production for domestic
consumption or for export. Some farmers specialize in export crops
or crops with an export surplus, such as wheat or cotton, and others in
producing goods consumed almost entirely by the American wage
earner, such as milk and dairy products. The Hay and Dairy Area
is representative of the farmer who produces almost entirely for
American consumption, whereas the Spring and Winter Wheat Areas
and the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas all have high export surpluses.
The farmers who produce crops with an export surplus depend,
to a considerable extent, upon a foreign market which, at the
same time, may or may not be as prosperous or restricted as the Amer-
D1g111zedbyGoogle
8 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
ican urban market. The people in these regions are generally located
at some distance from the large cities and on level agricultural lands
more or less devoid of timber and mineral resources. Consequently
their opportunities for a part-time farming and industrial combination are more or less restricted. On the other hand, the producers for
the domestic urban market are located almost entirely near the large
cities in industrial regions where their opportunities for subsidiary
income from-sources other than agriculture are considerably enhanced.
Thus, they have come to depend on these subsidiary sources of income
and may suffer considerably from unemployment even though the
general prices of agricultural products are fairly stable. Such farmers
are in direct contact with the city. As a result, whatever influences
urbanization, industrialization, a high rate of mobility, and communication have upon rural family life will be felt most quickly in a
region where production for the domestic market predominates. All
of these statements apply with particular force to the Hay and Dairy
Area and to New England.
Finally, there are the special problems of the farmers in those
regions of the United States with restricted rainfall-averaging less
than 20 inches per year. These regions are to be found in the Spring
and Winter Wheat Areas and in the Great Plains grazing area. Rainfall in these regions fluctuates not only according to the seasons of
the year and year by year but also through longer cycles. Many
of these regions were densely settled, at least from the standpoint
of acreage farmed, during the period of high prices for agricultural
products which set in about 1910 and carried on through the World
War. This also happened to be a period of relatively good rainfall.
Since that time, and particularly during the depression of the early
thirties, a period of drought set in. The extensive droughts of 1934
and 1936 are related to this cycle, and any analysis should consider
the relief families in those regions from this standpoint.
THE INODENCE OF RELIEF
Rural families receiving general relief gradually increased in number
from the inauguration of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration early in 1933 to January 1935 when they reached an estimated
total of 1,949,000 cases. By the time final FERA grants were
determined in December of that year the rural relief load had declined
to 401,000 cases (table 1). Part of the decline in the relief load was
due to the transfer of thousands of cases to the rural rehabilitation
program in the early months of 1935.2 In the latter part of the year
the decline was largely due to the transfer of employable cases to the
t See Asch, Berta and Mangus, A. R., Farmer11 on Relief and Rehabilitation,
Research Monograph VIII, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1937, p. 18.
Digitized by
Google
Farm Own er Family in th e Drought Area.
D191t1zedbyGoogle
Digitized by
Google
TYPES OF FARM FAMILIES • 9
Tobie 7.-Rural Families in the United States Receiving General Relief, July 1933
Through December 1935 (Estimated)
Year and month
1933
Nnmberof
families
Inly ...••••••••••••....•••••••••••••••.
August ....••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••
Sept,imber.••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••
October...••...•...•••••••••••••••••••.
No,·en,ber ..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
December •.••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••
1,270,000
1. 282,000
1,010,000
I, 113,000
1,33.1, 000
1,007,000
1934
J1U1uary •.•••••.•.••••••...•••••••••••••
February..••••••.•••.•••••••••••••••...
March .••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••..•.
I, 165,000
l,:.?27,000
u:~1.::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::
June ...•..•••••.••••.••••••• • •••••.•.• .
July ..••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
AU!'U!t .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
September •• .••••.•.••••••• •• •••••••.• .
I, 414,000
), 321,000
I, 453,000
I, 523,000
1,610,000
I. 76.~. 000
I, 725,000
Nnmberof
families
Year and month
111:W
October ...•••••••••.•••••••••••••••••
November .......................•...
December........................... .
1936
Jannary ...••..•....•••••.••••.•. .• ...
February •••••••••••••••.••••••••••..
March ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••
~:t::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June ....•..••••••••••••••••••••••••••
July ••..•..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Au7ust ....••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
September .•••••••••••••••••••••••••.
October ....••••••••..••••••••••••••••
November •••...•••..••••••••••••••••
December ...•..•.•...••••••••••••••••
1,667,000
I, 753,000
I, 853,000
1,949,000
1,007,000
I, 858,000
1,764,000
1,649,000
1,427,000
I, 289,000
I, 149,000
I, 039, 000
991,000
859,000
401,000
Sourre: Smith. Mapheus Rn<! M11ngns. A. R ., Ca,ea Rtuirlng Gtncal RtllLf in Urban and Rural Artcu,
Julr /93.~Dt-·,mbtr J,9!16 ( Ealimal<dl, Research Bulletin Series Ill, No. 1, Dl\·ision of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., Au!Ollt 22, 1036.
Works Program. 8 Increased employment in private industry and
administrative closings further reduced the relief load.
Comparison of the estimated proportion of the rural and urban
population receiving general relief between July 1933 and December
1935 reveals two important aspects with respect to rural relief. The
first of these is the relative position of the rura.l population in regard
to the incidence of relief (fig. 5 and appendix table 1). For each
month of the period covered the proportion of the rura.l population on
relief was less than that of the urban population. The national average was always nearer the urban than the rural ratio because there are
about 5 million more urban than rural families in the United States.
A second factor was the fluctuations in relief loads in rura.l and urban
areas. The proportion of the urban population on relief was 15.2
percent in July 1933 and tended on the whole to remain large but with
a number of fluctuations throughout the whole period studied.
Rura.l relief was relatively high in some of the early months of 1933.
Fundamentally, however, rural relief reached a peak of a little above
15 percent in January and February 1935 and declined slowly after
that time. The urban percentages also declined systematically during
1935 from the peak of February. The important point is that the
rural and urban relief curves had some elements in common but others
which differentiated them. Differences were most significant in the
early period while in the later period similarities were outstanding.
The dividing point was the late spring of 1934.
Relief rates also varied considerably among the agricultural areas
surveyed (appendix table 2). By far the most outstanding relief area
1 Mangus, A. R., Changing Aspects of Rural Relief, Research Monograph XIV,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
1938, appendix table 9.
Digitized by
Google
10 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
was the Lake States Cut-Over with the Appalachian-Ozark Area competing with the Spring Wheat Area for second place. The Appalachian-Ozark Area had a generally high incidence of relief, whereas the
25~---,..--..--......----,----,--,---.....-------,---.25
WP
CWA
20-------------------------20
o .................................................................................................................................._._......._....._,o
~
~
1933
~
~
~
~
~
~
1934
~
~
1935
FIG. 5-INTENSITY OF GENERAL RELIEF IN THE UNITED STATES*
BY RESIDENCE (Estimated)
July 1933 through December 1935
*Percentage ratio of total estimated number of coses
to all families of the some residence class.
Source: Mangus, A.R., Changing Aspects of Rural
Relief, Research Monograph XIV. Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration,
Washinc;iton, D.C., 1938
Spring Wheat Area had particularly high relief loads following the
drought of 1934.
The areas with the lowest relief loads were the Com Belt and the
Hay and Dairy Area.' These two regions represented the commercial
farmers who received particular aid through the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (Com Belt) and who produced food crops for
domestic consumption (Hay and Dairy Area). Hence, low relief
rates for the farmers in these areas are understandable because, if
they produced export crops, they were aided by the AAA and, if they
produced goods primarily for American wage earners, their markets
did not decline as much as did the foreign ones. The maintenance of
• Comparable data for New England are not available.
01g111zedbyGoogle
TYPES OF FARM FAMILIES • 11
domestic markets was due in part to the fact that Federal relief in the
cities enabled the urban families, who consumed much of these farm
products, to continue to purchase the food produced for such markets.
FIG.6-FEDERAL AID PER CAPITA
1933-1936
Dollars
than I~
El 15 - 19
!!ll 20-2 4
l'I 25-34
■ 35- 4 4
■ 45 or mart-
D Less
Sources: F E R A . CW A •
R A , W PA, and F,lfeenlh
Census of !he United
Stoles: 1930 . Popu lat,on.
1 INCLUDING
A A A PAYME NTS)
1.
Sources: F E R A . CW A.
AAA , RA . WPA.ond
F ,tteenlh Census of /he Un!led
Stoles: 1930 . Populot,on
Dollars
Less than 25
0 25-34
GI 35-44
~ 45-54
■ 55-84
■ 85 or more
[]
It should be pointed out that the figures on relief intensity do not
represent the same families every month. Rural families came on
and went off relief at a rapid rate as their fortunes temporarily improved or declined. 6 As a result of the high rate of turnover, it is
probable that the actual number of families which received relief for at
least 1 month during the period of the FERA was at least 50 percent
1
Mangus, A. R., op. cit., ch. III.
Dig
,,zed by
Google
12 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
greater than the number on relief at the peak month. More than one
out of every four rural families received public or private assistance
at some time during the early thirties. 5
Not only relief loads but also expenditures for relief varied widely
from one rural area to another (fig. 6). The areas of the highest per
capita relief costs from 1933 through 1936, including all Federal expenditures of an emergency nature, were practically coextensive with
the Spring and Wmter Wheat Areas. This region has an economy
geared to the international industrial-commercial complex. It is of
comparatively recent settlement with but slight accumulations of
material goods; and, as yet, it has not developed a strong indigenous
culture. Thus, when the combination of drought and a low market
struck at the economic organization, the population had no recourse
except emigration or dependency.
From this brief summary of the incidence of rural relief a number of
factors stand out clearly. First, the general economic depression increased the difficulty that families had in making a living in all rural
areas. However, different types of areas presented problems which
made for differences in relief rates. For instance, a prominent factor
in many of these areas was the drought which set in during the depression and which caused high relief rates in the areas in which it had
an influence. Certain special circumstances, such as Agricultural
Adjustment Administration benefits and the accessibility and stability
offood markets in the cities, tended to lower relief rates for some areas.
Fundamentally, however, with the exception of the Spring Wheat
Area, sections with the highest relief rates were not influenced directly
by any of these factors. In the Appalachian-Ozark and the Lake
States Cut-Over Areas rural relief rates were the highest of all and
:fluctuated the least. Further in this study the analysis will attempt
repeatedly to throw light on the particular problems of the families on
relief in those two areas.
• Woofter, T. J., Jr. and Winston, Ellen, Seven Lean Year,, manuacript in
preparation.
Oig,•ized by
G oog Ie
Chapter II
OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN OF THE HEADS
OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
THE USUAL occupations 1 of the heads of rural relief families give
both a picture of the background of the relief problem and some indication of the kind of breakdown responsible for the relief situation.
For purposes of analysis heads of families are classified as agricultural
or nonagricultural, as having no usual occupation,~ or as nonworkers •
(table 2).
A high proportion of agricultural families was receiving general
relief in June 1935 although this was only one of four important public
measures for the improvement of agriculture and rural life in operation at that time. The other three were the Agricultural Adjustment
Administration, which sought to raise prices and give bonuses to the
farmer; the Farm Credit Administration, which sought to lower
interest rates and take over mortgagefl to keep farmers from losing
their farms; and the rural rehabilitation program, which sought to
remove farm families from relief rolls by advancing credit for subsistence and farming operations so that they could once more become
self-supporting.
The agricultura1 occupations accounted for about the same proportion of the rural relief cases as the nonagricultural occupations (40.6
percent as compared with 41.2 percent). Considering that relief
represented only one of four public measures to assist agriculture,
it is dishP.artening that so many farmers had to have this form of
assistance.
1 A person was considered to have had a usual occupation if at any time during
the past 10 years he had worked at any job, other than work relief, for a period of
at least 4 consecutive weeks. If a person had worked at two or more occupations,
the one at which he had worked the greatest length of time was considered the
usual occupation. If he had worked for an equal length of time at two or more
occupations, the one at which he had worked last was considered the usual
occupation.
1 Capable of working and seeking work but not qualifying for a usual occupation
under footnote 1 above.
1 Neither seeking gainful employment nor qualifying under footnote 1 above.
13
Drgmed by
G oog lC
....,,.,.
Tat.le !.-Usual Occupation of Heads of Rural Families Receivin9 General Relief, by Area, June 1935
•
[138 counties and 116 New EnJland townships]
;g
U SU81 occupation
Number • •. . •• . . .. ... . ..... . .
Percent •.•••• •... .. . ..... .. ..
Agriculture .• .. .. . •• •••. .. . . __ _....
Farm operator . •. . .. ... . ..... __
Owner . •••• . .•.. . ...... . ...
Tenant .••••••. . . . .... •. ....
Cropper•. .• . . . . ... .. ... ....
Farm lnhorer .. •. ....... . .......
Non~~~\~~~\t!;.::: :::::::: ::: : :::::
Skilled ... .•••••••.••....... . ...
Semiskilled .••..•.. . ...........
Unskilled .. . ..• •... . ...........
No usual occupation •..• . ....... __ .
~onworker ____ _____ __ ___ _. _______ . _
Unknown .... . . ... ..... . . . . .. . ..
0
0
~
"'a.
!;[
CJ
0
~
-
(v
All areas
62,831
100.0
1,836
100. 0
17,016
100. 0
3,814
100.0
46. 7
41. 3
38. 3
15. 3
23. 0
26. 0
22. 2
17. 4
4. 8
3. 0
43. 8
2.1
3. 2
3. 6
34. 9
3. 3
II. 5
0.1
3.8
62. 8
2. 8
7. 8
5. 8
36.4
I. 7
19. 2
0.3
Hay
and
Dairy
C
Corn
Belt
;g
Bl'rlng
Wheat
Winter
Wheat
Ranch•
New
England
3,374
1,288
1.886
4,315
0
~
iii
VI
>
r
White Negro
Total
White Negro
Total
..,
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - --- --- --- --- --- --- >
7,732
100. 0
5,084
100. 0
2. 648
JOO. 0
7,268
100. 0
6. 432
47. 5
28. 1
5. 9
8. 4
13. 8
19. 4
31. 2
4. 1
4. 0
7. 9
15. 2
3. 5
47. 5
31.6
7. 6
15. 9
8. I
15. 9
34. 4
6. 0
5. 3
11.1
12.0
4. 8
13. 2
0.1
47. 4
21.3
2. 7
8. 9
9. 7
26.1
25. 3
o. 5
I. 5
1.8
21. 5
0.8
26.5
64. 3
34.3
4. 1
17. 0
13. 2
20. 0
24. 7
2. 9
2. 9
2.9
16. 0
1.5
19. 6
56. 8
36. 0
4. 0
18. 9
13. 1
20. 8
26.1
3. 6
3. 8
3.6
16. I
1.9
15. 2
100. 0
- - - - - - --- - - - --- t - - - - 40. 6
29. 3
10. 7
15. 4
3. 2
II. 3
41. 2
3. 7
6.0
6.8
24. 7
2. 5
15. 6
0.1
1:Ccr:~Ozark
Lllke
States
CutOver
Western Cotton
Eastern Cotton
Ii. 7
0.1
-
-
-
29. 4
4. 6
13. 5
11.4
17. 3
20. 7
0. 9
0. 4
0. 7
18. 7
o. 4
32. 2
-
-
-
8. 626
100. 0
--28. 9
17.3
8. 4
8. 9
11. 6
51.1
4. 2
11. 4
9. 7
25.8
I. 0
19. 0
-
7,512
0
Ing
100.
100.
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
--- - -42.-9 ------40. 2
12. 7
68. 7
19. 4
25. 2
15. 6
9.6
6. 9
35. 9
64. 3
38. 6
8. 6
30. 0
44.1
6.8
8.1
8.6
21. 7
1.6
H.l
19.1
a. 6
4.8
2. 4
8.6
3. 9
8. 2
0. 1
15. 8
33.0
5.0
6. 1
4.0
17. D
2.3
9. 9
0. 5
34.8
2.3
4.0
6. 6
23.0
2. 2
19. 8
0.3
63. 7
6. 8
12. 11
21.11
22. g
3. 0
20. 2
20. 8
5. 2
15. 6
-
61. 5
25. 6
7. 2
-
17. 7
j=
6. 4
0.6
0
- ;gz
6.8
0.4
m
r-
m
..,
OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN OF HEADS • 15
Among the agriculturalists ' farm operators were two and one-half
times as numerous on relief as farm laborers. This might be expected
because there are considerably more than twice as many farm operators
as hired farm laborers in the United States. Within the farm operator
group, however, tenants furnished a greater proportion ot the relief
cases than did farm owners 6 although in the entire United States
there are about three farm owners for every two farm tenants.
Unskilled laborers accounted for most of the heads of relief cases
among the nonagricultural group. This is partly because they are the
most numerous class among rural nonagriculturalists and partly because the incidence of relief is greater at the bottom of the economic
pyramid. Nonworkers constituted 15.6 percent of the heads of relief
cases, reflecting the tendency for relief rolls at any particular time to
include a large number of families which for various reasons contain
no breadwinner at all.
OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN BY AREA
The occupational origins of heads of relief families varied widely by
areas (table 2). Agriculture was more important than nonagriculture
in the Cotton, Wheat, and Ranching Areas. In the other areas the
opposite was true. The greatest proportionate difference existed
between New England with only 12.7 percent of its rural relief families
engaged in agriculture and the Spring Wheat Area where 68.7 percent
were of farm origin. The important factor in New England was
probably the extent of urbanization along with decentralized industrial
villages. Drought was chiefly responsible for the high proportion of
farm families on relief in the Spring Wheat Area.
The proportion of farm laborers on relief in the two Cotton Areas
and in the other commercial agricultural regions is one indication of
the net results of agricultural restrictions. Under the system of reducing farm production these workers were no longer needed in agriculture, and finding no other alternative they went on relief. Also,
• Agriculturalists include farm owners, tenants, and croppers, and farm laborers.
A farm owner is a farmer who owns all or part of the land which he operates.
A renter or tenant is a farm operator who operates hired land only, furnishing all
or part of the working equipment and stock whether he pays cash or a share of
the crop or both as rent. A farm cropper is a farmer who operates only rented
land and to whom the landlord furnishes all of the work animals; i.e., a farm operator who contributes only his labor and receives in return a share of the crop.
A farm laborer is a person who works on a farm with or without wages under the
supervision of the farm operator. Children over 16 years of age and wives who
work regularly and most of the time on the household farm are included in this
definition, whether they receive money wages, a share of the crop, or board and
room. Persons who do only incidental farm chores are not included.
• Asch, Berta and Mangus, A. R., Farmers on Relief and Rehabilitation, Research
Monograph VIII, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration,
Washington. D. C., 1937, p. 51.
Oig1 ,zed by
Google
16 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
part of the excess destitute population in the Cotton Belt migrated
and showed up among the laborers on relief in the far West.
For the nonagricultural families on relief the most important additional observation was the proportions of skilled and semiskilled
workers on relief in rural New England. With the closing of factories
in industrial villages they were forced on relief along with the unskilled. Moreover, the number of white-collar workers receiving
relief in the rural districts of New England was almost twice as great
as the national average. On the other hand, New England furnished
slightly lees than the national average of unskilled laborers on relief.
This is to be explained by the fact that the industrial population in
New England is a highly skilled one as contrasted with the general
rural-industrial population in the United States.
The proportion of heads with no usual occupation receiving rural
relief was not significant in any area. Nonworkers were important,
however, constituting from 10 to 20 percent of the relief load in all
areas except the Spring Wheat.
In the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas tenants, croppers, and
farm laborers were the important groups to receive relief among the
agriculturalists. Among the nonagriculturalists unskilled laborers
formed the important group. Thus, occupations at the bottom of the
economic pyramid accounted for larger proportions of the relief load
than the other occupations. These same conclusions apply also to the
Winter and Spring Wheat Areas-other regions which had high proportions of agriculturalists receiving relief. In the Ranching Area more
owners than tenants were found on the relief rolls while unskilled
laborers from the small mining towns dominated the nonagricultural
load. In the areas where agriculture played a lesser role in relief, the
predominant emphasis was upon the unskilled laborer. These areas,
with the exception of the Com Belt, formerly had many persons
engaged in exploiting timber or mineral resources. Such persons
naturally would have had either to tum to subsistence farming for a
living or to apply for aid during the depression.
OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN BY RESIDENCE
About two-fifths of the rural relief load was located in villages and
the remainder in the open country. The relief families were most
heavily concentrated in villages in the Ranching Area and the Corn
Belt and least so in the Appalachian-Ozark Area 6 (tables 3 and 4).
Naturally agriculture played a predominant role in the open country
(57.2 percent) as contrasted with the villages (19.7 percent).
N onagriculture almost reversed the proportions with 58.6 percent in
the villages and 27.5 percent in the open country (fig. 7). The areas
8 New England is excluded because of the difficulty of distinguishing between the
open country and villages.
Dig"ized by
Google
Te11a11l Family in /hr· Miduw st.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN OF HEADS• 17
ALL AREAS
EASTERN
•
Avriculture
~
~
No usuol
occupotion
~
Non09riculture
~
Nonworker
Open country
Villooe
Open country
COTTON
Villo9e
WESTERN
Open country
COTTON
Villo9e
APPALACHIANOZARK
Open country
LAKE STATES
CUT-OVER
Open country
HAY AND
OAIRY
Open country
CORN BELT
Vill09e
Vill09e
Villo9e
Open country
Villo9e
SPRING
WHEAT
Open country
WINTER
WHEAT
Open country
RANCHING
Villove
Villo9e
Open country
Villo9e
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9 0 100
Percent
FIG. 7- USUAL OCCUPATION OF HEADS OF OPEN COUNTRY
ANO VILLAGE FAMILIES RECEIVING
GENERAL RELIEF, BY AREA
June 1935
o,gl'!Zed by
Goog Ic
...
Tol,le 3.-Usual Occupation of Heads of Open Country Families Receiving General Relief, by Area, June 1935
01)
•
(138 counties)
,0
Western Cotton
Ea.stem Cotton
All
Usual occupation
areas 1
White
Total
Negro
Total
White
Negro
1:c~Y:~.
Ozark
C
Lake
States
Cut•
Over
Hay and
Dairy
Com
Belt
Soring
Wheat
Winter
Wheat
Ranch•
Ing
--- - - - - - - --- --- - - - --- --2,386
6,028
670
2,512
2,802
12,066
l, 176
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
- -40.-7
- -71.- --- -58.-7
82. 2
80.
87. 6
63. 5
36.
63. 4
58. 1
68. I
62. 6
--- --- --- --- --- --Number .•• •••• •... ... ...
Percent . •••••••......••. .
Agriculture . ... .. ••••. •.. . ..• •.
•·arm operator ••• ..........
Owner . •.•.••..........
Tenant . .••• •..........
Cn,pper . •••...... . ....
Farm laborer .••..... ......
Nona~riculture .••••........•..
White collar .. _ •. •.........
Skilled . . ...••••............
Semiskilled •••••••.........
Unskilled . . •. .. ............
No usual occupation .•.••......
Non worker __ ___ ___ _______ __ ___
Unknown .•..••.•••••..........
• Less than 0.05 percent.
• Exclusive or New England.
Cl
~
N
~
.Sf
0
0
an
35,802
100.0
5,002
100. 0
57. 2
61. 4
37. 5
8. 0
11. 6
17. 9
23. 9
17. 0
I. 2
2. I
4. 7
9.0
2. 6
19.0
4-t. 9
16. 2
23. 9
4. 8
12. 3
Z7. 5
I. 7
3. 6
4. I
18.1
I. 9
13. 3
0.1
.
3,366
100. 0
1,636
100.0
4,686
100. 0
3,610
100.0
41.9
9. 9
10. 9
21.1
20. 7
20.1
1. 7
2. 9
6. 6
8.9
3. 5
13. 7
0. 1
28. 4
4.0
13.0
II. 4
30. 3
10. 6
0.4
0. 5
0.6
9. 1
0.6
30. 1
48. 5
-~- 6
23. 5
17. 4
21.6
12. 8
I.I
J.6
1. 3
8. 8
0.9
18. 2
4
48. 4
5.3
26. 1
17. 0
23. 0
13.9
1.4
2. 1
l. 7
8. 7
l. 1
13. 6
-
-
-
1151)
6
40.8
6. 5
16. 0
18. 3
17. 3
9. 7
0.2
0.2
9.3
o. 2
32. 0
-
50. 2
20.0
30. 2
32.1
25. 3
6. 8
26.6
12.9
13.6
41.3
10. 3
31. 0
81.6
35.0
46. 6
3.2
34. 6
1. 6
2.4
3.6
27. l
2. 5
9.4
0. 1
4. 5
44.0
1.6
6. 1
5.6
31. 7
1.4
17. 6
0.4
14. 2
41.9
2.9
9.6
7. 9
21. 6
I.I
16. 3
22. 2
24. 5
2.4
6. 1
6. 0
11.0
l. 2
10.8
6. 0
4. 4
0.8
1. 1
0.8
I. 7
3. 2
4.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
6.'1. 0
15. 2
47. 8
33. 0
17. 9
13. 1
2. 7
3.0
l. 2
6. 2
Q.9
4. 8
0.3
13. 5
18. 8
I. 2
1.8
3. 1
12. 7
o. 6
17. 8
0.6
-
48. 7
15. 7
-
,0
►
r...,
►
I:
;=
i;i
2
,0
m
r-
m
...,
Tat.le ...-Usual Occupation of Heads of Village Families Receiving General Relief, by Area, June 1935
I138 counties]
WMtern Cotton
Ea.stern Cotton
All
Usual occupation
area.st
Total
Numher _________________
Percent _____________ ___ __
White
Negro
Total
White
Negro
Appal~hianOtark
Lake
States
CutOver
Bay and
Dairy
Corn
Belt
Spring
Wheat
Wint«Wheat
Ranrh•
Ing
- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - --- - - - ---
Agrtculture __ . __________ .• • ___ _
Farm operator _____________
Owner _________________
Tenant. __ -----·-· -····----··· -· · --_
Cropper
laborer.._____________
Farm
Nonagriculture_ ..•• __ , .. __ ___ _
White collar ________ __ -·--·
Skilled _____ ___________ _____
Semisk illed __________ ._ •. __
t i n.skilled .. ___ . ______ --· ___
No usual occupation ___________
-- · -·-·-------- ______
Nooworker
__
__ __________
Unk.nown __ ____
22, 714
100.0
2, 7JO
100. 0
], 718
100.0
1,012
100. 0
2,582
100.0
1, 922
100.0
19. 7
8. 9
2. i
4. 8
I. 4
10. 8
58. 6
6. 2
8. 7
8. 3
35. 4
3. 2
18. 4
o_ 1
2'l.l
10. 8
2.1
2. 5
6. 2
II. 3
67. 3
9. 5
7. 5
13. 8
26. 5
5. 1
15. 4
0.1
17.9
11. 4
3. 0
2.6
5. 8
6. 5
62. 2
14. 6
10.0
19. 8
17. 8
7.6
12.3
0.1
29. 2
9. 9
0. 6
2. 4
6. 9
19. 3
49.0
0. 8
3. 2
3. 8
4L 2
1. 2
lkl. 6
29. 2
12. 2
I. 5
5. 2
5. 5
17.0
46.4
6. 3
5. 3
5. 7
29. 1
2.6
21. 8
30. 2
13. 3
I. 7
6. 8
5.8
16.9
48. 4
7. 7
6. 8
7. 2
26. 7
3. 2
18. 2
-
-
-
611()
100. 0
26. 4
9. I
0.9
3. 3
4. 9
17. 3
40. 3
2.1
I. 2
1.5
35. 5
0.9
32. 4
-
4,950
100. 0
1,302
100.0
3,598
100. 0
4,710
100.0
988
100.0
618
100. 0
1, %Ml
100.0
9. 2
2. 9
2.0
0.9
4. 3
8. 7
2. 2
6. 5
23. 0
12. 7
3. 0
g_7
25. 6
12.0
1.3
10. 7
32. 8
12.9
2.1
2. 2
2. 5
69.9
5. 2
13. I
6. I
45. 6
2. 3
22. 4
8. 2
64. I
6.1
14. 0
12. 2
31.8
0. 9
22. 5
17.6
55. 7
7. 9
9. g
10. 0
27. 9
1. 9
16.1
--- -11.-7 - -6.-4 --26.3
12. 5
4. 1
5. I
-
2. 5
66.4
3. 2
6. I
3. 6
54. 5
5. 3
16. 5
0. 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10. 3
54. 7
IO. I
13. 0
6. 3
25. 3
5. 5
16. 6
0. 2
13. 6
54. 4
7.4
9. 4
7. 1
30. 5
3. 9
15_5
0.6
6. 4
6. 5
-
19.9
43. 2
2_9
5_ 2
6.8
28. 3
3.1
lll. 7
0. 2
~C
-0
~
z
0
1
Exclusive oC New England-
)>
'
0
::ID
CJ
"3'
-'N
a.
"'O'
'<
0
0
~
-
('I;;
0
z
0
...,
J:
m
)>.
~
....•
,0
20 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
in which the relief rate was high among agriculturalists residing in
villages were those devoted to cotton, corn, wheat, and ranching. In
the areas where commercial farming was not so important agriculturalists accounted for sma.ller proportions of the village relief loads.
Likewise, the open country families connected with agriculture and
receiving relief were fewest proportionately in the AppalachianOzark, Hay and Dairy, and Lake States Cut-Over Areas. The general
prevalence of large numbers of nonagriculturalists in these regions is
responsible for the difference.
Further differences begin to appear upon examination of the economic stratification within the agricultural and nonagricultural
groups residing in the open country and in the villages, respectively.
In the open country the agricultural group on relief had over three
and one-half times as many farm operators as farm laborers, whereas
among the village families farm laborers were more important than
farm operators. The predominance of farm laborers over farm operators among families on relief in villages was chiefly due to the residence of farm laborers in villages in the Ranching, Corn Belt, Hay
and Dairy, and Western Cotton Areas.
The economic pyramid among the nonagricultural families receiving
relief was about the same in the villages as in the open country.
About the same relative proportions of relief families were found to
be in the unskilled labor classes as contrasted with the other nonagriculturalists. Heads of families on relief in villages who were nonworkers, however, were more numerous proportionately than in the
open country. Together with this group the data. for heads with no
usual occupation show the extent to which the villages in the rural districts are collecting places for broken families and the nongainfully
occupied population. It also indicates in part the extent to which
these families are separated from plots of land where it would be
possible for them to add to their income by keeping cows, chickens,
and pigs and by gardening for home consumption.
OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN BY COLOR
The remaining major problem as to the incidence of relief according
to occupational origin applies to color. Since most of the rural Negroes
are concentrated in the South, separate tabulations for the whites
and Negroes are presented only for the Eastern and Western Cotton
Arens (tables 2, 3, and 4).
In general a. larger proportion of Negro than of white families on
relief had nonworker heads. This category accounted for more than
one-fourth (26.5 percent) of the total Negro group in the Eastern
Cotton Area and for almost one-third (32.2 percent) in the Western
Cotton Area as compared with about one-seventh for the whites in
each area. This is related to the fact that a higher proportion of
1Jig1•ized by
G oog Ie
Sharccrupp<• r's Family c1l ll um c .
Digitized by
Google
L1111 ch 'J'i111 e f U/' l.'ullun JJicl,c·rs .
Digi1ized by
Google
OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN OF HEADS•
21
Negro than of white households on relief consisted of broken families.'
The difference is explained by the fact that relief was not given to
Negroes as freely as to whites either in amounts or in proportions
related to needs. Many landlords gave subsistence only to working
members of Negro families, and the nonworking aged members,
not able to secure help from their relatives, turned to relief. 8
On the other hand, a larger proportion of the whites than of the
Negroes on relief were represented in most of the other occupational
groupings in each of the two areas with the exception of unskilled
nonagricultural laborers. In both areas Negroes predominated in
this group, chiefly because of the concentration of Negro laborers in the
villages (tables 3 and 4). In the Eastern Cotton Area Negro farm
laborers were also more numerous proportionately than white farm
laborers. One out of every four Negroes (26.1 percent) on relief
was a farm laborer as compared with about one out of every six whites
(15.9 percent). In the Western Cotton Area the proportions were
somewhat reversed with 17.3 percent of the Negroes reported as
farm laborers as compared with 20.8 percent of the whites.
7 Bee ch. VI.
• Bee Mangus, A. R., The Rural Negro on Relief, February 19S5, Research
Bulletin H-3, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency
Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., October 17, 1935, p. 6 and
pa,aim, for an analysis of the relative proportions of Negroes and whites on relief
in these areas; see also Woofter, T. J., Jr., Landlord and Tenant on the Collon
Plantation, Research Monograph V, Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration, Washington, D. C., 1936, ch. X.
01g111zedbyGoogle
Dig11.edbyGoogle
Chapter Ill
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
HEADS OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
THE DEFINITION of heads of families used in this study 1 takes into
consideration a number of variables, including age, sex, parental
status, economic rights, and social position. Actually, most persons
under 21 or over 64 years of age have been excluded, and the person
economically responsible for the support of the family has usually
been designated as the head.
AGE OF FAMILY HEADS
The average head of a rural relief family in June 1935 was in the
prime of life-the early forties (table 5 and fig. 8). Village family
heads were about 2 years older on the average than were heads in the
open country. When the families were analyzed by agricultural
areas, however, certain exceptions were noted in that village heads
in the Eastern Cotton, Lake States Cut-Over, and Ranching Areas
were found to be slightly younger than those in the open country.
The greatest differences were to be found in the Winter Wheat,
Table 5.-Average
1
Age of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by
Area and Residence, June 1935
(138 counties and ll6 New England townships]
Average age
Area
Average age
Area
Total
Open
rural • country Village
Total
Open
•.
rural I country Village
---11-------- - - - - - All areas .......... .
Ea.stern Cotton ..•.......
White •••............
Negro ............... .
Western Cotton ........ .
White .............. .
Negro ......•.........
42. 9
41. 9
43. 9
43. 7
42.1
47. 0
41. 7
40. I
47. 6
43. 8
41. g
48. 8
40. 9
311. I
47. 0
43. 4
42. 6
44. 8
43. I
41. 8
----=
48. 6
.-\ppalachian•Omrk......
Lake State, Cut•Over...
llay and Dairy..........
Corn Belt................
Spring Wheat............
Winter Wheat...........
Ranching_...............
New England............
41. 6
44. 8
44. 5
43. 5
39. 9
39. O
44. o
46. 6
40. 6
45. o
43. 7
42. 6
39. I
37. I
45. 5
44. 1
H.5
45. 7
44. I
41. 7
41.5
43. 2
tMedlan.
• Exclusive ol heads ol lamilies whose age was unknown.
1
See appendix A.
23
Diglized by
Google
24 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Appalachian-Ozark, and Ranching Areas. In the Winter Wheat
and Appalachian-Ozark Areas the open country heads were younger
than village heads by about 4 years, and in the Ranching Area village
heads were younger than open country heads by more than 2 years.
These differences reflect not only variations in the populations by
area but also variations in the factors responsible for relief. In the
Ranching Area there is a young working population in the mining
villages. In the Winter Wheat Area the drought apparently affected
the tenants and the younger families in the open country to a greater
extent than the older and retired families in the villages.
■ Open
~Village
country
40
40
10
10
o ~ .._..........,Wl&<.<"A11
oreos
Eostem Western AppoLoke
Co11on Collon lach,an- States
Hoy
and
Com
Bel t
Spring
Whea t
W,n ter Ranching New
Wheat
~n9land
Ozork Cut-Over Dairy
FIG.8-MEOIAN AGE OF HEADS OF RURAL FAMILIES RECEIVING
GENERAL RELIEF, BY AREA ANO RESIDENCE
June 1935
* New En9land sampled by townships.
The smallest proportions of heads of rural relief families in the
youngest age group (16-24 years) were found in New England, the
Com Belt, and the Hay and Dairy Area while the largest proportions
were found in the Winter Wheat, Western Cotton, and AppalachianOzark Areas (appendix table 3). At the opposite extreme the Cotton,
Lake States Cut-Over, New England, and Ranching Areas had the
highest proportions of heads 65 years of age and over. The Western
Cotton Area had both young and old family heads on relief in undue
proportions. New England had few young heads and many old
heads, reflecting the migration of young people to urban centers. In
the W estem Cotton, Appalachian-Ozark, and Winter Wheat Areas
the high proportions in the younger age groups seemed to be due in
OtglltzedbyGooglc
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HEADS • 25
part to the lower age at marriage. In New England a higher age at
marriage may possibly help to account for the high proportion of
older heads. In societies where marriage is usually accompanied by
considerable economic foresight, it does not take place as early as in
other societies where this is less frequently the case. Societies with
a smaller proportion of young family heads of course have fewer
chances for the young heads of families to be on relief.
The age distribution of heads of relief families in the open country
and in villages varied somewhat inversely. The younger heads
tended to be found more often in the open country and the older heads
in the villages (appendix table 3). Among the open country families,
56.1 percent were under 45 years of age as contrasted with 51.2
percent in villages. This variation in age between village and open
country family heads is exp!ained in part by the degree of industrialization of the population.
The median age of heads of agricultural families on relief was about
the same as that of nonagricultural families (table 6 and fig. 9). The
TafJle 6.-Average
1
Age of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by
Usual Occupation and Area, June 1935
[138 counties and 116 New England townships]
Average age
t: sual occupation
All
areas
East- West• Appa- LBke Hay
em
ern
Jach- States and
Corn
Cot- Cotian•
CutBelt
ton
ton
Ozark Over Dairy
~Q~:.':.t Winter
Wheat
New
Ranch• Enging
land
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -40. 4
37. 9
41.0
38. 5
37.3
40.0
43. 6
39. 7
41.1
41. 3
---------=
=38.2 =36. I -40.40.0
38.1
Agriculture ....•...•..
41. 5
39. 4
42. 8
41. 3
40. 9
7
47. 5
All occupations'. 40. 2
Farm operator •••. 41. 2
Owner ...•••.. 46. 5
Tenant .•.•.•. 38.0
Far!;~~~~r:::::
Non~lculture .••••.•
\\ hite collar .•.•••
Skilled ...•.••••••
Semiskilled .••.•..
Unskilled .........
No usual occupation.
37. 9
36. 4
40.5
40.3
43. i
38.1
40.4
37.1
43. 2
49.9
44. 3
39. 5
39.0
38.9
40.1
43. 0
36.9
38. 6
39. 2
39.1
47. 5
30. 2
35. 6
36. 3
37. 0
35. 1
41. 4
35. 6
3i. 9
35. 6
40.0
46. 1
3!1. 1
-
31. 5
40. 2
35. 5
44. 7
35.3
40.3
36.3
44. 4
46.3
39. 4
44.0
47. 3
40.4
50.0
40. 7
39. 3
46. 3
34.2
38. 7
45. 9
37. 5
43. 1
46. 2
38.5
49. 5
49. 8
42.6
30. 2
36.1
41. 5
42. 9
43. 8
38. 9
41.0
33.5
38. 2
41. 2
40. 5
44. 0
38. 6
41. 6
36. 2
30.4
39.6
38. 6
43.8
32. 8
39. 8
38. I
31. 2
39.0
42. 8
42.0
37. 8
37. 5
30.5
36.9
39. 3
44. 5
37. 8
33. 7
40.1
40.8
44. 2
42.8
41. 0
45. 7
41.8
42. 8
43. 5
-
'°·
40. 7I
42. 4
33. ~
41. 8
24. 9
-
43. 0
-
-
-
-
-
• Median.
• Exclusive ol beads ol lamilies who were non workers or whose age was unknown.
heads of farm owner families on relief averaged 46.5 years, the highest
average age of any occupational group. On the other hand, farm
laborers were the youngest group, averaging only 36.4 years. Skilled
laborers, who averaged 43.7 years, had the highest average age of any
subgroup of nonagriculturalists. By areas heads of agricultural
families had the highest median age (47.5 years) in New England
and the lowest (36.1 years) in the Winter Wheat Area.
The three occupational groups with the highest proportion of young
heads, 16-24 years of age, were those with no usual occupation (22.1
Oig1 ,zed by
Google
26 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
percent), farm laborers (14.2 percent), and farm croppers (9.8 percent)
(appendix table 4). On the other hand, only 4 percent of the farm
owner heads of rural families on relief were 16-24 yea.rs of age. The
fa.rm owners, however, had by far the highest percentage in the age
group 55-64 years (25.9 percent).
Negro family heads on relief were much older, on the average, than
white heads. In the Eastern Cotton Area the difference was 4.9 years
and in the Western Cotton Area it was 7.5 yea.rs (table 5). Negroes
had a larger percentage than whites in the age group 55-64 years in a.11
occupational classifications except that of farm owner (appendix table
5). The whites had more young family heads and the Negroes more
older heads.
50,-------------------------,50
!!
0
30 ~
.E
g.
0
C
20 ..,
.2
::e•
10
Total --"'Fa""rma..a,F"ar""ma.z.:Fa""'rm"'-IF-'a~rm:£--"'Wh"'1~,eus"ki""11e~d-"Se""m"'1.L.k:iuC.::n;,Q,•_,tNo""u"sul.ol-.Jo
owner tenant cropper loborer collar
skilled skilled occupation
FIG. 9- MEDIAN AGE OF HEADS*OF RURAL FAMILIES RECEIVING
GENERAL RELIEF, BY USUAL OCCUPATION
June 1935
* 16-64 years of age, working or seeking work.
AF-2808,WPA
SEX OF FAMILY HEADS
In actual social situations it is usually assumed that the father and
husband is the head of the house. This priority is frequently challenged, but there is sufficient basis in fact for the usage followed in this
study. Consequently, by definition, a man will nearly always be the
head of the family if he is living in the home and active. Thus, the
presence of a woman as the head of a household generally indicates an
incomplete family unit.
The western areas of extensive and commercialized agriculture had
the smallest proportions of rural relief families with female heads while
the southern areas, which include the Eastern and Western Cotton
01g111zedbyGoogle
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HEADS • 27
and Appalachian-Ozark Areas, had the highest proportions of such
families (fig. 10 and appendix table 6). An exception to this rule was
the families in the Ranching Area which ranked with families in the
South in the proportion with female heads. The differences were
35,-------------------------.35
30t-----=.....,_------------------i30
25----
-----------------125
-----------------120 _
---15
10
J
10
5
0
FIG. 10 - PERCENT Of: FEMALES AMONG HEADS OF RURAL FAMILIES
RECEIVING GENERAL RELIEF, BY AREA
June 1935
great from area to area. The proportion of female heads varied from
7.2 percent in the Spring Wheat Area to 29.3 percent in the Eastern
Cotton Area.
Significant differences also existed between villages and the open
country (appendix table 6) inasmuch as village heads were likely to be
females almost half again as frequently as were those in the open
country. The differences between villages and the open country
were least marked in the Eastern Cotton Area and most marked in the
Wheat Areas where female heads appeared about three or four times
as frequently in the villages as in the open country.
In spite of the fluctuations between the open country and villages
and among areas, it should be noted that the average proportion of
families with female heads was only 14.4 percent. Since a higher
percentage of females than of males in the general rural population is
married in each age group up to 45 years, the proportion of females
who were heads of rural relief households was really very small/.1
2 See Stouffer, Samuel A. and Spencer, Lyle M., "Marriage and Divorce in
Recent Years," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
Vol. 188, November 1936, table III, p. 60.
Drgmed by
G oog lC
28 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Male heads of families in each area, whether in the open country or
in villages, were fairly evenly distributed between the ages of 25 and
54 years (appendix table 7). Usually less than 10 percent were
under 25 or over 64 years of age. The peak was at the age group 25-34
years. The age distribution for female heads of families was concentrated at a point about 10 or 15 years later than for male heads
(appendix table 8). About two-thirds of the female heads were
between the ages of 35 and 64 years, inclusive; about 15 percent were
within the groups 25-34 years and 65 years and over; and less than
6 percent were under 25 years of age. These conditions were found
to prevail in general among both village and open country families,
30 . - - --
- --
25 t--- --
-
-
- - - - - - - - -- - - - --
- --
~
30
- - - - -- - -- - -- - - 25
I
i
- -!20
20
I
~-115J
l
5
0
2S·J4
35·44
4 ~-~
"·64 65 ond
00te'
16·24
2~ · ~
35· 44
4 ~-~
~S-64 6SonCJc,.,• t
A qe In ,-0,-1
Male heads
Q
Female heads
F10. 11- AGE OF HEADS OF RURAL FAMILIES RECEIVING
GENERAL RELIEF, BY SEX
June 1935
AF• 2107, WPA
but the age distribution was more regular for females than for males
(fig. 11).
There were certain significant differences among the age distributions for male heads of families by areas. Male heads were youngest
in the Wheat Areas with the Southern and Ranching Areas next in
rank (appendix table 7). The oldest male heads, on the average, were
found in New England. Male heads in the open country were slightly
younger than those in villages.
The age distribution for female heads of rural families revealed the
same general differences by area and residence as the distribution for
male heads. However, the clear uniformities found among male
heads were not so ou·tstanding for the females and slightly different
Dig11zed by
Google
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HEADS • 29
conditions were apparent. For example, open country and village
age distributions showed a greater similarity for female than for male
heads.
MARITAL CONDITION OF FAMILY HEADS
The marital condition of the head of the family is, for many purposes, a convenient index of various social and cultural conditions.
Conditions which lead to marriage or to the breaking up of marriage
through divorce, separation, or widowhood are related intimately to
fundamental social conditions. Among these social conditions may
be listed (1) the type of industry, which might lead to the employment
of large numbers of women outside the home and their "emancipation"; (2) economic conditions, which, because of either poverty or
prosperity, might result in delayed marriage or else the complete
removal of women from outside occupations; and (3) the social
customs which regulate the activities of the sexes and which at times
disapprove of households "managed" by women.
Most male heads of rural relief families are married while most
female heads either have never married or have had their o.omes
broken by divorce, separation, or the death of a husband 8 (table 7).
Tol,le 7.-Marital Condition of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by
Sex and Age, October 1935
(138 llOIUltlee and 83 New England townahlps 1]
Apln:,ean
Total I
Bes and marital condition
Ul-24
26-34
Mand
~
over
------------1·-- ------ --- --- --BOTBDXU
Number............................
Plll'llllllt....... •• •• • • •• • • • • • • . • • • • • • .
46, 722
100. 0
8,818
100.0
11,174
100.0
10,874
100.0
Ul,000
100.0
4, 1168
100. 0
1-----ll---t---f·------1---
Sln&Je.. ••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••••
Dlvoroed.. . . . • .• . . . •. . . . . • . • . •• . . • . . . . . . .
Separated.................................
L2
3. II
8.8
80.5
"-11
1.1
"-7
77. 1
10.3
1. 5
"-8
80,302
100. 0
8,384
100.0
11,7M
100.0
II, 178
100.0
IU.U
Number............................
Plll'Cllllt....... •• • • •• •• • • • • • • •• • • • . • •
a. a
:M. 5
nu. 3
1.11
0.8
3. 5
II. 4
72. 2
13. 3
Married..................................
Widowed.................................
7. 7
70.8
17.4
Ll
3. 2
11.11
411.1
34. s
1. 7
2. 7
18, 1118
100.0
l-----ll---t---1----1---
'4Widowed.................................
l~c::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Dlvoroed.. • • • • •• • • • • • •• ••• • • • • • • • •• • • • • • •
Separated... . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
n11.u.s
Number............................
Percent.............................
81.ng)e....................................
Married..................................
Widowed ................. _..............
Divorced.................................
Separated.................................
J::
6. 4
21.4
78. 2
0.2
1. 3
0.2
7.8
90.11
0. 6
0.2
0. 7
_,
482
100.0
48.11
7.1
13. 3
6.6
26.1
_____
0. 6
7,420
100. 0
12. 7
10. 4
M. 7
4. 6
17. 7
6. 7
7.5
811. 8
82. 4
1,418
100. 0
1,698
100.0
2,832
16. 5
11.4
84.8
7.1
32. 4
52. 4
2. 5
0.8
1.4
11.2
8.8
6. 4
23. 2
7. 5
o.8
1. 8
100.0
8. 7
16. 7
SB.3
2. 5
11.8
11112
100.0
7.11
o.s
83. 5
2.2
6.8
• Townships In Connecticut and Massachusetts only.
• Exclusive or heada or ramllles whose marital condition or ace was unknown.
1 Data on marital condition were available for October rather than June 1936.
See Introduction, p. xn.
01g111zedbyGoogle
30 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
For all areas the highest proportion of fem ale heads married was
found among those aged 45-64 years (15.7 percent), while the lowest
proportion was found among those aged 65 years and over (0.6 percent). Probably in many of these cases the woman became head of
the household because of illness or injury of the male head. In
comparison, the highest proportion of married male heads was found
in the age group 25-34 years (90.9 percent) and the lowest proportion
was found in the oldest age group, 65 years and over (61.5 percent).
The peak percentage appeared from 20 to 30 years earlier for males
than for females.
A note of warning should be given as to the interpretation of the
figures for the marital condition of the head of the family; that is, a
high proportion of family heads who were single did notnecessarily
mean a high proportion of nonfamily types. In many cases where a
normal family of parents and children was living at home, an unmarried son or daughter may have been designated as the head. The
number of such cases could not be determined with accuracy, but it is
certain that this was a factor which tended to increase the proportion
of single heads of families.
In the various age groups there were important differences by sex
in the marital condition of heads of rural families among areas and
between open country and village. Over two-thirds of the male
heads 16-24 years of age were married in each area except New
England (appendix table 9). Practically none of these youthful
heads of families were widowed, divorced, or separated.
Only 1 in 14 of the female heads of families aged 16-24 years was
married. Practically all of the married heads were in the Eastern
Cotton and Appalachian-Ozark Areas. About one-half of the female
heads of this age were single while a large percent were already widowed
or separated.
Over 90 percent of all male heads of families who were 25-34 years
of age were married. The only area in which the proportion fell
below 87 percent was New England with 79.9 percent married (appendix table 10). Very few homes headed by males of this age were
broken by widowhood, divorce, or separation so that most of the
heads who were not married were single. A higher proportion of
married heads was found in the open country than in the villages
with the exception of the Wheat and Ranching Areas. In the Winter
Wheat Area there was a particularly large proportion of single heads
in the open country.
Less than 10 percent of the female heads aged 25-34 years were
married. Generally the female head of a relief family in this age group
was widowed or deserted; in a relatively small proportion of the cases
she was single or divorced. Higher proportions of married and widowed
heads were found in the open country than in the villages while village
Oig1 ,zed by
Google
Par<'nls and Childrl'11.
: ~ ~·. ~ "
• J
-
,
•
~
.
•
J
Drg1:1zed by
.t : .-.. .
G oog lC
•,. •
Digitized by
Google
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HEADS • 31
heads were more often single, divorced, or separated. The old saying
that separation is the poor man's divorce still seems to be true.
About nine-tenths of the male heads of rural families 35-44 years of
age were married (appendix table 11). At this age the proportion of
widowed, divorced, and separated male heads first became large
enough to be significant, but for all areas it was still only 4.5 percent.
Male heads of families in the villages were widowed, divorced, or separated slightly more often than those in the open country where a
higher percentage of married heads appeared.
Widowed female heads increased from 34.6 percent in the 25-34
year age group to 52.4 percent in the 35-44 year age group. The
change was due to a decline in the proportions separated or si.l".gle.
The fact that women outlive men is the important consideration as
the groups grow older since a woman has a much greater chance than
a man to become widowed.
Over 80 percent of the male heads of rural families 45-64 years of
age were married, and most of the nonmarried heads were widowed or
single (appendix table 12). There continued to be a somewhat higher
proportion of broken homes in the villages than in the open country.
Although the proportion of male heads who were married was still
much higher than that of female heads, tho proportion of female heads
married in this age group had increased for practically all areas. It
varied from 1.3 percent in New England to 33.3 percent in the Spring
Wheat Area. In each area except the Hay and Dairy Area widowhood was the marital condition of the majority of all female heads.
Among male heads 65 years of age and over, the proportion married
had dropped to 61.5 percent (appendix table 13), the smallest proportion for any age group. At the same time, the proportion widowed
had increased markedly to 22.1 percent while the proportion that was
single (12.9 percent) was higher than for any age group except that
16-24 years. Practically none of the aged female heads were married
while five out of every six were widowed.
In summary, male heads were generally married and female heads
were widowed (fig. 12). The proportion of male heads married increased until about the age of 40 and then decreased as the wife died
or as older male children took over the responsibility for the household. The proportion of heads that was single decreased until
about the age of 40 and then increased again. The percent of female
heads that was separated increased until 35 years of age and then
decreased. As the female heads became older, the proportion of
single women decreased and that of widows increased.
The high proportions of married heads of families among females
came 10 to 20 years later, on the average, than among mules. This
can possibly be attributed to the increased probability of injury or
illness for the older mule heads of families. In such cases the wife
Drgmed by
G oog lC
32 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
I Si~le
Cl Married
I Widowed
(] Divorced
mSeparated
100.-------------------------,100
901--- -- - -
---160
60
c
~ 50
c
---•"'----N---~50 ~
ct
~
40
30
20
10
0
Age in years
MALE HEADS
IOO
,------------------------,100
90 ------------------------190
80 1------------------------180
70
60 ------------------------160
c
1
~ 50
~
40
30
--------------130
20
10
0
Age in years
FEMALE MEADS
flG.12-MARITAL CONDITION OF HEADS OF RURAL FAMILIES RECEIVING
GENERAL RELIEF, BY SEX AND AGE
J1,me 1935
AF-HOl,WM
Diglized by
Google
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HEADS • 33
was almost forced to become the head of the family. Very often she
had no usual gainful occupation, resulting in a significant correspondence between high proportions of female heads of families and high
proportions of heads of families who had no usual occupation.
Aside from families where the male head was old or incapacitated,
the only cases where a female would ordinarily be designated as the
head of the household were those in which the home was broken by
the death of a husband and father or by separation or divorce. An
unmarried female might also be designated as the head of the household in many cases. Thus, it is not surprising that the proportion of
broken homes among the families with male heads, although it increased at each age group, was very small. The proportion of
widowed male heads increased gradually at each age to 7.5 percent at
45-64 years but was three times as great at the age 65 yea.rs and
over.
For both sexes there was a well-established uniformity that the
proportion married was greater in the open country than in the
villages, while the proportion of widowed, divorced, or separated
tended to be greater in the villages. In general the same contrasts
appeared among the different ages for each area as well as in the
total group.
Marital condition also varied for the two races in the South (appendix table 14). The proportion married among white males exceeded the average for Negroes at every age group, while among
Negro males larger numbers were widowed or separated than among
whites. Divorce was almost completely absent among both groups.
In general these differences were found in both the open country and
villages.
The proportions of white female heads that were married were
small for all age groups in the Cotton Areas, and more Negro than
white women were married. None of either race who were 65 years
of age and over were married. Even in the youngest age group 1
out of 5 of the white female heads was widowed, and this proportion
gradually increased to 9 out of 10 for the group 65 years of age and
over. Similarly, large proportions of Negro women were widowed.
There was also a high proportion of female heads of families who
were separated among both whites and Negroes.
Several factors which are important influences bee.ring upon the
individual and which may affect his marital condition are reflected in
the rural relief data. Since these causal influences a.re interrelated and
interdependent, an analysis cannot hope to separate them to show the
particular effects of each one. Yet several of the more important
can be outlined.
One factor which is important in the analysis of marital condition
is its interrelation with the necessity for relief. This, however, is
evident only in the background and obviously cannot be separated
Dig 11zed by
Google
34 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
without more materials than are at hand. From the significant
differences between male and female heads in the proportions which
were divorced or separated, it is probable that women heads of broken
homes found it necessary to seek relief more often than men. Homes
broken by divorce or separation were almost completely absent among
the families with male heads; yet in every area. and at every age the
proportion of such homes with a female head of the family was significant. In all cases it was at least two or three times as high as for
families with male heads. The explanation seems to be that after
divorce or separation the children are more likely to accompany the
mother than the father, and that he, as a single individual, is less
subject to economic stress, or less likely to receive relief at any rate,
than the remainder of the family with the mother as its head. Approximately the same can be said with regard to widowed heads of
families except that the shorter life span of the male obviously increases the number of women who are widowed. Yet, even here, the
differences between male and female heads were much too large to be
accounted for by the comparatively slight difference in the average
length of life.
Differences in marital condition among the areas studied were illustrative of certain background characteristics of a socio-economic
nature. The greater industrialization of New England and the North
has led to a greater participation in industry by women, and consequently the emancipation of women has reached its most advanced
stages in these regions. Accompanying this emancipation is a
rapidly rising divorce rate and a general disintegration of the former
social rules which have regulated the distribution of rights and duties
of the sexes.
The differences between open country and village families are partly
a reflection of this same phenomenon, but in purely agricultural areas
additional influences are present. Since farming is for the most part
a family occupation, families which have been broken in nny way tend
to congregate in the villages, leaving the larger and more normal
families in the open country.
One other related variable may be associated with particular areas
of the country. According to certain customs and traditions the
husband or father is always the head of the house, and a woman is not
expected to be forced to assume such responsibilities. In extreme
cases where the home is broken for some reason, remarriage is often the
normal course. In areas where the sexes are found to be more equal~
ized in their responsibilities, there is a greater tendency for the woman
to take over the place of the male head and to continue the family
without remarriage. This tradition of the male head of the family is
strongest in the South and West and weakest in New Englnnd and has
helped to keep down the proportion of broken homes in the former
areas.
o,gmzedbyGooglc
Chapter IV
SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF RURAL
RELIEF FAMILIES
THE SIZE and
composition of the rural relief family are important
from a number of points of view. Large families, or those with
numerous dependents and few members gainfully employed or capable
of work, may need relief more frequently and in larger amounts than
smaller families or those with relatively more workers. Offsetting
this is the tact that larger families, other conditions being constant,
have more chances than smaller units of having someone who can
bring in an income. Also, there is the more general problem of the
importance of family solidarity in making for or preventing the need
for relief. This applies particularly in a society, such as the contemporary United States, which has gone through a long period of decline
in size and of change in composition of its family units.
That the American family has become smaller and smaller since
the founding of the country is a well-established fact. 1 Furthermore,
the American family varies in size according to a number of characteristics, one of which is its relation to agriculture and another of which
is the amount of commercialization in the various areas. In 1930
the average size of all families in the United States was 3.40; whereas
that for the urban population was 3.26, for the rural-nonfarm population 3.28, and for the rural-farm population 4.02 (table 8).
Rural-farm families are larger than rural-nonfarm and urban
families in all sections of the country. However, the average size is
more than four persons for the farm families in the southern divisions
as contrasted with less than four persons in the northern and western
divisions. The urban and rurnl-nonfarm families divide the country
in to two regions on the basis of family size. In the Sou th and West the
urban family is the smallest while in the North and Northeast the ruralnonfarm family is the smallest. These differences are due to a number
of reasons, but among them commercialization, industrialization, and
1 See Bureau of the Census, Abstract of the Fifteenth Census of the United States:
1930, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1933, p. 415.
35
Dig 11zed by
Google
36 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Tol,/e &.-Average
1
Size of Families in the United States, by Division and Residence,
1930
Average size
Division
Rora!•
Total
(arm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --United States ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• _.!..!Q._ ~ ~ ~
New England-------------·-------·------·-·----··---·······--- ---r.aif ~ ~ - W
Middle Atlantlc _____ ······-······-···························--
East North Central--·--·---·------------·--------·--·-·------·
West North Central-----------····-·-·························South Atlantic _____ --··-·········----·-······-··---·-·-···----_
East South CentrBI_.·--------·-·---·---··-·-·-·-·-··-········West South Central--------··------·-·-·······················Mountaln-·--------··-·-----··--···------·-··--·········-··---Pacific_····-···--·---·-·--·····-·····························-I
3. 43
3. 32
3. 42
8- 27
8. 38
3.11
3. 34
3. 76
3.611
3.14
3. 28
8.02
3. 57
3. 33
2. 83
8.2'l
a 23
8.13
2. 76
3. 66
3.52
8. 38
3. 23
2- 87
3. 71
3. 76
3. 111
4. 611
4.15
4.14
3. IMI
8. 31
Median.
Bonrce: Bureau of the Census, FlfluntA Ctmw of Ult UnlUd Stou,: 19/10, Population Vol. VI, U. 8.
Department of Commeroe, Washin&ton, D. C., 11133.
regional patterns play very important roles. In addition, the percent of foreign-born in the northeastern cities probably has increased
the urban family size at least temporarily.
SIZE OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
The function of relief is to take care of needy families. When
relief facilities are limited, it seems likely that the policy of most
relief administrators would be to give the money where there are the
most mouths to feed. As a result, one would expect to find relief
families of a larger average size than nonrelief households 1 (fig.
13). Such differences between relief and nonrelief families have not
been very great, however, indicating that the problem of relief is not
so much one of large families versus small families as of the difficulties
which different types ot relatively small families have had during
the depression.
Of all rural cases receiving relief in June 1935, 9.9 percent were oneperson households (appendix table 15). This was a 2 percent greater
proportion of one-person households than was found for the whole
rural United States in the 1930 Census (7.7 percent).• Since the
period 1930-1935 tended by its economic pressure to force a decrease
in the number of persons living alone,' these data lead to the con2 See McCormick, T. C., Comparative Study of Rural Relief and Non-Relief
H oU8eholcu, Research Monograph II, Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935, pp. 22-25.
1 Since a small number of so-called partnership families were classified as oneperson families by the 1930 Census, the difference in the proportion of one-person
families would be slightly greater than the data indicate.
• A severe economic depression tends at first to increase social solidarity.
Persons who live alone, if they continue to be gainfully employed or to have an
income, tend to share it with others to a much greater extent than formerly.
Furthermore, it is a frequent practice of business firms to lay off last of all, among
those of equal merit, the individuals who have families to support.
o,gmzedbyGooglc
SIZE AND COMPOSITION • 37
clusion that the proportion of one-person households receiving relief
in rural districts in 1935 was very much greater than could be expected
from a normal sample of the population.
The importance of this fact should not be neglected. It is commonly believed that a great deal of relief has been necessitated by
rather large families. Such a popular conception is to be expected
in a society which is changing from an increasing to a stable or declining population and has not yet become generally aware of the
new conditions which exist. It is generally forgotten that family
membership is not only a matter of obligation but also a privilege.
In a clear-cut case in which a depreBBion would take place in a country
with little or no public relief facilities, 6 this would come out more
II Relief
rzl Nonrellef
25.------------------------ 25
20
15
i
10
l_
u
5
5
6
Persons
7
8
9
IOond
over
0
FIG.13-SIZE OF RURAL RELIEF AND NONRELIEF HOUSEHOLDS
October 1933
Source: MCCormick, T. C., Comparative Study
af Rural Relief and Nan-Relief Households,
Research Monograph n, Division of Social
Research, Works Progress Administration,
Washinoton,
1935, p. 24
o. c.,
Af-n<>e,WPA
clearly than it has in the United States. During a depression isolated
individuals who are largely bereft of family membership come under
an unusual strain. If they are fortunate and have a source of income,
unemployed relativeB and other indigent persons of no legal claim
upon them generally try to share their livelihood. If the isolated
individuals have neither money nor positions, they must either beg,
1 See ch. IV by Zimmerman, Carle C., in Problema of the New Cuba, New York:
Foreign Policy Asaociation, 1935, for a description of family behavior in such
a case.
D,g 1,zed by
Google
38 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
starve, or accept relief. 5 Thus, there are other implications to a. study
of the family on relief than the sole matter of the pressure of the
number of mouths to feed upon the formerly employed wage earner.
These generalizations concerning one-person households apply to
all areas in the United States. In the Lake States Cut-Over Area
more than one-fifth (21.8 percent) of all households on relief in June
1935 consisted of persons living alone (appendix table 15 ). These were
cases of former woodsmen or of isolated individuals who had settled on
a piece of land or in a village in the Cut-Over Area when the timber
had been cut.
On the other hand, an unusually high proportion of the relief load
consisted of large families. According to the 1930 Census 23.3 percent of the total rural population had six or more members. However, 27.9 percent of all rural relief families contained six persons or
more. The respective percentage for the open country was 32.2 and
for villages, 22.3. Thus, the relief fo.milies had a considerably higher
proportion of households with six or more persons than the total rural
families in the country. This conclusion probably applies to all of the
agricultural areas.
The 1930 Census showed that 39.9 percent of all rural fo.milies had
from two to three members as compared with 33.3 percent for the
relief families, and that 29.1 percent had from four to five members as
compared with 28.9 percent for the relief families. Thus, it would
seem that nonrelief families had higher proportions of families with
two to three members, whereas those on relief had higher proportions
with only one person or with six persons or more. Families with four
to five members were found in about equal proportions among both
relief and nonrelief groups.
Open country families on relief were larger than those in the villages
(table 9). The largest open country relief families were in the
Appalachian-Ozark and Spring Wheat Areas. In the villages only
the Spring Wheat Area had disproportionately large families.
The differences in size between the open country and the village
families were very important as indicated by the fact that the mediane A further study of family solidarity during the depression by Carle C. Zimmerman, J. H. Useem, and Wendell Bash in cooperation with tfie National Research Project which dealt with industrial towns in New England showed that
employment differentiated families so that those which had members with positions would tend to have fewer employables unemployed than those which did
not have members with positions. These were cases of industrial wage earners
in rubber, woolens, automobile bodies, and other types of manufacturing. The
chief wage earner was eliminated from the computation. It was clear in the
4 towns of less than 10,000 population studied that the depression differentiated
the common masses of the people, much more sharply than before, into those who
did and those who did not have a livelihood. Family solidarity was a factor in
this, and in that respect oftentimes counteracted efforts to share the work so that
all would have some sort of a livelihood.
Diglized by
Google
Ru errlc111c 111 A d111 i 11i~t rutio 11 1Lu11oe ).
A ft er th e Children Hew e Left Hom e.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
SIZE AND COMPOSITION •
39
sized family was 4.2 persons for the open country and 3.5 persons for
the villages. The proportion of relief households which consisted of
one-person families was much greater in the villages than in the open
country, 12.5 and 7.5 percent, respectively (appendix table 15).
Such a conclusion as this hardly applies, however, to the Lake States
Cut-Over Area where one-person households comprised 21.2 percent
of the open country relief load as contrasted with 22.9 percent of the
village load. Neither does it apply to the Ranching Area where
one-person households on relief in the open country accounted for
19.4 percent of the total as contrasted with 16.7 percent in the villages.
In all other areas, however, the conclusion does apply.
Ta&le 9.-Average Size of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Area and
Residence, June 1935
(138 counties and 116 New England townships)
Open country
Total rural
Village
Area
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
--- --- --- --- --3. 9
4. 3
4. 2
4.6
3.5
3. 9
All areas---------·--------------·-----=
- -3.-4 = 3. 8
= 3. 9 - -4.4.1
3. 7
3
Eastem Cotton ___ ····----··--·---·---·--4. 2
4. 7
3. 9
4. 3
4.1
4. 9
4. 2
3. 0
3. 9
3. 8
4. 3
3. 4
3. 8
3. 8
4. 4
3. 9
3. 5
3.5
Western Cotton. __ -·------··---·-·------Appalachian-Ozark __ ---··------ _________ _
Lake States Cut-Ove'---···--··------·--Hay
DairY---------·-·-----------·--Corn and
Belt__
___________ ---···---- _________ _
Wr~~!r
\\.ie:i~ ~::: :: ::::::::::: ::::::: :: :
Ranching _____________ ·-·-··----·-·······New England.---------··-··-········-·---
4.1
4. 7
3. 4
4. I
4. 1
4. 7
4. 2
3. 5
3. 4
3.5
3.3
3. 6
3. 5
3.8
3. 5
3.5
4. 4
5.0
4. 0
4. 5
4. 4
5. 2
4. 5
3. 9
3. 8
3. U
3. 7
4. 0
4.0
4. 3
3. 8
3.Q
The median size of the agricultural family receiving relief was 4.6
persons as contrasted with 4.0 persons for the nonagricultural family
(table IO). This was not due to age differences because the average
nonagricultural family had a head 41.0 years of age as contrasted with
the median age for agricultural families of 40.5 years (table 6, p. 25).
Ta&le 10.-Average 1 Size of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Usual Occupation of Head and Area, June 1935
[138 counties]
East- West-
All
Usual oecupatlon or head areas
2
Total ....•.•.• ___ . Agricu)tul't' .. ____ -·--·- __
Farm operator_ •.••• Owner __ .·-·--·-Tenant_ •• -··---Cropper_·----·-Farm lahorer __ • _____
Nonagri<mlture ____ . __ ...
No usual occupation or
nonwwker _··-·---. __ . _
ern
Cotton
Lske Hay
App&• States
ern
and
Cot- lachian- Cut- Dairy
Ozark Over
ton
Com
Belt
Spring Winter Ranch•
Wheat Wheat
lng
-- -- -- -- -- -- ---- ---4. 0
3. 7
3. 8
4. 3
3. 4
~.R
3. 8
4. 4
3. 9
3. 5
4. 6
4. 4
4. 5
4. 4
4. 6
4. 5
4. g
5.8
4.8
5.0
5.6
4.8
4. 6
4.4
4.0
4.0
4.9
4. 3
4. 3
3.8
4. 3
4. 5
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.6
4.5
5.1
4. 4
4.1
3.9
4.8
5.4
5.1
5. 5
4. 2
4. 6
4. 4
5.0
5.1
5. 4
4.3
2.8
3. 7
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.3
3.5
3.8
3.9
~-8
2. 1
2.1
2.0
2. 4
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.3
2. 2
1.7
---- -- - --- ----- -- - =
4. 9
5.0
5.0
4. 5
4.0
5. 3
4. 5
-
-
4.1
3.1
-
4.4
4. 4
-
• Median.
1 Exclusive of Xew England.
01g111zedbyGoogle
40 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
However, within the agricultural group farm owners' and tenants'
families had a median size of 5.0 as contrasted with 4.5 for croppers
and 4.0 for farm laborers. These differences were due, in part at
least, to the fact that the heads of the owner families had a median
age of 47.0 years as contrasted with 38.4 years and 38.5 years for
croppers and tenants, respectively, and 36.9 years for farm laborers.
If it be assumed that the average woman is 2 years younger than her
husband, the average wife of a farm owner had practically reached
the end of the childbearing period while the wife of a cropper, tenant,
or laborer had 8 years or more of possible fertility ahead of her.
One-person households constituted a small proportion of the total
in each occupational group with the exception of the group in which
the head had no usual occupation or was a nonworker. There it
reached 30.6 percent (appendix table 16). In the two Cotton Areas
more than one-fifth of the white households in this group were oneperson families as contrasted with more than two-fifths of the Negro
families. Large families of six persons or more were found more
often among the agriculturalists than among the nonagriculturalists
(37.1 percent as compared with 27.4 percent). Large families were
more frequent among owners than among tenants or croppers, due
at least in part to the age factor discussed above.
AGE COMPOSITION
Children under 16 years of age were overrepresented in relief
families as compared with all rural families in the United States
(table 11). This conclusion applied with varying degrees of intensity
to all nine agricultural areas surveyed. Youth 16-24 years of age
formed about the same proportion of the relief group as of the total
rural population although there were considerable variations from area
to area. The general population tended to have a higher proportion
of adults than did the relief families. This is evidence that a greater
proportion of wage earners in families is one factor in weathering a
depression. It is in the age group from 35 to 44 years that the general
rural population exceeded the relief families most of all. A slightly
higher proportion of aged persons was to be found in the general rural
population than among the relief families. The really important
differences may be summarized by the statement that relief families
have a higher proportion of children and a smaller proportion of adults of
working age than does the total rural population.
Children under 10 years of age were proportionately most numerous
in the relief families in the Spring Wheat Area, reflecting the larger
average size of family in that area (appendix table 17). New England
was characterized by a small proportion of children under 10 years of
age and a high proportion of aged persons 65 years and over. This
reflects the tendency toward limitation of family size which has been
Dig ttzed by
Goog Ie
SIZE AND COMPOSITION• 41
Toltle U.-Age of Penons in Rural Families Receiving General Relief, June 1935,
and Age of All Rural Penons, 1930,1 by Area
[138 counties)
Age In yesrs
Total
Area and 1mmp
Number
Per'cent
I
Under
l&-M
16
25-34
311-44
46--M
65-M
66'1nd
over
5.5
5. 2
---.ALL .ABE.1.8 1
Persons
ren,lvtng
relief .•...
All p.,rsons
_________________
11:.ABHRN COTTON
Pffllons receiving relief....• _____ ..
All persons_-·------------------··
253, ~36
2,413,676
100. 0
100.0
43. 3
37. 4
16. 3
16. 5
12.0
12. 7
9. 7
11. 7
8.0
9.6
31, ft70
629,365
100.0
100.0
42. 5
41. 8
15.6
18. 3
11. 9
12. 2
9. 4
10. 6
7. 9
8. 7
5.9
4.9
6.8
3.5
30,556
296,280
100.0
100.0
42.8
37.2
16. 7
17. 4
12. 5
12. 7
9.3
10.5
7.4
13. 2
5.1
6.1
11.2
79,508
412,2:!2
100.0
100.0
44. 7
41. 7
17. 2
16.8
11. 8
12.2
9. 2
10. 7
7. 6
8.6
6.1
6. 6
4. 4
4.6
14,686
M,807
100.0
100.0
40.0
36. 6
17. 3
15.3
1?.2
12.0
9.6
12. 6
8.9
10. 8
6. 1
7.2
5.9
5. 6
37,004
465. 034
100.0
100.0
44. 0
32.2
14.9
14.0
10.6
12. 5
10. 7
13.0
8. 9
11.2
5.6
8. 7
6.3
8.4
31,130
378,512
100.0
100.0
40. 5
15. 6
15.1
12. 5
13. 3
12. 8
ma
9.2
10.8
6.5
8.2
5.4
8.0
lff.472
68.~
100. 0
100.0
46. 9
39. 7
1".3
17. 3
13. 5
13.0
9.3
11.6
6.9
9.3
4. 2
6. 3
3.8
6. 388
50,478
100.0
100.0
40. 3
34.3
18. 3
li.O
14.1
14.4
11.0
12. 8
7. 5
9.9
4.9
6.3
3.9
6. 3
7,322
59,034
100. 0
100.0
43.6
33.1
15. 1
15. 7
12. 0
13. 5
9.6
13. 7
7.3
11.0
6.4
7.2
6.0
6.8
----- --
6.5
5.6
---
Wll:STJ:BN CO'l"rON
Persons receiving relief __________ ••
All persons __________ ------------·
3.9
.A.PP.A.l..lCBUN-OUBI[
Person.• recelvln(l relief. . _______ ..
All
person.s _______________________
L.AKJ: STUl:8 CUT-OVl:B
Per~>n• re,,elv\ng relief ____________
All per.,ons_ ----------··· _________
B.AY .AND D.AIBT
Persons receiving relleL __________
All pen,ons _______________________
CORN BELT
Persons receiving relief... _________
All i>enoDB-----------------------
31. 8
IIJ'BINOWBJ:.AT
Persons receiving rellrf. ________ .
All persons _____________ ---------·
2.9
WINTl:B WBJ:.AT
Penions recelvlnit relief... _________
All persons __ ---------·-----·····R.ANCBINO
PeT!IOns recelvln, relief. __ . _______
All persons _____________________ ._
1 Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Crmui of the UnUed Slatu: 1930, Population Vol. II, U. 8. Department
of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1933.
• Exclusive of New Engh.rid.
carried farther in New England than in the other regions of the United
States, even in the lowest economic groups. As the number of children
becomes less, the proportion of old persons increases relatively. For
a long time these results in New England have been masked by tbe
coming in of new waves of immigrant families, but their birth rates in
tum have followed the traditional downward course until the results
are now readily apparent. 7
'For proof, see Baker, 0. E., "Rural-l:rhan Migration and the National
Welfare," Annals of the Association of American Geographc,.1, Vol. XXIII, 1933,
pp. 59-126; and Spengler, Joseph J., The Fecundity of Native and Foreign-Born
Women in New England, The Brookings Institution Pamphlet Series, Vol. II,
No. 1, Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1930.
Dig 11zed by
Google
42 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Open country families on relief had a significantly higher proportion
of children under 10 years of age than village families (appendix table
17). This was true of all areas surveyed. In contrast the villages had
a larger proportion of aged in all areas except the Eastern Cotton.
Negro families receiving relief had many more persons 65 years of
age and over than did white families in the two Cotton Areas (appendix
table 17). Concerning this difference Mangus has said:
The practice of "splitting" families may account in part for the smaller relief
benefits received by Negro cases in rural areas. In many instances landlords are
willing to "take care of" the productive members of their tenant families but
shift the care of aged dependent members to the relief agency. Hence, one or
two members of the tenant or cropper family may receive small relief benefits
while the other members of the household receive support from the landowner.
It is probable that white tenants offer more resistance than do Negroes to such
shifting of responsibility on the part of the landlord.•
Thus, much of the argument over whether agricultural restrictions
cause a reduction or not in the number of tenant families on the cotton
plantation becomes somewhat clearer when it is recognized that a
landlord who furnishes supplies to his tenants can split off the nonproductive members and put them on relief. A family of three crop
hands can be broken up into a unit of two crop hands with few
dependents and another unit with one crop hand and a majority of
the dependents. Legally the plantation has as many tenants as
before, but economically the landlord avoids the burden of furnishing
supplies to a large fe.mily and has a smaller number of crop hands for
his reduced acreage. 9
SEX COMPOSITION
Ordinarily, slightly more males than females are born. However,
males die more rapidly than females. As a result males tend to predominate in the younger age groups, but the proportion of females
increases in the older ages. The sex distribution of the population is
also affected by the fact that females tend to concentrate in urban
areas to a greater extent than males. The situation is influenced by
the fact that long-distance migration, such as immigration into a
country, is more of a male phenomenon, whereas short-distance migration, particularly to cities and to an urban environment, is more of a
fem ale phenomenon.
8
Mangus, A. R., The Rural Negro on Relief, February 198,lj, Research Bulletin
H-3, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief
Administration, Wa.-;hington, D. C., October 17, 1935, p. 6.
• See Richards, Henry I., Cotton and the AAA, Wa.shington: The Brookings
Institution, 1936, p. 150 ff., for this argument on the influence of cotton restriction
on displacement of tenants. For data from the relief standpoint, see Woofter,
T. J., Jr., Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation, Research Monograph
V, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington,
D. C., 1936, pp. 153-161.
Diglized by
Google
A Mothe rless Hum e.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
SIZE AND COMPOSITION • 43
In 1930 there were 102.5 males per 100 females in the United States,
and this was the lowest count of males relative to females in any
census year since 1830 with the exception of 1870 when the ratio of
males per 100 females was 102.2. In 1930 there were 98.1 males per
100 females in American urban districts and 108.3 males per 100 females
in the rural population. The rural-farm population had 111.0 males
for every 100 females as contrasted with 105.0 males per 100 females
in the rural-nonfarm population.
In the rural relief population of June 1935, 50.9 percent of all
persons were males as contrasted with 49.1 percent who were females
(appendix table 18). This was a sex ratio of 104 males per 100 females.
When the rural relief population was analyzed by sex according to
agricultural areas, it was found that there were more males than females in all areas except the Eastern and Western Cotton. In the
open country population males predominated in all except the Eastern
Cotton Area while in the village population males predominated in
all except the Cotton and Wheat Areas.
In comparing the sex ratio by age groups for the rural relief population in June 1935 with the general rural population in 1930, the most
conspicuous differences were the overrepresentation of females in the
relief population for the age groups lo-44 years and the overrepresentation of males in the age group 65 years and over (table 12).
Males under 10 years of age and males 55-64 years of age were
found on relief in about equal proportions to their numbers in the
general population, and males 45-54 years of age were only slightly
underrepresented on relief.
Tal,le f.2.-Sex Ratio of the Rural Relief Population,1 June 1935, and of the General
Rural Population,1 1930, by Age and Residence
Sex ratio
Ap
Rural relief population
Total
rural
Open
country
General rural population
VII
lage
Total
rural
Farm
Nonfann
-----------·!--- --- --- --- --- --Under 10 yean .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
104
98
25--34 years ..•.•..••.••..•••••••••••••••••.
97
96
100
10--24 yean ..•••.•••••••••••.••••••••••••••
M--44 years •.••••.•••••••••••.•.•.••••••••.
46---54 years .•••••••••••••••••.•.•••.•••••••
65-M ye11rs ...•..•.•••.••••••••••••••••••..
65 years nnd over .•.•.•.•.••••••••••••••..
1
1
125
136
105
JOI
98
99
111
136
H6
103
103
114
114
107
92
102
114
121
103
118
117
124
120
103
112
102
103
118
137
139
103
99
104
142
115
Ill
104
138 counties.
Buroou of the Census, Fifltmlh Ct11wa of the UnUtd Statt1: 1930, Population Vol. II, U. S. Depart•
ment of Commerce, Washington, D. c., 1933.
D1g111zedbyGoogle
Dg 1zedb~
Google
Chapter V
DEPENDENT AGE GROUPS
THE TERM d~pendent as used in relief surveys included all persons
who were under 16 or over 64 years of age. Detailed information
was not recorded concerning dependent persons between the ages of
16 and 64 years nor was any distinction made between those persons
65 years of age and over who were self-supporting and those who were
not. Hence, the present chapter deals only with the two arbitrarily
defined dependent age groups and excludes dependents within the
productive ages, 16-64 years.
DEPENDENTS BY AREA
From the standpoint of dependents relief families were of all types.
Some had children or aged dependents and others did not. One
out of five of the relief families studied in June 1935 was composed
of persons 16-64 years of age only; three out of five had children under
16 years of age but no one over 64 years; one out of eight had aged
individuals 65 years of age and over but no children under 16; while
one out of twenty had both children and aged persons (fig. 14 and
appendix table 19).
The proportions of families having no persons in the dependent
ages varied somewhat among the agricultural areas of the country
and were related to the type of economy and the "age" of the area.
They ranged from 17.6 percent in the Appalachian-Ozark Area to
27.4 percent in New England and 28.9 percent in the Lake States
Cut-Over Area. The South was low and the West and North, except for the Spring Wheat Area which was affected by its high birth
rate, were high in this respect. The areas reversed their order in
the proportions having children under 16 years of age with the lowest
percent (55.4) in New England and the Lake States Cut-Over Area
and the highest percent (72.3) in the Appalachian-Ozark Area. The
Spring Wheat Area was also outstanding with 71.5 percent of its
relief families containing children. Similarly, the highest proportions of families having persons 65 years of age and over were found
45
Dig11zed by
Google
46 •
RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
100
100
TOTAL
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
100
100
OPEN COUNTRY
80
80
60
60 _
! 40
40 !
i
C
•f
~
20
20
0
0
100
100
VILLAGE
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
FIG.14- RURAL FAMILIES RECEIVING GENERAL RELIEF
WITH PERSONS IN DEPENDENT AGE
GROUPS, BY RESIDENCE
June 1935
Diglized by
Google
DEPENDENT AGE GROUPS• 47
in New England and in the two Cotton Areas. The lowest proportions were in the newly settled Wheat Areas. In general the differences between the open country and villages were consistent
with those discussed in previous chapters. In every area there was
a higher proportion of families which had children under 16 years
of age in the open country than in the villages. Likewise, in the
villages there were more families with aged persons and more families
having no members within the dependent age groups. In general
the areas were ranked in regard to young dependents according to
their comparative birth rates, and the areas with the highest birth
rates had the smallest proportions of families with adults only.
DEPENDENTS BY COLOR
White and Negro rural relief families in the Eastern and Western
Cotton Areas differed significantly with respect to dependents.
About 15 percent more of the white families had only dependent
children while about 10 percent more of the Negro families had
only aged dependents. Also, about 5 percent more of the Negro
than of the white families had both children and aged as dependents.
This difference may be largely due to the practice of many plantations
in the South, previously referred to, of splitting the Negro families
so as to keep the able-bodied members on the plantation and to place
most of the disabled or aged members on relief.I
This is not a complete explanation, however, since the relative
differences in the proportions of relief families which had dependent
children existed both in the open country and in the villages. Among
both whites and Negroes consistently more families with dependent
children lived in the open country than in the villages. The tendency
to split the Negro plantation family was most evident in the fact
that in the open country twice as many Negro families as white
families contained both dependent children and aged persons while
the proportions were more nearly equal in the villages.
AGED AND JUVENILE DEPENDENTS IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD
The rural family has remained most united in the Cotton and
Appalachian-Ozark Areas as measured by the proportion of relief
households having dependents both under 16 and over 64 years of
age (appendix table 19). Moreover, 37.5 percent of such families in
the Appalachian-Ozark Area had four or more dependents as contrasted with 33.9 percent in all areas (table 13). In the open country
of the Eastern Cotton and Appalachian-Ozark Areas 40 percent of
these families had four or more dependents. The proportion among
the village families of the Corn Belt was almost equally high.
1
Seep. 42.
Drgmed by
G oog lC
48 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
To6le 73.-Rural Families Receiving General Relief With Persons Both Under 16 and
Over 64 Years of Age, 1 by Number of Such Persons, Residence, and Area,
June 1935
(138 counties and lUI New England townships)
Total
I
Residence nod area
Number
Percent
Persons under JR
nod over 64 years of age
4 or
more
3
2
--- -- -TOTAL RURAL
All areas _______ ----············-·--···--·-···-----·-Eastern Ootton_··-·····- ········--·····- -·-- ____ ·-·- __ --·Wblte_ ••••• -···· -- --- -- --·-····----·----·- -- -- - -· --- - Negro _______ ·----·-·--------------·-----------··-----Western Cotton_ ••.• -· .• _••••• _._. __ ••••.. ___ • __ •.• _•.• __ _
Whlte--·····------------------------------··--------·Negro __ --· __ ---·-- -·-----·-- -·-- -·-- _________________ _
Appalachian-Ozark ... --·---··-···--·-··· __ -·- •• -······-.·Lake States Cut•Over .•••.•.•.•.•.•...................•••.
Bay and Dairy ...••••••••••.•.•.•.•..••...•.•...•.....••..
Com Delt._ ..•.•.•••••••••••••••••••••..•.•.•.•.•.........
Spring WhPat. ..••••••••.••.•••.•.•••.••..................
Winter Wheat ...••••••••••••..•.•••...•.....•.......•.....
Ranching .....••••••••••••••.•.•••••••.•.................•.
New England •••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•...•.•.......••.•.
3,339
100.0
628
322
306
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
-----454
2114
170
l,OM
138
344
332
94
38
t
185
100. 0
100.0
2. 202
100.0
476
236
240
31R
194
124
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
fO
37. 3
28.8
-41.-7 -23.9
39.8
43. 8
43. 6
44. 3
42. 4
30. 2
36. 3
39.6
36. 7
34.0
24.8
22.9
27. 3
29.6
23. 5
32. 3
33.3
211. 7
27.1
29.8
63. 3
30.0
33.0
t
38.9
--
-
t
33.11
34. 4
35.4
33.3
29.1
26.1
34.1
37.6
30.4
33. 7
M. 2
M.2
t
16. 7
28. l
OPEN COUNTRY
All areas• ..................................... ·- ... .
Eastern Cotton •••..•••.•••••••••••••••••..•••••.••••••••••
White •••••••••.•••.•••.•.•.•.•.•.•.......•••..•.•••.•.
Negro ....................... ··- ..... ··-· ............. .
Western Cotton ••••..•.•.•.•.•.••••••••••••.•.•••.•.•..•..
Wblte ••••••••••...••.•. ·-···············-·············
Negro ...•...•............•.•.•.•.•.• - .•...•.•..•••.•..
Appalnchlan•Omrk ..•.•••••.•.•.•..•.•.•..... - ...•.•••....
Lake Rta!Ps Cut•Over ..••.•.•...•.........................
Hay and Dairy...•••.•.•.••••••.•.....................•...
Corn Belt. •.••.••••••.•••••...•.•.•......•.•........•.•...
Rnrlng Wheat .. ························-·· ............•.•.
Winter Wheat ...•••••.•••.•.••......•••••.••••.•....•.•••.
Ranching .•••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••.. - ...•.•...•.....
------
844
!l/1
210
148
62
2fl
t
22
t
M2
100. 0
1~2
100. 0
1()(1 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
34. 7
28.1
37. 2
32. 2
40.0
39. 6
39. 2
40. 3
29. 9
39. 6
37. 2
39. 2
32. 3
24.6
21. 7
28.3
30.9
24. 2
30.1
27.1
29.5
27.0
32. 3
43.2
38.3
32.1
211.11
-36.-1 -23.1- -4 0.8
t
t
t
t
35.5
40.0
33.3
33.3
33.8
36.4
l
VILLAOll
All areas 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••• -··· •• ···-·· ••••••••
E~stern Cotton._ ..•.••..•••.•.•...•.•.•••.•••••••.•.•.....
White ••••••••.•...••....•...•••.•.••....•...•.........
Ne~ro ..•......•.•••..•.....•....................••....
Western Cotton •••.........•.••.......••••.•....•.•.••••••
White .•••.••...•.•.••..•.•............. - ........ - .... .
NP~ro •. -· ........................ ··- .. ______ ·-- ... ___ .
A ppalnchlan•Ornrk ..•.•• _.••••• _. _. _.. _. -· _.•• ·- •.••••••••
Lnke Rtates Cut•Over. ··--··--·· .. ·-·-·· .. --·- ··---·-· ...
Tlay nnd Dnlry_··-·-·····-·-· ·--···-·-·-·-·· ·-------····-.
Com Belt..··········-·--··-·-·-·-·-·--··-·· .. -·-·····-·•·
~nrlng Wheat •• ·········--··--·_ .... _. __ ·- __ -·--·-··-· ••. _
Winter Wheat..····-·.··-.-· ____ .. ____ -··--.--·-···· •.•.•.
Ranching •••••••••••••.•••••••••.••..•.••...•••.••...•.•.•.
42. 9
29. 6
27.6
60.4
57. ~
52. 9
66. 5
2,~. 6
27.3
2.~. 0
26. 7
14. 0
15. 2
22. l
17.8
100.0
31.5
40.6
27.11
100.0
JOO. 0
43. 3
34. R
t
22.4
27. 2
34.3
38.0
-t
t
t
--- --86
66
n6
00
46
222
42
rn4
1~4
32
12
38
t
t
t
t
t
-59.-2 - -26.-3 - 14.-6
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t Percent not computed on a base of fewer than 50 cases.
~ee appendix tnhle 19.
• Exclusive of New England.
1
The contrast between white and Negro families on relief in regard
to juvenile or aged dependents was again brought out by the number
of such dependents (table 13). In the open country the proportion
of Negro families with two dependents was larger than the proportion
of white families while in the villages the reverse was true. A larger
proportion of Negro than of white families in the Western Cot.ton
Area had four or more dependents while in the Eastern Cotton Area
more of the white families had this many dependents.
D1g111zedbyGoogle
•
Shttf'1•n ·11JJJJ1' /'·s
\\ 'idu11•
Wit / (
,' !, i /d.
Dig t1zed by
Goog Ie
Ole/ . \ye.
Digitized by
Google
DEPENDENT AGE GROUPS • 49
DEPENDENT CHILDREN
Among relief families whose only dependents were children under
16 years of age, the proportion of families which had three children or
more increased from 43.8 percent in New England to 52.2 percent in
the Appalachian-Ozark Area and to 55.9 percent in the Spring Wheat
Area (table 14). With the exception of the Appalachian-Ozark Area
the southern areas ranked low and fell below the average for all areas.
TolJle 14.-Rural Families Receiving General Relief With Children Under 16 Years of
Age, 1 by Number of Children, Residence, and Area, June 1935
(138 counties and 116 New England townships)
Total
Nun:.ber or children
Re,ldence and area
Number
Percent
--- ---
2
-- --
3 or
more
--
TOTAL RUBAL
All areas ............................................ .
37,975
100.0
26. 5
Eastern Cotton ...••.•.•.•••.••••••..•••.•••••.•.•.•.•.•...
White .•..•••..•.•.•.•.•••.•.•.•••••••••.•.••••..•.•.•.
Negro ........••••••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•••.•.•.•••...••..•.•.
Western Cotton .•••••..•.•..•....•...••.•.•.•.•...•.•...•.
White .•••...•••...•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•...••....•.•.•.
Negro ...........•..•....•.•.•.•...•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.....
Appalachian-Ozark ......•••.•.•.....•.•.•.•.•.•••.•.•.•.•.
Lake States Cut•Over ....... _.............•.••..•.....•...
Bay and Dairy ....................•.....•...•...•.•.•••.•.
Com Belt ..........•..•...............•...•••.•.•.•..••...
4,414
3,182
1,232
4,362
3, 4CO
902
11, 232
5,r.4
4,354
2,318
802
1,098
2, ~05
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
100.0
100. 0
IUIJ.0
JOO. 0
l00. 0
](X). 0
100. 0
l00. 0
100.0
26. 9
26. I
29.0
26.9
27. 7
23. 7
24. 8
28. 6
26. 4
28. 2
24. 3
26. 7
27.1
30.8
23,138
100.0
2,176
754
2,952
2,340
612
8,470
I, 300
3,212
I, 738
I, 712
440
384
12,632
~~~!r W'i:'e~i.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ranching ......•.•...•.••.•..•.........•••.•.•.•.•.••.•..•.
New England .•••••••.•.•.....•.•••...•...•.•.•••••••••.•.
], 9(6
24.1
-25.4
- - 49.4
47. 7
27. 5
20.0
25. 0
25. 7
22. 4
23.0
24.0
23.6
26.4
19. 8
29. 2
24. 6
25.4
46. 4
51.0
48.1
46.11
53.9
62. 2
47. 4
60.1
45.4
24.6
23.2
52. 3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
IOO. 0
](XI. 0
100.0
100.0
24. 7
26. 8
25. 5
26. 4
22. 2
22.9
28. 0
25.6
25. 9
23. 3
21. 8
28.6
26. I
19. 9
24. 7
25. 6
21.6
22. I
23.1
22. 9
27.0
18.9
31.8
22. 4
49. 2
53.3
49.8
48.1
100.0
29.6
25. 6
46.0
100.0
100.0
29. 2
32. 6
29. 6
30. 3
26. 9
30. 8
29. 7
27. 8
30. 4
20. l
25. 7
26.1
24. l
25. 6
25. 8
24. 4
25. g
22. l
26.0
25. 8
40. 4
55.11
44.1
48.3
43.8
OPEN COVNTBY
All areas'· ......................................... .
Eastern Cotton .......••...•.........•...•...•.•.•.•.......
White .•••.•...•.•..•....•...................••..•.....
Negro ...•.....•...•..........•....•.........•.•...•...
Western Cotton .....••....................•.......•...... .
White .•.....•.•.•..•..................................
Negro ........•..•.............................•.......
Appalachlan•Ozark ..•.•..••.........•..••.•.•...•...•.•...
Lake States Cut•Over ....•..............•.......•.•.•.•••.
Bay and Dairy ....•.•.....••....•.•.•...•.•.••••..•.•.•.•.
Corn Belt. ...••.•.•....•••...•....•.....•...•.•••••.•.•.•.
~[~':r i'/i~~t·.:::: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ranching ••••••••••••.•.•.•.•.••..•..••.•••••••••.•••••••.
- -25.-- --24.-6 - 60.
-2
100.0
2,930
3
66.2
55.0
48.11
51.6
47. 1
67.8
46.4
49.0
'VJLLA011£
All areas'··················-························
Eastern Cotton ........•.....•.•...........•.....•...••....
White .......•.....•...•...................•.•...••.••.
Negro ..............•........................•..•..•.•.
Western Cotton .•.....•.....................•...•..••.•.•.
White .•.••..••......•...................•...•.•.•.•.•.
Negro .......•.....•.........................•.••..•...
-- ---30.-3 -27.1
- - 42.6
I, 484
100.0
t~:r:t':snC~t~Okvei::: :: : : :: : : :: : : : : : : :: : : : : :: : ::: ::: : : :
Bay and Dairy ................................••...••.....
Com Belt .....•..•.•.....•...•......•...•...•.•.•.•.•...•.
1,0C6
478
I, 4IO
I, 120
290
2,762
666
2,012
2,616
ti[::1Jr ~hhea:c.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ranching .••••.•.•.••.••..••.......•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•••...•...
362
il4
6()6
lCXl. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
](JO. 0
100.0
29. 8
27. 4
32. 6
26. 3
47. 3
44. 7
43.6
49.0
43. 7
44. 5
47. 8
44.3
50. 5
41. 4
47. 9
Exclusive or coses with both children and aged persons. See appendix table 19.
• Exclusive or New England.
1
White families on relief had fewer dependent children than Negro
families in both the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas. In these
Digitized by
Google
50 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
areas over one-half of the Negro families and about 46 percent of the
white families had three dependent children or more. This reveals
again the separation of many Negro households resulting in the
placing of disproportionately large numbers of children on relief, but
it suggests also that the relief problem for the white family in the
South i~ not one "caused" primarily by large numbers of children or
by a high birth rate but by other factors.
AGED DEPENDENTS
Of the rural families on relief which had only aged dependents
three out of four had one such person and one out of four had two
persons (table 15). Practically none had three persons or more.
Tal,le 15.-Rural Families Receiving General Relief With Aged Penons,1 by Number
of Aged,• Residence, and Area, June 1935
[J.38 counties and 116 New England townships]
Number or aged persons
Total
Residence and lllM
Number
Percent
2
Sor
more
TOTAL BtTJliL
All &reas.----·------------------------·-----·········
8,226
E8Stern Cotton.......... ·-··-··-·-··---··········-··-··•··~
White .. ·-·--···········-······························
MS
Negro .......... ·-·····································
Western Cotton ... ·-······································
Whit~·····----··......................................
Negro.................................................
Appalachian•Ozark.... ............ .. ..... ....... ........ ..
Lake States C'ut•Over... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hay and Dairy............................................
Corn Belt. ................. ·-·····························
~[~~:r'ihhee~i.~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~:~c~~:1aii;c:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
100. 0
MS
1,074
654
t20
1, 728
594
1, Zl4
l,03R
m
;~
73. 5
26. o
0. 5
31. 4
21.9
28. I
30. 3
o.O. 32
---ioo.o ~ ~ --1.-1
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. O
100. 0
JOO. 0
100. 0
100.0
67. 5
77.0
71. 7
69. 4
75. 2
72. 0
82. 2
72. 0
73.4
1.1
1.1
24. 8
27. 4
17. 8
27. 7
25.8
~~:8 ~g iN
~:: 8 ~U ~ ~
0. II
0. 3
0.8
3. 4
o. a
OPEN COUNTRY
All
are88 •·--··········-·----·---··················•·
4,082
100. o
71. 4
27. 9
0. 7
Eastern Cotton ................................. _•......... ~ ~ ~ ~ - - 1 - .3
Whit~.................................................
378
100. o
64. 5
34. 4
1. 1
Negro.................................................
384
JOO. 0
72. 9
25. 5
UI
Western Cotton...........................................
MO
JOO. 0
67. 2
32. 5
0. 3
White.................................................
300
JOO. 0
66. 7
32. 8
0. 5
Negro.................................................
244
JOO. 0
68. o
32. o
Appalachian•Ozark........................................
l,ll88
100.0_
70.6
28.7
0.7
Lake States Cut•Over.....................................
374
100.0
81. 3
18. 7
Hay and Dairy............................................
626
100.0
72.5
27.2
0.3
Corn Belt.................................................
302
100.0
72.9
25.8
1.3
U'1~~!rihh:.!i.~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ranching···-·······································•···••·
':,Z
:~: g :: g :: g
100
100.0
88.0
12.0
100. 0
75. 5
24. 2
8. 0
TILLAGE
3,402
All areas a••. ········-····-·-·················· .••.•.
Eastern Cotton .................. ·············-·-·-··· .... ~
White.................................................
170
Negro.................................................
164
Western Cotton ................ -..........................
434
Whit~.................................................
2,'>8
Ne~ro ... ···············•···••······-················•·
176
Appalarhian•Ozark ...... - ................... -.............
640
Lake States Cut•Over.. _..................................
220
ggf/R~lairy............................................
~
Spring Whe-11t. ···-········································
Winter Wheat ..•........•..... ·-··························
Ranching..................................................
152
68
210
0.3
---ioo.o ~ ~ ~
JOO. 0
JOO. 0
100.0
JOO. o
100. o
JOO. 0
100.0
86. 6
78.3
T.l. 6
!Iii. 2
74. 4
83.6
JOO. 0
JOO. 0
JOO. 0
76. 3
87. ff
78. I
74. I
24. 7
13. 4
21.7
26. 4
14. 8
25. 3
JR.4
l~:8 ~U :J
23. 7
32. 4
21. 9
65 years of age and O\"er.
• F.,clusive or c•a.ses with hoth children and aged persons. See appendix table 19.
• Exclusive of New England.
1
019111zedbyGoogle
1. 2
0. 3
gJ
DEPENDENT AGE GROUPS • 51
In the Ea.stern Cotton Area 29.9 percent of the families in the
open country had two aged dependents as contrasted with 19.2 percent of the village families, and in the Western Cotton Area 32.5
percent of the open country families had two aged dependents as
compared with 21.7 percent in villages. In the Eastern and Western
Cotton Areas about 5 to 10 percent more of the white families than
of the Negro families had two aged dependents. The difference between races in the open country of the Western Cotton Area was
negligible, however.
The proportion of families with one aged dependent varied from
four out of five in the Lake States Cut-Over and Ranching Areas to
three out of five in the Winter Wheat Area. These differences were
accentuated in the open country, where as high as 88.0 percent of the
families in the Ranching Area had one aged dependent. At the
opposite extreme was the Winter Wheat Area with only 56.0 percent.
GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE OF DEPENDENT AGE GROUPS
In general a large number of dependents in a family may be an indi•
cation of a prolific population, where a high birth rate results in large
families, or it may indicate a high degree of family solidarity. In
other words, the family clings together to a great extent; and when it is
fine.Uy forced upon relief, a large number of persons are found in a
single unit. Again, there is the possibility, as shown by the families
in the Cotton Areas, that there may be a splitting of families with a
tendency to push aged persons upon relief and to leave the younger
employables to fend for themselves without the responsibility for other
individuals. All of these factors operate to increase the number of
old or young dependents on relief.
The question of dependency and relief is related principally, however, to the basic economic and cultural factors in any particular
region. The predominant industries and occupations determine the
extent to which the head of a family will be able to care for his dependents continuously, and the cultural traditions to a large extent determine the internal solidarity and cohesiveness of the family unit. This
does not even consider such fundamental problems as sanitation,
health, and disease which may through debilitating conditions bring
about the need for relief. Background factors of an economic, sociological, or even medical nature, when viewed in their full complexity,
are agents which predetermine increased numbers of dependents on
relief.
Families in the South, including the Appalachian-Ozark Area, are
more likely to be large as a result of high birth rates; they are more
likely to cling together in a large cohesive aggregate; and finally, because of the loss of economic support or even the injury or death of the
male provider, the whole aggregation is forced on relief. Conse-
Oig1 ,zed by
Google
52 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
quently, it is more easily understood why the proportion of families
with no persons in the dependent age groups should be smallest in
the South, where rural cultural traditions are strong, and greatest
in New England, where the strong Yankee traditions are now all but
submerged by the newer mores of an industrialized and urbanized
society. These are the extreme cases, and the other areas fall in
between.
D,g,t,zed by
Google
Chapter YI
FAMILY STRUCTURAL TYPES
TYPE OF family has many meanings since the type depends upon the
perspective of the approach. In this chapter families are viewed
from the standpoint of constituency. The elements are husband,
wife, children, and others. The family units are divided into three
categories as follows: 1
Normal families _________________________________ 72. 5 percent
Broken families_ _ _ ____________ __________________ 10. 9 percent
Nonfamily types ________________________________ 16. 6 percent
Normal families are divided into four categories:
Husband and wife alone __________________________ 11. 6 percent
Husband and wife with others not their children_____ 2. 2 percent
Parents and children alone ________________________ 53. 2 percent
Parents, children, and others______________________ 5. 5 percent
Total normal families ______________________ 72. 5 percent
Broken families consist of one parent and children.
divided into four categories:
Father and children alone_______ __ _______________
Father, children, and others_______________________
Mother and children alone________________________
Mother, children, and others. ______ ._.____________
These are also
1.
0.
6.
1.
9 percent
8 percent
6 percent
6 percent
Total broken families ______________________ 10. 9 percent
The nonfamily types are similarly divided:
Male alone _____ • _________________ • __________ . __ 6. 6 percent
Male head and others _____ . ___________________ ... 5. 0 percent
Female alone ________________ .... _.•••. ______·_ .. _ a. 2 percent
Female head and others __ . c _. ____ • ______________ _ 1. 8 percent
Total nonfamily type&--------------~------- 16. 6 percent
1 This classification is patterned somewhat after that developed in connection
with the Unemployment Relief Census, October 1933, taken by the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration.
53
Digitized by
Google
54 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
The present analysis gives a picture of the incidence of relief among
different structural types of families by area, residence, occupation,
and color.
FAMILY STRUCTURAL TYPES BY AREA AND RESIDENCE
From three-filths to four-fif the of the families on relief m the
various agricultural areas in June 1935 were normal families composed
of husband and wife or of parents and children, with or without others
(fig. 15). The Eastern Cotton and Lake States Cut-Over Areas
Normol
IBIIBll
1111111
Husband, wife,
and children
m
Husband
~ and wife
Broken
Nonfamlly
mi
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
40
50 ~
&?.
40
30
30
20
20
J
c
10
0
All
area s
"-'Cca<a.....J O
While Negro Wh ile NtQro Appo- Lake
Hay Corn Spr ing Winier Ranc hing New
Ea s lern
We slern lac hian - Slales a nd Bell Whea l Wheal
Eng land
Colton
Oza rk Cul-Over Dairy
Callon
F1G.15-STRUCTURAL TYPE OF RURAL FAMILIES RECEIVING
GENERAL RELIEF, BY AREA
June 1935
had the smallest proportions of normal families while the Wheat
Areas had the highest proportions. These latter were largely drought
f a.milies. The great majority of the normal families consisted of
hu~band and wife or of husband, wife, and children alone while about
one out of nine also had relatives or friends present.
Broken families were found most frequently in the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas and in the Appalachian-Ozark Area. The percentage of broken families composed of fathers and children varied only
slightly among areas, but the percentage of families composed of mothers and children was much greater in the South than in other sections. 2
1 See also ch. III, where the analysis reveals the high proportion of female
heads in the South who were widowed or separated and the small proportion
who were divorced.
D191izedb;
Google
FAMILY STRUCTURAL TYPES• 55
Nonfamily types were rarest in the Winter Wheat and AppalachianOzark Areas (12.4 and 12.8 percent, respectively) and most frequent
in the Lake States Cut-Over Area. (27 .6 percent). Nonfamily types
with male heads appeared most frequently in the Lake States CutOver Area. while female heads were most numerous in the Eastern
Cotton Area..
Open country families stood out in contrast to village families
since 8 percent more of the open country than of the village units
were normal families (table 16). Families consisting of husband,
v.ife, and children were found more often in the open country while
families of husband and wife only tended to congregate in the villages,
but in neither case were the differences particularly great. There
tended to be more broken families in the villages than in the open
country as broken families with female heads concentrated in the
villages. Nonfamily types with both male and female heads were
found in the villages more often than in the open country.
The composition of the family was undoubtedly an important factor
in relief, but careful analysis of the data indicates that its influence
may easily be overestimated.
Ta6/e 16.-Strudural Type of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by
Residence, June 1935
[138 counties and 116 New England townships]
Btructural type
Total
rural I
Open
country • Village 1
---------------------·I--- --- --22, 71:1
Number............................................................
Percent.............................................................
62. R09
35,782
100. O
100. O
100.0
Norma.! families .•.......••.•••.•••..•.•••.•.••..•••••••.••.•••••.••.••••..
llusband and wire .•.••...••.•.•.•.•..••.•••••••.•••••.••••..•••••••..
Without others ....••.••••.•.••..••.•.•.•..••...•..•..••....••••..
With others ..............••.................•••...•..•••.•.••.•..
Hwihand, wife, and children .••...•.•.•...•..•...•....••.•............
Without others ...................•......................•.....•..
With others •••••.•..............•.........•.•....•...•.......••..
Broken families .•.......••••..••............•••...•.•.•.......•....•..••••
Father and children •••.••........••.............•...•....•.•...•.•..•
Without others ...•.....•.•.•...••....•••••.••.••...•••....••.....
With others ...•............•.••..•.........•.....••.•..••....•••.
Moth~r and children .•.•••.•....•.......................•••...•.......
Without others .••.•••••..•................•••......•.......•.•...
With others •••.•.•••••.••............•.......................••..
Nonii:!J~fi;:,fes •..•.•••••.••..•................ ···•··········•···••······
Without others ...••....•.....•......•.....••••••....•••..•...••..
With others .•..............................••...•.•....••....•..•
Female bead ..•••.•...•.•...•...•..••••...•.•.••....•.••..••••.•..••••
Without others ......•..•...•.••........•........••..•..•..•...•..
With others ....•.....••.....•...••.•.•..•.............•......•...
72. 6
76. 2
67. II
15. :I
13. :I
2.0
62. 7
48. 5
4.2
12. :I
2.5
2.0
13.8
11.6
2.2
68. 7
63. 2
6. 5
JO. 9
2. 7
l. 9
0.8
8.2
6.6
1.6
16. 6
11. 6
6.6
5.0
5.0
3. 2
1.8
12. 7
10. 5
2.2
83.5
57.0
6.5
10.1
2. 6
1.9
0. 7
7. 5
6.8
I. 7
13. 7
11.9
6. 3
4. 6
3. 8
2. 2
1.6
0. 6
9. 7
8.1
1.6
19. g
13. :I
8.1
5.1
6. 7
4. 5
2. 2
F.xcluslve or families whose type wa.s unknown.
• Exclusive of New Englan<l.
1
FAMILY STRUCTURAL TYPES BY OCCUPATION
Classification of rural family types according to the usual occupation of the head reveals significant differences between agricultural
and nonagricultural families. Among agricultural families 82.2 per-
D1g111zedbyGoogle
56 •
RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
cent were normal as contrasted with only 77.4 percent among nonagricultural families (fig. 16 and appendix table 20). Although there
was considerable overlapping among the occupational levels within
these two major groups, similarities existed in the ranking of the
different occupational levels within each group. The smallest proportions of normal families were found in the highest strata but the
other strata were ranked in descending order. Proceeding from the
bottom to the top, for both the agricultural and nonagricultural
groups, the proportions of normal families increased, if the upper
groups (farm owners and white-collar workers) were excluded. Thus,
Normal
l!!!l!I
llilllll
Husbond,wife,
and children
Broken
Nonfamily
~
Husband
~ and wife
Ra
100
c
•;;u
Q.
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
.
c
u
50
.f
40
30
20
10
0
10
Total
Form
Fo r m Fo rm
Fo r m
owner tenant cropper laborer
While Skill ed Semi •
color
Un•
No usual Non•
0
skilled skilled occupation worlter
F1G. l6-STRUCTURAL TYPE OF RURAL FAMILIES RECEIVING GENERAL
RELIEF, BY USUAL OCCUPATION OF HEAD
June 1935
within agriculture the smallest proportion of normal families was
found among owners (75.0 percent) with increasing proportions for
laborers (77 .8 percent), croppers (83.4 percent), and tenants (89.9
percent). For the nonagricultural group the proportions were white
collar, 71.5 percent; unskilled, 74.5 percent; semiskilled, 82.8 percent;
and skilled, 88.0 percent. Among the families whose heads were not
workers, there was a surprisingly large proportion of normal families
(43.6 percent).
Broken families appeared equally as of ten in agriculture as in nonagriculture. While full proof is lacking, there is some indication that
broken homes among agricultural families are caused more often by
the death of one parent, whereas among nonagricultural families
divorce or separation is a more influential factor. Similarly, divorce
Dig11zed by
Google
FAMILY STRUCTURAL TYPES • 57
or separation is probably more important for the upper than for the
lower occupational levels in both agricultural and nonagricultural
families. Slightly over one-half of the families whose heads had no
usual occupation were broken family types, and most of these consisted of mothers and children. A little less than 17 percent of the
families whose heads were not workers were broken with the great
majority again composed of mothers and children.
N onfamily types were found much more frequently in nonagriculture
(13.9 percent) than in agriculture (9.1 percent). Nonfamily types
with female heads appeared very rarely in agriculture but more often
in nonagriculture, particularly in white-collar occupations. Almost 40
percent of the families whose heads were not workers were nonfamily
types as compared with 28.2 percent for families whose heads had no
usual occupation. The largest proportion of the heads who were not
workers consisted of men living alone while the largest proportion of
the heads with no usual occupation consisted of unattached women.
FAMILY STRUCTURAL TYPES BY COLOR
The relatively small proportion of normal families in the rural
relief population in the Cotton Areas may be largely attributed to conditions among Negroes. Only slightly over one-half of the Negro
families in both areas were normal as contrasted with two-thirds to
three-fourths of the whites (appendix table 21). Four percent more of
the Negro families in the Eastern Cotton Area and six percent more in
the Western Cotton Area were broken than was the case among the
whites. These differences were most marked in the open country.
In general there were more broken homes in the villages for both
races. Significantly, for both races, most of the broken families con~
sisted of mothers and children.
The greatest difference between white and Negro households, however, appeared in those groups called nonfamily types. In both areas
Negro groups of the nonfamily type appeared on relief at least twice
as often as white groups of this type. The differences were especially
marked in the Western Cotton Area, both in the villages and in the
open country. One-third of the Negro families in the western villages
consisted of nonfamily types. These Negro nonfamily groups in the
Western Cotton Area were about evenly divided between those with
male and those with fem ale heads.
Although for the white relief population in the South the proportion
of normal families was greater among the farm laborers and the
unskilled nonagricultural laborers than among farm owners and whitecollar workers, respectively, such was not the case among Negroes.
The unskilled occupational groups among Negro families had the
smallest proportions of normal families, the farm laborers having only
49.0 percent and the nonagricultural laborers only 51.0 percent
(appendix table 22).
01g111zedbyGoogle
58 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
An important exception to the rule that Negro families were more
likely to be broken than white families was the farm owner group
with 20.9 percent of the white families in the two Cotton Areas broken
as contrasted with 10.4 percent of the Negro families. However, onehalf of these broken Negro families were composed of fathers and
children, while only one-eight of the broken white families consisted
of fathers and children. In contrast, the proportions of broken homes
among croppers and farm laborers were much greater among Negroes
than whites.
Of the Negro and white families whose heads were not workers, 56.7
percent and 31.1 percent, respectively, were nonfamily types. A
fairly high proportion of broken Negro families had female heads who
were not workers.
ONE-PERSON HOUSEHOLDS
One-person households present special problems to relief administrators. Such households may originate as a result of the breaking
up of a family, leaving aged persons living alone; or they may be
the result of special social and economic conditions which prevent
marriage and which keep individuals living as isolated units. Oneperson households most often consist of men, and cases of men living
alone are found most frequently in isolated mining or heavy industrial
areas. Although the ratio of males to females is very high in some
agricultural areas, one-person households are not found as frequently
in such areas because of combinations into family groups.
One-person families constituted less than 10 percent of all rural
families on relief in June 1935 except in the Eastern Cotton, Hay and
Dairy, New England, Ranching, and Lake States Cut-Over Areas
(appendix table 20). The latter areas include a high proportion of
one-person families because of economic conditions. In addition to
the self-sufficing agriculture in the Lake States Cut-Over Area there
has been employment for large numbers of men both in the forests
and in the iron mines of Minnesota. The Hay and Dairy and New
England Areas include many centers of industry, and the Ranching
Area uses many unattached men in its type of agricultural production.
As a result, the highest proportions of one-person families that were
males were found in the Lake States Cut-Over, Ranching, and New
England Areas.
Three times as many one-person families were found among Negroes
as whites in the two Cotton Areas, and the difference was especially
striking in the Western Cotton Area (appendix table 23). The
majority of the white one-person families in these two areas consisted
of males, whereas the majority of the Negro one-person families consisted of females. These differences were accentuated in the open
country. An additional difference between Negroes and whites was
the greater proportion of Negroes who were 65 years of age and over.
Diglized by
Google
l'ar,H St,·11rit11 .-l1l miui11trutiou
lR,, 11,,,,.,,.;,, J.
llomeles.~.
01g1tzedb;
Google
.,
Penniless and A lone .
Dig, ,zed by
Google
Chapter VII
FERTILITY OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
THE RELATIONSHIP which exists between fertility and the relief
problem is important. Other conditions being equal, there is greater
priori probability for families with a high birth rate to be on relief
than there is for families with a low birth rate. With few exceptions
this relationship holds true throughout the country. In addition to
the fact that relief authorities may select for their grants those families
with the greatest number of dependents, the expectation of a higher
than average birth rate for relief families coincides with their general
position in the social structure; that is, with fairly constant uniformity
the birth rate increases with progressive steps down the social ladder. 1
Since relief families for the most part come from the lower strata, they
will tend to have a higher birth rate than the general population.
Furthermore, since population traits are well grounded in the mores,
relief families with more children will continue, at least for some time,
to have children while still on relief. Such relationships, however, are
shadowy and difficult to measure accurately because of the fact that
during the depression of the early thirties all levels of society were affected to such a great extent. However, the higher birth rate of relief
families as contrasted with nonrelief families has been noted by experts.*
ti
FERTILITY OF GENERAL RURAL POPULATION
According to available data 444 children under 5 years of age per
1,000 white women 20-44 years of age are now necessary in order to
maintain a stationary population. Because of the higher death rates the
1 See Gini, Corrado, "Real and Apparent Exceptions to the Uniformity of a
Lower Natural Increase of the Upper Classes," Rural Sociology, Vol. I, 1936, pp.
257-280. See also Notestein, Frank W., "Class Differences in Fertility," Annala
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 188, November 1936,
pp. 26-36; and Mc Kain, W. C., Jr. and Whetten, N. L., "Size of Family in Relation to Homogeneity of Parental Traits," Rural Sociology, Vol. I, 1936, pp. 20-27.
I See, for example, Stouffer, Samuel A., "Fertility of Families on Relief,"
Journal of the American Stati&tical Association, Vol, XXIX, 1934, pp. 295-300.
59
Digitized by
Google
60 •
RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
number rises to 499 among Negroes in the country as a whole. 8 As
shown by the 1930 Census, the fertility rates• of the general rural
population were highest in the Appalachian-Ozark (838), Spring
Wheat (804), Eastern Cotton (752), and Lake States Cut-Over (737)
Areas. The rates were lowest in the Corn Belt (565), Hay and Dairy
(605), Winter Wheat (613), and Ranching (644) Areas (table 17). It
is clear that the rural population has a birth rate considerably higher
than necessary for replacement needs. It is a general phenomenon
in civilizations, such as ours, that the rural districts produce a surplus
of population which moves constantly to the cities to make up for the
deficit caused by low birth rates in urban areas.
Tol,le 17.--Children Under 5 Years of Age per 1,000 Women 20 Through 44 Years
of Age in the General Rural Population, by Area and Residence, 1930
(138 counties)
Total rural
Rural•farm
Rural•nonfarm
:
Ara
Nwn•
NumNum• Num- berof Num- Num- berol
her of ber or children ber or her of children
chU•
under 5 chll- women under 6
per 1,000
per 1,000 dren
dren women
20--44
20--44 women
under years women under years
5 years of age
5 years o!age
20--44
20-44
years of
o!age
years of of age
age
Num•
Num- Nnm- berof
bErof her of rhlldren
chilunder II
dren women
1,000
20--44 per
under years
women
6 years of age
20--44
of age
years or
age
age
- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - --ffll7. 1 178,474 236,694
754.0 91,636 150,787
All area.•• ......... Z70, llO 387,481
fm.7
- -8 - - - - -/;87.11
- -- ----- - - - 814.
17,158 29,206
Eastern Cotton •.•.••.•.. 79,003 105, llO
751.6 61,845 75,904
White •••••••••••••.. 49,141
Negro .....••...•••••• 29,862
62,318
42, 792
Wes tern Cotton •••.••... 33,980 48,830
White ..••.•...•.••••
Negro ..••......•••.••
Appalachinn•O<Brk .•..•.
Lake States Cut•Over ••.
Hay and Dairy .•••.•••..
Com Belt. ...•••••••••...
24. 487
9,493
53,172
5.638
43, 3!lll
36,221
8,501
5,223
Ranching .•••.•.•••...•.. 5,976
U'[~~r i\U:c::::::::
36,218
12,612
63,458
7,648
71,714
62,339
10,570
8,526
9,286
788.6
697.8
695.9
67~. l
752. 7
837.9
i37. 2
605. 1
565.0
804.3
612.6
643.5
36,253
25. 592
26,286
18,241
11,045
28,654
2, 737
22. 4;'8
23,805
6,255
3. 479
2,936
41,911
33,093
34,n2
24. 826
9,946
33. 689
3,583
33, 176
39,045
6,941
~.288
4,296
865.0
752. 9
756.0
734. 8
808.9
850. 5
763.9
6n.5
609. 7
901. 2
657.9
683.2
12,888
4,270
7,694
6,246
1.448
24. 518
2,901
20,918
11,416
2,246
], 744
3,041
20,407
8,799
14,058
11,392
2,666
29,769
4,065
38. 538
23. 294
3,629
3,238
4,090
631.11
48&.3
547.3
548.3
543.1
823. 11
713. 7
542. 8
490.1
618.g
538. e
6011.4
Exclusive of New England.
Source: Special tahulatton hy U. S. Bureau of the Census for Identical counties used In the Survey of
Current Changll8 in lhe Rural Relief Population.
1
a Data for fertility of white women from National Resources Committee,
Population Statistica, 1. National Data, Washington, D. C., October 1937, table 14;
data for fertility of Negro women computed by Harold Dorn, based on life tables
prepared by the U. R. Bureau of the Census.
• The fertility index used here is the ratio of children under 5 per 1,000 women
20--44 years of age. This index is most valuable for a study of this kind since it
minimizes differentials in infant mortality among areas. Thus, it more closely
approximates a measure of effective fertility than a crude or specific birth rate
taken from registration figures. One weakness of this index is the possible under-enumeration of younger children. For example, tests made by the U.S. Bureau
of the Census show a short count of considerable size. The size of this omission
may be much larger in rural and isolated districts than in cities. There is also
the possibility of underenumeration on the schedules used in the sample study,
but assurances from field workers indicate that the relief enumeration was more
complete than the census enumeration.
Oig,•ized by
G oog Ie
FERTILITY •
6.1
The fertility rate for all rural areas sampled was 697 for the 1930
Census population. Since the rate among the rural-nonfarm {608)
population was lower than that among the rural-farm (754) population,
a closer approximation to the birth rate necessary for a stationary
population was found in the nonfarm group. This was particularly
true in the Com Belt, Winter Wheat, Hay and Dairy, and Western
Cotton Areas where the rates for the rural-nonfarm population were
very low.
Differentials in the rates for the total rural-farm and rural-nonfarm
populations were greatest in the Spring Wheat (282), Eastern Cotton
(227), and Western Cotton (209) Areas. They were least in the
Appalachian-Ozark (27) and Lake States Cut-Over (50) Areas. The
largest number of children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women
20-44 years of age in any of the areas studied was found in the ruralfarm population of the Spring Wheat Area, where the fertility rate
was 901 per 1,000. This high rate may be largely attributed to the
families of immigrant stock which have rather recently migrated into
the area. The comparatively high rate in the rural-farm population
of the Appalachian-Ozark Area (851) may be attributed largely to
the isolated and, to a certain extent, self-sufficient economy. The
next highest rural-farm rates were found in the two Cotton Areas
and the Lake States Cut-Over Area. In these districts a familistic
culture is dominant. In contrast, the lowest fertility rates for
rural-farm families were found in the Corn Belt, Winter Wheat,
Hay and Dairy, and Ranching Areas. In these areas a highly commercialized, mechanized, and extensive agriculture, including some
urban influences, is the rule.
FERTILITY OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
;,,
The ratio of children to women among rural relief families, as
revealed by the enumeration of October 1935,6 is not the same as
that of the general rural population, and the differences between the
two enumerations show wide contrasts in the various type-of-fanning
areas. In the relief population fertility was highest in the Appa.:.
lachian-Ozark (1,277), Spring Wheat (1,092), and Ranching (1,000)
Areas (table 18). The rates were lowest in New England {664), in
the Eastern Cotton Area (748), and in the Corn Belt (867). In
comparison with the rates for the total rural population the Ranching
Area had moved up from a very low rank to near the top and the
two Cotton Areas had both dropped down the scale. It is interesting
to note that according to fertility rates in the villages the three
southern areas ranked at the bottom. Only in the Ranching .Ar.ea
was the rate higher in villages than in the open country.
• Data on fertility were available from the October rather than the June 193,5
tabulations.
._.,.•.:
Diglized by
Google
62 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
To&le 78.-Children Under 5 Years of Age per 1,000 Women 20 Through 44 Years
of Age in Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Area and Residence, Oc:tober
1935
(138 counties and 83 New England townships t]
Total rural
Area
Number
Num• Num• of chllberof berof
dren
under 5
chi!•
per
1,000
dren women
20-« women
under years
6 years of
:IJJ--44
age years of
of age
age
All areas ••......• __ 31,434
Eastern Cotton.•.•.... __ 2,434
White
Negro.••..•••.••.....
_______________ 1,830
604
Western Cotton ••. ------ 8.256
White
•••..•••.•••.•.
2,
1184
Negro __________ ._ •. _.
5i2
Api:\ach!an-Ozark. _____ 15,3R2
ta e States Cut•Over. __ 1,516
Hay and Dairy •••••••••• 3,314
Com Belt ..•••••••.•••••• 1,624
iring Wheat •••••.••• _•• 1,694
Inter Wheat ••••.••••••
444
Ranching•.••••.•••..•.••
638
New England .••.•••.•••. 1,132
Village•
Open country •
Number
Number
Num- Num• ofchil• Num• Num• of chi!•
dren
berof berof
berof berof
dren
under 5 chi!•
under 5
chi!•
perl,000 dren women
perl,000
dren women
2IH4 women under :IJJ--44 women
under years
5 years of
5 years years
:IJl--44
20-«
age years
of of age of age years of
of age
age
age
- - --- - - - - --- - - - - --30,332
1,036.3
22,262
18,lM
1,225.6
8,040
10,404
768. 3
3,254
2,454
800
3,512
2,894
618
12,044
1,568
3,628
1,874
1,552
748.0
746. 7
7M.O
927.1
1,932
1,474
4118
2,330
1,788
542
2, !i04
2,054
460
7,912
1,070
2,066
706
1,046
342
188
829. 2
824.4
845.0
1,020.8
1,027.3
991.1
1,559. 7
1,035.5
953.6
971. 7
1,128.1
789.6
l, 170. 2
602
356
146
700
574
126
8,042
924
666
2118
643.3
634. 5
565. 9
694. 4
683.3
760. 0
MS
638
l, 704
927.4
925.6
1,277.2
966.8
913.6
866.6
l, 091. 6
795. 7
1,000.0
664.3
2,556
2, 110
446
12,340
1,108
1,970
686
l, 180
270
220
-
-
-
408
1,344
938
614
174
418
-
1,008
840
168
4,132
498
l, 562
l, 168
606
216
460
736. 2
819.3
860. 4
803. 1
1,015.8
-
8'J5. 6
928.ll
-
t Townships In Connecticut and Mll8SIIChusetts only.
• Exclusive of New England.
NoTB.-The fertility rate ofthe rural relief population for all areas Is importantly weighted by the APPII·
lachian•Ozark sample. In the areas not sampled fertility rates were lower than In those represented by the
10 sample areas. Bee Mangus, A. R., Cllanoino Aaptda of Rural Rtlitf, Research Monograph XIV, Div!·
alon of Social Research, Work& Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1938, table 24.
The comparison of relief families with the general rural population
in the same areas according to nlllnber of children under 5 years of
age per 1,000 women 20 through 44 years of age was affected by
various factors}' One difficulty in the comparison was the fact that
there is a difference of 5 years between the census figures and the
relief figures, and the depression of the early thirties had far-reaching
effects on marriage and birth rates. For instance, Stouffer and
Spencer 7 estimated a depression deficit of 748,000 marriages and
possibly over a million births. Following a drop in 1930, 1931, and
1932, marriage and birth rates have risen somewhat again. The
fertility rates used here would be affected by factors in the periods
1926-1930 and 1931-1935 so that to measure the depression drop in
the birth rate actual births were compared for these two periods.
• Some of the rates in the Southern States may have been affected by the marked
population changes in the period between 1930 and 1935. See Smith, T. Lynn,
"Recent Changes in the Farm Population of the Southern States," Social Forcu,
Vol. 15, 1937, pp. 391-401. In this article the relocation of the southern popul&tion is brought out and the increase in population in areas adjacent to cities and
in the poor-land areas is sho\\--n.
7 Stouffer, Samuel A. and Spencer, Lyle M., "Marriage and Divorce in Recent
Years," Annala of the American Academy of Political and Social Scienu, Vol. 188,
November 1936, pp. 56-69.
Dig !tzed by
Goog Ie
FERTILITY • 63
It was found that the chief loss in number of births during 1931-1935
was in regions other than the South.
The expectation that relief families would have a higher birth rate
than the census population has been suggested earlier in this report.
This was due to the natural expectation that relief would be distributed where need was greatest in terms of mouths to feed. This
situation was realized in most areas, but actually in the Eastern
Cotton Area the relief fertility rate was 748 as contrasted with 752
for the rural population as a whole. In the other agricultural areas
the ratio of children to women for relief families was higher than that
for the census population. The difference between relief families
and census families was greatest in the Appalachian-Ozark and
Ranching Areas.
Differences from area to area in the ratio of children to women in
the rural relief population are related to cultural backgrounds. One
of the oldest and most firmly rooted rural cultures is found in the
South. There tradition and custom play an exceedingly important
role, and the habit of mutual assistance is well established.
In the depression of the early thirties these traditions and customs
were unifying forces which assisted the families and groups in caring
for themselves without outside governmental aid. Many tenants and
croppers on the southern plantations were cared for by landlords
who advanced them food and clothing throughout much of the crisis
period. This was especially true in the older sections of the Eastern
Cotton Area and to a lesser extent in the Western Cotton Area.
Although the same type of landlord and tenant relationship did not
exist in the Appalachian-Ozark or the Lake States Cut-Over Areas,
informal mutual aid may also have been a vital factor. In each of
these latter areas the tendency was toward a small-scale, noncommercial, and self-sufficient agriculture. The single crop system in
the Cotton Areas was concentrated on a cash crop, but the smallscale operations, together with other social and cultural background
features, created an affinity with the small farmer in the other two
areas.
In contrast to this situation was that found in the more highly
commercialized areas where extensive agriculture is the rule. Scattered widely over the landscape, of diverse cultural backgrounds,
psychologically absorbed in a money-market economy, these farmers
have not built up the body of traditions and customs that determine
e.n integrated culture. True there are scattered communities which
are highly homogeneous, and there are nationalities which are extremely clannish. But in general the families in those sections of
the United States exist as individualized units, each of which acts
independently. Their unity lies in the common concentration on a
cash crop and on the commercial exchange markets rather than in a
1Jig1•ized by
G oog Ie
i
FIG. 17-CHILDREN UNDER 5 YEARS OF AGE PER 1,000 WOMEN
•
20 THROUGH 44 YEARS OF AGE
:u
C
WHITE RURAL-FARM POPULATION
::ID
>
r..,
1930
>
~
;=
m
0
z
~
m
C:
m
..,
0
co·
""
;::;-
Children per
1,000 women
CD
Q.
l:::J
DB
rr
'<
0
440 - 549
~ 550-659
l!lffl
0
a
,..._
(v
Less thon 440
660-769
•
770-879
•
880ormore
Note: Counties having fewer than 100 women
(20 through 44 years ol age) are le! t blank.
Source . Fifteenth Census of the United States: l9JQ
P.f- Z5SZ, WPA
FIG. IS-CHILDREN UNDER 5 YEARS OF AGE PER 1,000
WOMEN
20 THROUGH 44 YEARS OF AGE
COLORED RUR AL-FARM POPULATION
1930
Ch,ldren per
1.000 women
Less than 600
C'Il 600- 699
b:Ji'J 100 -199
ffl 800 - 899
•
900 - 999
•
1,000 or more
~-0
~-
"'
Q.
,'l
0
0
~
ro
~
r
~
Note· Counlies having fewer l hcn 10 0 wo men
(20 through 44 year s ol age ) ore left blank
Source: F,lleenth Census of the Un, ted Stoles 1930.
1~
AF-2 637.WPA
•
I 0VI
66 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
collllilon background of cultural ideals and values. In such a situation the relationship between family size and dependency may be
close. That is, given widespread economic distress because of a break
in the market or to the loss of a crop, the families which have the
highest birth rate and the largest munber of dependents will be the
first to use up their small reserves. In a falllilistic society, however,
family size as such is not the most important variable in the recourse
to public relief. Crises in these areas are met first by adjustments
within the social structure, and relatives, friends, landlords, or supervisors may extend the economic help that is needed.
The very fact that landlords provide assistance for certain of their
tenants is also of significance. The splitting of tenant and cropper
families 8 tended to place on relief aged or unemployable members
and to keep the younger and more able members under the care of
the landlord. Thus, the normal families composed of young parents
in their prime would probably not be listed as relief cases as frequently as other types of families. However, this practice has been
more prevalent in the Western than in the Eastern Cotton Area, and
it is in the Eastern Cotton Area that the fertility rate of relief families
has actually dropped below that for the total rural population.
In order to check further the explanations given for the ratio of
children to women in the relief population, data for the two Cotton
Areas were analyzed by color. According to the 1930 Census enumeration white families had a higher fertility rate than Negro families in
the Eastern Cotton Area, but the Negroes exceeded the whites in
the Western Cotton Area (table 17 and figs. 17 and 18). The rate
for white and Negro families combined was considerably higher in
the Eastern than in the Western Cotton Area. This difference was
due principally to the white fertility rate since the Negro rate did not
differ so widely in the ~wo areas; the Negro rate was 55 per 1,000
higher in the Western than in the Eastern Cotton Area, but the white
rate was 113 per 1,000 lower in the Western than in the Eastern
Cotton Area. In the relief population there was practically no
difference between the white and Negro fertility rates in either Cotton Area. However, rates were about 175 per 1,000 higher in the
Western than in the Eastern Cotton Area for each race. The contrast between village and open country rates showed differences
between the races. The Negro rate in the villages was from 240 to
280 per 1,000 lower than it was in the open country and the white
rates showed even greater differences.
A further illustration of the importance of the general social system
was afforded by the contrast between relief and census families in
1 See Mangus, A. R., The Rural Negro on Relief, February 1935, Research
Bulletin B-3, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency
Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., October 17, 1935, ·p. ii.
Digitized by
Google
FERTILITY •
67
Tobie 19.-Children Under 5 Years of Age per 1,000 Women 20 Through 44 Years
of Age in the General Rural Population, 1930,1 and in the Rural Relief Population,
October 1935, of 2 New England States
(83 townships)
General rural population
Rural relier population
Number or
Number or
Number or Number or children Number or Number or children
women
under 5
children
women
under.~
children
under 6
per 1,000
per 1,000
~
under 6
20--44
years or
years or women 20- years or
years or women 20age
age
44 years
age
age
44 years
or age
of age
State
Total ••••••••••.••••••..
71,538
154,942
461. 7
1,132
1,704
664.8
Massachusetts ..........•...•.
Connecticut •..••......•.....
33,237
70, 2tl4
473. 0
800
1,228
84,678
332
476
651.11
38,301
452.3
6V7.6
• Bureau or the Census, Fiftunth Cenw• of the Vnikd &alu: /930, Population Vol. III, U. B. De))811•
mentof Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1933.
two New England States (table 19). Here the ratios of children to
women were considerably lower than they were in the South (tables
17 and 18} and ca1ne much nearer approxilnating merely reproductive
needs. In Connecticut the rate for the general rural population was
452 per 1,000, and in Massachusetts, 473 per 1,000. Fertility rates
were strikingly higher for relief than for census families. In Connecticut the difference was allnost 250 per 1,000, and in Massachusetts
it was about 180 per 1,000.
STRONG AND WEAK FAMILY SYSTEMS
As a consequence of these differences in the fertility rates of census
and relief families, two major types of families, designated as weak
and strong families,v stand out clearly. In a familistic social system
the families have a larger number of children on the average than
those in the weaker counterpart. This does not mean that sterility
or small families will be absent in a familistic complex, or that there
will not be large families in an individualistic system. Rather it
means that the combination of all of the factors which tend to concentrate the attention of the individual on his own wants and desires
and to lift from him the burden of support for others results in a
steadily decreasing birth rate; and out of this variable mass in which
each item differs from the others in almost imperceptible degree,
two contradictory typological cases can be segregated analytically.
These cases are designated as strong and weak family types.
In the contemporary United States these family types are associated
concretely in varying degrees with the different sections of the country; and the analysis can be made in terms of either social or geo• See Zimmerman, Carle C. and Frampton, M. E., Family and Society, New
York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1935, ch. XVIII.
Dig11zed by
Google
68 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
graphical space. This means that there is a. pronounced tendency
for the weak family system to be correlated with the extensity and
intensity of the diffusion of urbanism. The opposite relation of
strong family systems and rural mores is also true. Geographically,
the Old South, including the two Cotton Areas and the AppalachianOzark Area, approaches most closely a familistic social system. A
familistic system was also once present in other sections of the United
States, particularly in New Englo.nd, but there only its traces are
left amidst the dense urban and industrial population. A compensating factor in New England has been the strong family mores of
recent immigrants, but the process of assimilation tends to wipe out
these traditions in a generation or two. 10 In the early period of
settlement by New England and southern families the Midwest also
corresponded to this type of famiµsm, but the disruption of systems
of social relationships through migration, together with rapid urbanization and sudden prosperity, has meant an equally sudden
transformation of the family system in that region. Thus, the
tendency today in all regions but the South is toward the weak
family system, and, if the movement continues, all that is required
for its realization is the necessary time for the process to work itself
out. Evidence indicates that the South is headed in the same direction, but it has farther to go. In this manner the two family types
can be related to the birth rates in specific areas.
Thus, within the strong or the weak family systems the influence
of the birth rate, as one of the factors causing relief, may have opposite effects. The weaker the family structure, and correspondingly
the weaker the cultural background, the closer becomes the correlation between birth rates and relief. But within a strong family
system the factors leading to relief do not appear to be directly
related to the birth rate, and the problems of families in these areas
cannot be explained merely in terms of a large number of dependent
children.
10 In this connection it is interesting to note that in a recent study of relief in
rural Connecticut it was found that foreign-born families were not overrepresented
on relief and were probably slightly underrepresented as compared with the
native-born. See Whetten, N. L., Darling, H. D., McKain, W. C., Jr., and
Field, R. F., Rural Familiu on Relief in Connecticut, Bulletin 215, Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station, Storrs, Conn., 1937, pp. 24-25. That the mores
of the immigrant groups are rapidly breaking down in certain areas, however, is
illustrated by the fact that in a recent study of Montville, Conn., where there
are a large number of Polish immigrants, it was found that the foreign-born
Polish families had the highest relief rate in town. See Whetten, N. L. and
McKain, W. C., Jr., A Sociological Analysis of Relief and Non-Relief Familiu in a
Rural Connecticut Town, Bulletin 219, Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station,
Storrs, Conn., 1937.
Dig t,zed by
Goog Ie
Chapter VIII
EMPLOYABILITY, EMPLOYMENT, AND
AMOUNT OF RELIEF
THE DIRECT cause and effect relationship between cyclical unemployment and relief is so obvious that during depression periods it
tends to be overemphasized to the detriment of more continuous,
long-time factors. Even in the most prosperous times many families
are on relief because of the lack of wage earners or because of their
illness or injury. These families may be styled economicaJly disorganized since their economic organization is completely broken or
badly crippled. Families of this type include those with no worker
16-64 years of age and those with female workers only. In addition
to these extreme types there are the families which have varying
numbers of male workers or both male and female workers.
The employability composition thus sets the outside limits for
family employment, and within these limits there may be wide
variations. Therefore, under the general heading of employment and
relief the analysis consists of a study of (1) employability composition, (2) occupational displacement and shifting, (3) unemployment
prior to relief, (4) reason for accession to relief, (5) relief history, and
(6) amount of relief.
EMPLOYABILITY COMPOSITION
The serious plight of many relief families is shown by the fact that
12.9 percent of all rural relief families in June 1935 had no worker
(table 20 and fig. 19), and an additional 7.8 percent of the families
had female workers only. Considerable differences appeared among
areas in regard to employability composition. About one family
out of six in most areas had no employable member and hence no
means of wage income. The Cotton Areas had the highest proportions of families with female workers only, and in those two areas
the total of the two categories, female workers only and no worker,
accounted for one-fourth to one-third of all rural relief families. All
of these families may be called unemployable or potentially unem69
01g111zedbyGoogle
70 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Tatile .2O.-Employability Composition of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by
Residence and Area, June 1935
(138 counties and 1111 New England townshlllS)
Female workers
only
Total•
Residence and area
Num•
her
No
worker
PerTotal
cant
1
Male workers
only
2or
more Total
1
Male and female
workers
2or
more Total
3or
2
more
- - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - -
TOTAL RUll.U
All areas ..••••.•• 112,809
100.0
12. 9
u
6. 6
1. 2
(\(, 3
63. 5
10. 8
15. 0
8. 2
H. 0
18. 5
8. 9
6.9
15.0
5.4
2.4
3.6
5.2
3.0
3.8
6.8
6.3
3. 7
3.0
5. l
1.3
1. 0
2. 2
1. 2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
L3
1.1
41. l
47. 7
28.4
01. 6
68. 5
41.0
65.8
73.0
71. 5
72. 6
73. 0
79. 3
611.5
511. 0
35. 4
40. 5
25. 5
50. 7
56.3
33. 9
53. 5
60.9
69.8
61.0
62.0
70.0
59. 8
46. 5
5. 7
7. 2
2. 9
10. 9
12. 2
7. 1
12. 3
12. 1
11. 7
11. 6
11.0
9. 3
6. 7
11. 5
25. 7
24 7
25. 6
11. 6
10.6
14.3
18. 5
7.8
8. 7
10. 3
17.0
7. 5
8.3
17. 9
16. 1
16. 1
16.2
6. l
6. 6
7.3
10. 2
3.3
4.8
6. 2
5.2
4. 7
3.8
--- - - - -- - 100.0 13. 9 19. 3 15. 6
East.im Cotton ••••••.. 7,732
White .••.•••.••.•• 5,(Si
Nel(?O .•..•••..•... 2,1)48
Western Cotton ••..... 7,268
White .••••.•••.•.. 5,432
Negro ••••........ . 1,836
AppsJl\chian-Oznrk ••.. 17,016
Lake States Cut•Over .. 3, 7ll2
Bay and Dairy ••••...• 8,626
Coro Belt ..•••.•••••.. 7,512
3,374
1,288
Ranching.•.•••..•.•••• 1,886
New England ••••••••• 4,315
17. 0
23. 6
10. 2
7.9
17. 2
6.6
2. 7
3.9
5.6
3.5
4.3
8.1
7.4
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
9.6
22. 4
16. 6
13.0
27. 5
9.1
16. 5
15. 9
11. 5
6. 5
8. 9
17. I
16. 7
All areas 1 ••••••. 35, 782
100. 0
11.0
6. 7
5. 5
1. 2
66. 7
M.5
12. 2
15.11
8.1
Eastern Cotton ........ 11. 002
White .••••••••••.. :I, 366
Negro ............. 1, 636
Westt1rn Cotton •••. . • . 4,686
White ..•.•......•. 3,510
Negro ............. 1,176
Appalachian•O~ark .•.. 12.066
Lake btatcs Cut.over . 2.492
Bay and Dairy •••..... 11. 028
Com Belt ...••••••..•. 2,802
Spring Wheat ••..•••. . 2, 386
670
Winter Wbent ..••••••.
Ranching ••••••••••••••
650
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO.O
100.0
100.0
15. 7
10. 8
16. 4
11. 7
26. 5
7. 4
14.8
13. 8
9. 1
3. 9
4. 2
16. 5
18.5
16. 5
24. 7
7.8
5. 7
13. 9
6.2
2. 3
3. 1
2.0
]. 4
2.4
6. 2
14. 4
12.6
18.0
6.6
4.9
11. 7
5.0
2.1
2.9
2.0
1. I
1.8
6.2
4. 1
2.9
6. 7
1. 2
0.8
2.2
1. 2
0.2
0.2
-
40. 7
48. 9
23. 8
65.1
72.1
44. 5
66.1
75. 1
75.6
79. 4
-
85.9
71. 7
35.0
41. 8
20.9
53. 2
59. 2
35. 8
52. 7
61.4
61 . 7
64. 0
64. 7
76.6
63. 7
5. 7
7. 1
2. 9
11. 9
12. 9
8. 7
13. 4
13. 7
13. 9
15. 4
12. 5
U. 3
8.0
25.1
24.8
25. 7
11. 7
10. 6
15.1
20.3
7. 8
7.5
9.6
17. 5
7. 5
5.6
15. 4
15. 2
16.8
11.6
11.2
6.8
10.9
3.4
4. 0
4. 6
4.1
3.3
2.8
100.0
15.0
9.4
8.3
1. 1
62. 2
53. 6
8.6
13.4
8. 2
45. 5
35.8
55. 2
62.0
35. 2
64.8
68.6
65.8
6'J. 6
62. 9
72. 2
63.9
36. 1
38.0
32.8
46. 1
61. 2
31. 0
55. l
50. 7
57. 2
59.2
M.4
62. 8
57. 9
5.8
7.6
3. 0
9. l
10.8
4.2
9. 7
8. 9
8. 6
9. 4
7. 6
D.4
6.0
~f~~r iie::c:::::::
11.8
-9. 11
11. 6
11. 4
5. 5
6. 0
T. O
8.3
4. 6
3.11
4.1
11.8
2.8
4. 6
8. 0
II.II
OPEN COUNTR'I
25. 8
0.3
0.6
77.2
-7.6
9. 7
11. 8
9.9
6.1
5. 3
8. 3
9. 4
4.4
3.5
4.9
13.4
4. 2
2. 8
VILLAGE
All areas• •..••.• 22, 712
Eastern Cotton .••.•...
White .••••••......
Negro ..•.• •.•••. . .
Western Cotton ••... ..
White .........••..
Negro .. ...... .....
Appnlachian-Ozark ....
LBke St,,tes Cut-Over ..
Hay and Dairy ..••••..
Corn Belt ....•..••.••.
Spring Whcnt. ..•••...
Wlntrr Wheat •••••••..
Ranching .•..••.••.•.•.
- - -- -- - - - - - --2. 730 100. 0 10. 7 20. 7 17. 8 2.9 41. 9
1,718
1,012
2. /i82
1,P22
600
◄, 950
1,300
3, 598
4,710
9~8
618
1,236
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
7. 1
16. 8
18. 8
15. 3
2\l. I
13. 4
19. 7
18.8
12. 9
13. 0
13. 9
17. 3
20.0 16. 9
21.9 19. 3
14. 7 13. 2
11. D 10. 7
23.0 20. 9
6.6
7.6
3.2
3. 7
4.3
4.9
7.0
7.6
7. 7
8.5
6.2
6. 6
7.2
11.1
3. 1
2.6
1.5
1. 2
2. 1
1.0
o. 5
0. 6
0.6
0.8
0.3
1. 9
26. 7 17. 4
27.4 17. 7
25. 5 16. 8
6.9
11.3
6.4
10.8
8. 2
12. 7
8. 6
14. 2
3.2
8.0
6. 1
10. 5
10. D 7.2
7. 7
16. 6
6. 1
7.4
4. 4
9. 7
--u.
5. 2
U.3
7
8. 7
4. 4
4.4
4. 5
11.6
4. 8
4. 4
3. 7
7.11
1.3
11.3
1 Exclusive or families whose employability composition was unknown.
• Exclusive of New England.
ployable 1 since they had no male worker and only in very few cases
had more than one female worker. The high proportion of these
two types of families in the Cotton Areas was the net result of the
1 See Hulett, J. E ., Jr., Some Types of Unemployability in Rural Relief Casu,
February 1935, Research Bulletin H-2, Division of Research, Statistics, and
Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., October 4,
1935, table II, p. 17.
D1gt1zedbyGooglc
l'arn► Sccu1it11 .ll.<l111i11istl'atio11
( o lwh 11) .
No 1/rf'adwinnf'r in Thi:, /l ome.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
EMPLOYMENT AND AMOUNT OF RELIEF •
71
social environment, the depression, and agricultural restriction
measures.
The proportion of all rural relief families having only male workers
was 4.5 percent higher in the open country than it was in the villages,
while the proportion of unemployable and potentially unemployable
families was 6.7 percent higher in the villages. Again it is seen that
open country families comprised a more homogeneous group, most
of whom were normal families with an employable male head, a wife,
and children. The economically disorganized families tended to
concentrate in the villages.
Ill No worker
~ Female workers only
301----251-----
I
20
20 -
15
15 a.
!
10
5
All
areos
Eastern Western Appo• Lake Hoy
Cotton Cotton loch1on• States and
Ozark Cut-Over Ocnry
Corn Spring Winter Ranching New
Belt Wheat Wheat
England
0
FIG. 19-RURAL FAMILIES RECEl"JING GENERAL RELIEF WITH
NO WORKER OR WITH FEMALE
WORKERS ONLY, BY AREA
June 1935
AF-2810 1 WPA
The areas did not fall into any clear-cut groups on the basis of
families without workers. The highest proportion of families with no
worker was found in the Ranching Area, followed by New England,
the Western Cotton Area, the Lake States Cut-Over Area, and the
Hay and Dairy Area. The smallest proportions were found in the two
Wheat Areas and in the Appalachian-Ozark Area.
The explanation for the large number of potentially unemployable
families in the Southern Areas was found to be largely attributable to
Negro rather than white families (table 20). From two to three times
as many Negro as white families had no workers. As high as 29.1 percent of the Negro families in the villages of the Western Cotton Area.
and 16.8 percent of those in the villages of the Eastern Cotton Area.
had no workers. White families with no worker varied from 7.1 per-
Dig 11zed by
Google
72 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
cent in the eastern villages to 15.3 percent in the western villages.
Similarly, more of the Negro than white families had female workers
only although the differences did not appear to be as great. However, the summation of these two categories shows that almost onehalf of the Negro families on relief in June 1935 had no employable
male (46.0 percent in the Eastern Cotton Area and 44.7 percent in
the Western Cotton Area). Fewer of the white families were in this
situation with the proportions 26.6 percent in the Eastern and 20.9
percent in the Western Cotton Area. It seems that through a number
of circumstances rural Negro families had become much more disorganized economically than white families. It is also probable that
administrative factors affect the figures. Principally, however, the
data reveal that relatively more of the families in the South, especially
the Negroes, were on relief because of unemployability and that more
of the families in other areas were on relief because of special circumstances associated with the depression.
OCCUPATIONAL DISPLACEMENT AND SHlmNG
Considered according to employment status and occupation, only
29.2 percent of the workers in agriculture were totally unemployed in
comparison with 72.1 percentoftheworkersinnonagriculture (table21
and figs. 20 and 21). The high proportion in agriculture, however,
was partly due to the fact that farm operators were arbitrarily defined
as employed if they were still on their farms, even if they had no cash
income. Within the agricultural group the proportion unemployed '
was smallest among farm owners (6.5 percent) and increased steadily
at each of the lower occupational levels. Among the nonagricultural
occupations the greatest unemployment was in the skilled and semiskilled occupations while for both the unskilled and the white-collar
occupations unemployment was slightly less severe.
Only 1 percent of the former workers in agriculture had shifted into
current nonagricultural employment, but almost 11 percent of the
former nonagricultural workers were currently employed in agriculture at the time of the survey. In part this reflects a widespread
movement back to the farm during the depression, and in part it also
reflects the reversed direction of occupational mobility during the
depression, which caused a general shifting down the occupational
scale for workers at all levels.3 These occupational shifts are shown
1 The term unemployment is used here to describe the situation of both nonagricultural and agricultural workers. A worker was considered employed if he bad
employment of at least 1 week's duration during the month. Of course employment for a farm operator who may or may not have a cs.sh income is different
from that of the urban employed, but the two are combined for terminological
consistency.
1 See, for example, Hogg, Margaret H., The Incidence of Work Slwrtage, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1932, diagrams 3 and 4.
01g111zedbyGoogle
EMPLOYMENT AND AMOUNT OF RELIEF • 73
Tat.le 21.-Employment Status of Workers 1 in Rural Families Receiving General Relief,
by Usual Occupation, June 1935
[138 rountles and 116 New En11land townships]
Total workers •
Total employed
workers
Employed
r ma! occupation
Nnmber
Percent
Agrl- Non&grlculture culture
Unemployed
Number
Percent
At
At other
than
usual
occu- usualoopatlon cupatlon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --7.6
65.4
38,013
100.0
100.0
37.1
85.6
14. 6
------------ - -4.2
-100.0
- -95.8
611. 7
I. I
29.2
26, 754
100.0
---
Total _____________ 80,684
Agriculture. ____________ 37,792
Farm operator ______ 18,686
Owner. _________ 6, iSQ
Ten~nt _________ II, 827
Far!;~~\':,'_-_~:::::
Nonamculture•.•••• __ ._
White collar •••••.••
Skilled.·••····--····
Semuildlled •••• ---··
Unskilled ..••••••...
No usual occupation .••.
2,070
19,106
33,125
3,253
4,0fi8
5,729
20,075
9,767
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
85.3
92.9
86. s
53.6
61. 4
10. 8
6.8
II.I
8.11
12.1
0. 1
1.0
0.6
1.5
2.S
1.2
Ii. I
28.1
12. 4
16.1
16.6
.
13. 7
6.6
II. 7
43.6
44.4
72.1
66.1
1R. 5
75. 0
71.3
119. II
16,136
6,346
8,604
I, 168
10,618
9,251
I, IOI
1157
1,431
6,762
8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
3. 7
116. 3
117. II
116. 6
85.1
95. I
65. 7
71.0
36.8
114.0
66.4
2.1
3.4
14.11
4.11
44.3
29.0
63.2
48. 0
'3.11
-
t
t
• Less than 0.05 percent.
t Percent not computed on a base of !ewer thnn 60 cases.
• Persons 111 throuRh 114 years of age working or -king work.
• Exclusive of workers wh"6e employment status was unknown.
• In the 2 Cotton Areas.
even better when workers reporting employment are considered according to whether they were employed at their usual occupation or at
other than their usual occupation. Thus, 95.8 percent of the workers
in agriculture who were employed at the time of the survey were
engaged in their usual occupation as contrasted with 55.7 percent of
r.7-3 Employed in
111111111 Employed in
~ Unemployed .
t.:;:;:J nona9riculture
lllllla9riculture
100
90
~
80
70
c
•~
•
0..
~
-~
60
50
40
80
70
~~
w
~
60
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
Totol
fo rm
owner
Fo , m
Farm
Form
ten ant croppe r labore r
Whi le
collar
SI.oiled
Semi -
Un ·
~1-:il le d
~kd led
c
.
50 ~
0..
0
FIG. 20 - EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF WORKERS IN RURAL
FAMILIES RECEIVING GENERAL RELIEF, BY
USUAL OCCUPATION
June 1935
019 tized by
Goos le
74 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
IBBBIIII
~
Employed ot
Employed ot other
~ than
1111111111 usual occupation
usual accupalian
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
Total
f orm
owner
Form
tenant
Form
Form
c ropper laborer
While
collar
Skilled
Semi•
sk illed
Un•
sk illed
FIG. 21- OCCUPATIONAL CHANGE OF WORKERS IN RURAL
FAMILIES RECEIVING GENERAL RELIEF, BY
USUAL OCCUPATION
June 1935
AF-2812, WPA
the workers in nonagriculture. The remainder who had some employment had shifted to something other than their usual occupation.
Part of this difference between agriculture and nonagriculture may
be explained by the fact that in many regions agriculture represents
a direct shift down the scnle for all occupations. Thus, when workers
in general are moving down the occupational scale, workers in the
lower levels are displaced, but those who are able to retain their
positions do not move any farther down the scale. Therefore, 56.4
percent of the unskilled laborers who were employed were recorded as
working at their usual occupation. This is a higher proportion than
in either of the two occupational levels just above, particularly among
skilled laborers, but not equal to that for white-collar workers.
The employment data according to occupation for white and Negro
families in the Cotton Areas showed that about the same proportions
of agricultural workers were totally unemployed but that more of the
white workers in nonagricultural pursuits were totally unemployed
(fig. 22 and appendix table 24). This was true in spite of the fact
that more of the white nonagricultural workers had shifted into farming, 25.8 percent of the employed white nonagricultural workers being
engaged in agriculture as contrasted with only 4.7 percent of the
employed Negro workers.
D191izedb;
Google
EMPLOYMENT AND AMOUNT OF RELIEF• 75
881
1111
~
Employed ot
usual occupation
1:21
Employed at other
than usual occupation
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
'E
•t! 50
~
'E
50 ~
~
40
4ol
30
30
s
20
20
10
0
f orm
For m
lenont cropper loborer
Form
Total
owner
Whil e
collar
.....
..
·,•,·
W N
While N 19 ro
w
w N
w N
Semi·
skilled
Un•
N
Skil led
0
skilled
FIG. 22-0CCUPATIONAL CHANG.E OF WHITE AND NEGRO WORKERS
IN RURAL FAMILIES RECEIVING GENERAL R_ELIEF
IN THE EASTERN ANO WESTERN GOTTON
AREAS, BY USUAL OCCUPATION
June 1935
*Percent not computed on a base of fewer than 50 cases.
UNEMPLOYMENT PRIOR TO RELIEF
The next question to be considered is the lapse of time between the
last job of the head of the family at his usual occupation and the
acceptance of relief by rural families in their first relief period in
June 1935. The analysis shows in part the effect of reserve accumulations which ward off the necessity of going on relief and in part the
group mores in regard to receipt of relief.
In the case of both agricultural and nonagricultural heads of families,
without current employment at the usual occupation, the period
between the last usual job and the opening of the relief case became
progressively shorter in the lower social strata (table 22). This was
particularly noticeable in the proportion of families whose head had a
job at the opening of the case or who had been out of work only 1 or 2
months. Of the workers in agriculture on relief for the first time, 11.4
percent had a job at the time of going on relief, and of the workers in.
nonagriculture, 5.5 percent were employed. Within agriculture the
smallest proportion of these cases was among owners (5.0 percent)
and the greatest proportion among tenants (14.3 percent). Farm
laborers less frequently (12.1 percent) had a job at the opening of the
case, but an unusually large proportion (28.7 percent) had been
unemployed 1 month or less. Among the nonagricultural heads of
D,g,t,zed by
Google
76 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Tobie H.-Length of Time Between End of Last Job of the Head at Usual Occupation
and Accession to Relief of Rural Families in Their First Relief Period, by Residence
and Usual Occupation of Head, June 1935
(138 counties and 116 New England townships]
Tot&)I
Hesldenre and usual occu•
pation of head
Num•
her
Per•
cent
Months between end or Job and BCCeSSion to relief
None
(Joh
ended
after
open•
Ing)
I or
Jess
2
3-8
7-12
13-24
37or
2.5-36 more
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TOT.lL RUR.lL
Total ....•••••••.•••••. 15,982
100.0
7.2
22.8
9.3
18.5
11. 1
10. 3
6. 2
4,681
1,500
318
704
478
8,181
11,301
l, 119
1. 675
2. 056
6,451
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
11.4
10.0
5.0
14. 3
7. 1
12. I
5. 5
3.6
4.8
5.6
6.0
23.5
12. 3
II.I
12.9
13. 8
28. 7
22. 6
14. 8
15.11
71. 9
25.8
II. 7
7.0
6.0
5.1
10. 5
11.0
9. l
8.0
II. 3
12. 7
II. 3
14.0
11.3
10. 6
11. 1
12. 9
II. 6
11.0
10. 6
9.8
15. 7
16.4
14.0
18. 0
7.0
10. 5
13. 1
II. 2
9.6
10. 2
4. I
6. 5
11.4
7. I
9.8
21.6
22.1
13. 5
20.8
29. 7
21.4
17. I
15.8
15. 5
16. 4
18.0
6.3
5.0
3.0
7.1
10.0
9.0
7.1
6.1
17.0
21.8
22. 4
21.3
13. 5
6,302
100.0
7.5
23.3
lO.0
18.8
9.9
10. 4
6.0
14. 1
788
112
332
344
1,786
3,728
258
)()().0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
10. 7
7.1
15. 7
7.0
8.6
7. 1
6.0
11. 6
11.8
9.4
8. 5
7. 7
8. 6
10. 2
26.9
19. 7
26. 4
29. 6
22. 5
15. 3
8. 5
12. 3
14. 7
17.0
12. 7
10. 7
13. 9
12. 2
7. 6
10. 4
18. 6
9. 2
to. 7
9. 7
13. 5
12. 5
13. 3
14. 0
5. 5
12. 1
12. 4
14.6
11.0
11.8
6.3
16. l
3. 6
5.8
1.8
7.9
17.9
7.2
4. 7
3. 7
20.4
1.6
4.6
2. 5
3. 7
13. 7
8.9
13. 9
15. 1
32. 5
21. 1
11. 6
11. 9
:b:1. 2
24. 2
12. 7
8. 3
6. 4
27.11
27.0
24.0
17.0
Agrirulture ........••••••••..
Farm operator ••••••.••..
Owner •...••••••••...
Tenant ...••.•••.•••.
F~l~~r:~:.·.:::::::::::
N onagrlculture ..••••••••.•...
White collar ..••.••.••...
Skllled .••••••••••••.•....
Bern is killed . .............
Unskilled •••••••••••.••..
14.6
--- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11.6
8.6
13. 7
29.3
12. 6
4.6
6.2
OPJ:N COUNTBT I
Total ..••••••••••••••..
Agriculture ....•••.•••••••••.
Farm operator .•.•••.•••.
Owner ..••••••••••...
Tenant. ...•.•.•...•.
F~l~~i:~:.·.:::::::::::
Nonagrlculture ...••..•.....•.
White collar ...•.•.•.•.•.
Skilled ......••..••..•..•.
Semiskllled ..........•••.
Unskilled ..•••.•.•...•••.
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - ---2. 574 100.0 13. 4 26. 7 10.8 23.9
9. 2
7. 9
3. 2
4.11
520
6.12
2,298
14.6
3. 4
to. g
7.6
\"JLL.lGE I
Total •.•••••••••••••••.
7,812
100.0
6.6
23. 7
8.8
18. 9
Agriculture ...•........•.•.•.
Farm
operator
...•.•••.••
Owner.
_____________
1,848
632
130
368
134
I, 216
5,964
684
840
S!i2
3,588
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
10.0
10.1
4. 6
13. 0
7. 5
9.9
5.6
4.1
19.8
10.8
7. 7
12.0
10. 4
24. 5
24. 9
16. 7
17. 4
27. 1
27.6
8.3
5. 7
7. 7
19. 6
18.0
12. 3
15.8
29.8
20. 4
18. 7
17. 5
18.0
18. 3
19.1
Tenant. .....••.••.•.
F~l~~~~::::::::::::::
Nonw~\1~~it:ar·_-_-_-_-:::::::::
Skilled ......•••.••••..•..
Semiskilled •...•••••...•.
Unskilled .•••••••••••....
4.8
4.9
6.2
4.3
7. 5
9. 7
9.0
8.8
11.0
5. 6
9. 4
12. 5
-14. 2
13. 3
15.4
14. 1
9.0
14. 6
12. 0
12.3
13. 3
12. 7
11. 5
10. 8
6. 7
12.0
-5.-9.-7
-13. l
3
19. 7
24.6
14.7
28.3
9. 7
10.0
14.0
10. 7
9.9
9.1
6.6
4. 6
8. 7
3.0
4. 6
7.1
9. 6
7. 9
7. 7
6.4
15. 8
23.1
17. 4
4.5
6.6
12. 7
17.0
16.Q
13. 8
10. 7
t Exclusive or head~ who were currently employed at the usual occupation, who were non workers, who
had no usual occupation, and for whom montbs betwren end of Job and accession to relief were unl<Jlown.
1 In the 2 Cotton Areas.
1 Exclusive of New England.
families the proportion became larger in the lower occupational
levels for each interval up to 6 months. Thus, 3.6 percent of the whitecollar workers were working at the time of first going on relief as
contrasted with 6.0 percent of the unskilled workers. There were
almost twice as many unskilled workers as white-collar workers who
were unemployed 1 month or less before going on relief.
In the case of families whose head had been unemployed more than 3
years before going on relief, the proportions usually became greater
01g111zedbyGoogle
EMPLOYMENT AND AMOUNT OF RELIEF • 77
with successive steps up the occupational ladder for both agricultural
and nonagricultural workers. While in general there was a greater
lapse in time for nonagricultural workers than for agricultural workers
before applying for assistance, the most outstanding group was the
farm owners, 29.3 percent of whom were unemployed more than 3
years before going on relief. Thus, if the lapse of time between first
unemployment and relief is correlated with the accumulations of the
successful years, agricultural families have smaller reserve funds than
nonagricultural families. But the group which holds out longest
against relief is the farm owners.
REASON FOR ACCESSION TO RELIEF
When rural families on relief in June 1935 were classified according
to the reason for opening or reopening the relief case, loss of employment was found to account for 24.6 percent of all cases, loss or depletion of assets for 33.6 percent, and crop failure or loss of livestock for
13.6 percent (appendix table 25). The other groups were more
clearly those which are usually designated as dependent or defective
classes in contrast with normal classes which were forced on relief by
special circumstances of the depression period. Hence, insuffident
income accounted for 12.4 percent of the total group, disability for
5.2 percent, and all other reasons for 10.6 percent.
The differences between open country families and village families
in the reasons for going on relief were primarily associated with the
differences between agriculture and nonagriculture. Loss of crops or
livestock or the depletion of assets was most important in the open
country, and the loss of a. job or the depletion of assets Wad most
important in villages.
Loss of employment accounted for 35.5 percent of the cases in the
Hay and Dairy Area, 34.8 percent in the Ranching Area., and 30.2
percent in the Corn Belt. In contrast it accounted for but 18.0
percent of the cases in the Winter Wheat Area, 14.1 percent in the
Appalachian-Ozark Area, and 13.6 percent in the Spring Wheat Area.
When analyzed on the basis of residence, these differences were
accentuated.
As a factor in the relief situation loss or depletion of assets was not
consistently related to any particular type of farming. It accounted
for 48.6 percent of the cases in the Appalachian-Ozark Area, 48.9
percent in New England, and 34.2 percent in the Lake States CutOver Area as contrasted with 21.2 percent in the Western Cotton
Area and 14.8 percent in the Spring Wheat Area.
Insufficient income accounted for IO to 15 percent of the cases
except in the Spring Wheat and Ranching Areas where it was considerably less important as a direct cause of the need for rolief. Disability
was most important in the areas which tend toward self-sufficient
Digitized by
Google
78 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
agriculture-Eastern Cotton, Hay and Dairy, Lake States Cut-Over,
Appalachian-Ozark, and New England.
Some of the chief effects of the drought period were readily noticeable in that crop failure or loss of livestock was most important in the
drought areas. This reason accounted for 81.4 percent of the open
country cases in the Spring Wheat Area, 39.7 percent in the Winter
Wheat Area, 33.2 percent in the Ranching Area, 31.9 percent in the
Com Belt, and 28.3 percent in the Western Cotton Area. In all of
the other areas it accounted for less than 14 percent of the open
country relief cases, and it was not a significant dire.ct cause of relief
among the village cases of any area.
The two races in the Cotton Areas reported different "causes" of
relief (appendix table 25). Negroes were on relief more often because
of insufficient income or disability, while whites were on relief more
often because of loss or depletion of assets or crop failure. The two
races were about equal with regard to loss of job in ordinary employment. These differences no doubt reflect the fact that Negroes
occupy a lower economic status than whites. Under ordinary conditions they have but very slight accumulations of wealth or property
and thus have little to tide them over periods of depression. It is
true that whites suffer relatively more from unemployment than
Negroes (appendix table 24), but more Negroes who are working are
not receiving sufficient pay to provide a livelihood. Negro cases
tend more often to conform to the predepression definition of a charity
case, while whites are more of ten of the type defined during the
depression as the "new poor"-relief recipients who have for most
of their lives been self-supporting.
RELIEF HISTORY
When rural relief families were analyzed according t-0 continuity
of their relief histories, certain trends were observe ble. Of all cases
on relief in June 1935, 74.3 percent of the families had received
assistance continuously since February (appendix table 26). Another
14.2 percent of the cases had been reopened' between March and
June, aud only 11.5 percent were new cases, coming on relief for the
first time. The greatest proportion of new cases in this period was in
New England (19.1 percent) and the smallest in the Spring Wheat
Area (4.9 percent). Slightly more new cases proportionately appeared
in the villages than in the open country.
While 74.3 percent of all relief cases were continuous from February
through June, the proportion varied from 66.6 percent in the Eastern
Cotton Area to 81.4 percent in the Spring Wheat Area. New cases
ranged from 4.9 percent to 19.1 percent, and the fewest new cases
were to be found in the drought areas: namely, the Spring Wheat,
• For definition of reopened case, see appendix A, pp. 110-111.
Dig11zed by
Google
Druuyhl \' iclims.
... ......
....
.
........ ::..·.::.. :. :······
. : .: ::·-·-: ::-·.:: ::•:..
D1gnzed by
G oog lC
Digitized by
Google
EMPLOYMENT AND AMOUNT OF RELIEF •
79
Winter Wheat, and Western Cotton Areas. In these same areas
there tended to be high proportions of cases which had been continuously on relief since February, which probably indicates that sufficient
time had not yet elapsed for farmers to recover from the drought of
1934.
Also illustrative of the lower economic status of the Negroes in the
South was the fact that they more often had continuous relief histories
than the whites in spite of differences between the two Cotton Areas
(appendix table 26). The difference between Negroes and whites in
this respect was greater in the Eastern than in the Western Cotton
Area.
A study of the relief history of rural families according to occupation shows that agricultural families were on relief more continuously
than nonagricultural families from February through June 1935.
There were also fewer new cases in agriculture (table 23). The
specific occupational levels within these two major groups were apparently uncorrelated with the continuity of relief history except that
there was a slight tendency toward more new cases among the croppers
and farm le.borers in the agricultural group.
Tobie 23.-Relief History of Rural Families Receiving Relief, by Usual Occupation of
1-iead, June 1935
(138 counties llDd 116 New England townships]
Total
1
Continuously Opened Reopened
March- MarchPercent ruar)~~~ough
June
June
1 - - ~ - - - ou relief Feb-
Usual occupation of head
Number
Total ______________________ .•. __ • __ ._. ____ _
62, 771
100.0
74. 3
11.5
14.2
Agriculture _____________________________________ _
Farm operator ______ . _______________________ _
Owner __________________________________ _
Tenant. .. ___ .. _._. --- . __ . ___ -- __ -- -----.
Cropper•----- __________________________ _
Farm luhorer ________ ·----------------------Nonarriculture_. _. _____ .. _. _. ______ . ___________ _
White roll
ar. __ . ________ --------- --- ------- --_
Skilled
_____________________________________
Semiskilled _________________________________ .
Unskilkd .. ___ . ___ . __ . ______ . ___________ . ___ _
25,524
18,423
6,694
9,705
2,024
7,101
25,884
2,315
3,801
4,287
~~n~~:l~';'.'-~~~~'.~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I, 545
V,818
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
75. 4
74 .•
72. 7
75. 7
73. 6
77. 9
71. 4
71.1
75. 6
66. 6
71. 8
77. 2
78.8
V. 5
V.2
9.6
8. 7
10.1
10. 3
14.1
17. 2
12. 4
18. I
12. 9
12. 2
9. 5
15.1
16. 4
17. 7
15.6
16. 3
II. 8
14. 5
II. 7
12.0
15. 3
15. 3
10. 6
II. 7
15,481
1 Exclusive of families for which relief history was unknown.
• In the 2 Cotton Areas.
AMOUNT OF RELIEF
Among the various factors which may affect the amount of relief
needed in individual cases is the severity of economic distress. Here
regional variations and rural-urban differences are of great importance
since the business depression is primarily a difficulty of a highly industrialized and commercialized economy. Thus, rural sections, and
especially those which tend toward self-sufficiency, are less susceptible
to the fluctuations of the business cycle, and their need will not be as
directly correlated with it.
Diglized by
Google
80 •
RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Another variable is the standard of living in the respective areas.
This includes the minimum standard of physical need as defined by
the customs and conditions of the community; it includes also the
cost of purchasing these items in the open market. In general the
higher the material standard of living in an area the higher the relief
outlays which are necessary in time of depression. Hence, on this
basis also there are variations among areas in the type and quantity
of relief that will be granted and in the amount of money that will be
necessary for such provisions.
It is not surprising to note that the lowest average monthly amount
granted to relief families during June 1935 was found in the Western
Cotton Area ($10) (appendix table 27). It was but little higher
in the Eastern Cotton and Appalachian-Ozark Areas ($12). The
highest average amount of relief was found in the Lake States CutOver and Hay and Dairy Areas ($23) and in New England ($37).
These areas are either districts of high relief intensity 6 or they are
rural areas contiguous to highly urbanized regions where the cost of
living is high. It is consistent also that in every area, with the exception of the Western Cotton and Ranching Areas, the average cost
of relief was higher in the villages than in the open country. This is
probably due in part to the higher cost of living, less subsistence production, and the higher standards of relief in such places, and in part
to the probability that more cases were on full relief in the villages
than on the farms, where family resources may be greater.
The importance of minimum standards of relief was most noticeable in the South in the contrast between the races. In the Eastern
Cotton Area the average white relief family received $14 in June 1935,
as contrasted with $8 for the average Negro family. In the Western
Cotton Area these amounts were $11 and $8, respectively. The explanation for the racial differences lies mainly in the comparative
standards of living. Negro families, on the average, have poorer
physical equipment for each occupational level than white families.
The average value of the Negro's farm dwelling in the Southeast is
usually only about half that of his white neighbor; and Negro dwellings have fewer of the benefits of sanitation, screening, and other
household improvements. 6 Thus there are smaller demands on relief
officials to supply these meager wants. Further, the caste system
makes equal relief grants psychologically impossible in many parts of
the South.
That southern families received relatively smaller amounts of relief
was shown even more clearly when relief families were classified ac1
See ch. I.
e See Woofter, T. J., Jr., Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation, Research
Monograph V, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration,
Washington, D. C., 1936, ch. VII.
D191izedb;
Google
EMPLOYMENT AND AMOUNT OF RELIEF • 81
cording to the total amount of relief (appendix table 28). In the
Cotton and Appalachian-Ozark Areas only small percentages of both
open country and village relief families received $30 or more in June
1935. The fact that Negro families received smaller amounts of relief
than white families, inasmuch as 19 percent more Negro than white
families in the Eastern Cotton Area and 9 percent more in the Western
Cotton Area received less than $15 for relief, especially needs emphasis.
40...------------------------,40
301--------------------t!
~
8
201-----------
All
ar-
White
~ Wh!!!J':!!slro
Eattern
Collon
Western
Cotton
Appo• 1...cN Hay
Com Spring Winter lb,ching N1w
loc:hicn- Slates ond
Belt wi.ot wi.ot
En,;ilclnd •
Ozorl< Cut-Over Dory
O
FIG. 23-AVERAGE AMOUNT OF GENERAL RELIEF RECEIVED
BY RURAL FAMILIES. BY AREA
June 1935
*Townships in Connecticut and Mossoctusetts only,
AF-Pl14, WPA
In terms of the average amount of relief per family, the families
receiving direct relief were the least expensive and those receiving
work relief were next with the average amount almost 50 percent
greater for the latter type (appendix table 27). Families receiving a
combination of both work and direct relief were most expensive of all.
In June 1935 direct relief cost an average of $13; work relief, $18; and
the combination of both, $25 per rural family. In the case of all types
of relief the cost of relief in New England was on the average over
three times that in the South. Similarly, in almost every case the
cost of each type of relief was greater in the villages than in the open
country.
The average amount granted per family for each type of relief was
smallest in the South (fig. 23 and appendix table 27). The difference
between the southern and other areas was occasionally as much as 100
percent or more. This was particularly true in direct relief cases
019 1ized by
Goos le
82 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
where the cost in the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas was only
about one-third the cost in the Hay and Dairy, Lake States Cut-Over,
and New England Areas. One important point here is the fact that
the effect of the drought was not easily noticeable. That is, the two
Wheat Areas, the Ranching Area, and to a certain extent the Western
Cotton Area experienced the most severe drought. Yet none of these
areas ranked consistently high in its average expenditure for each
type of relief in June 1935.
IJ1gi11zed by
Google
Chapter IX
MOBILITY OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
IN MANY respects mobility is an intangible variable, the effects of
which are difficult to evaluate. This is due to its many possible intercorrelations with other fundamental sociological factors. However,
it is possible to generalize in extreme cases. For one thing, extreme
instability, particularly in an agricultural society, is generally considered in the long run to be disadvantageous to economic and social
conditions. The frequent shifting from place to place has a tendency
to make the individual neglect to develop or preserve his immediate
surroundings since he has no interest in their permanent value. A
population which is continually on the move has a tendency to neglect
the repair of housing, to let landscaping go, and, of even more importance, to be careless about the utilization of land resources. If the
continued existence of the family is dependent upon careful hoarding
of its resources and frugal habits, reasonable stability is an asset and
facilitates the process of accumulating reserves. When the family
moves around at frequent intervals, these slow and careful accumulations gradually are wiped out. In addition to this effect, which is
primarily economic, there is the psychological effect of long and continued residence in the same place. The power of the hearth and the
home in maintaining the stability both of the individual and of the
social order has been noted time and again.' Frequent mobility often
exerts a subtle influence in breaking up the established systems of
social relationships. These systems grow and develop at an extremely
slow rate and are easily broken. Thus, in a very mobile society the
power of group habits and customs may be undermined.
If too great instability is disadvantageous to a society, the reverse
is equally true. A society in which the individual members are completely tied down to one locality may easily degenerate since initiative
may be discouraged if not actually penalized.
Certainly there are few sections in the United States in which the
population might be characterized as exceedingly stable. Many of the
1 See Zimmerman, Carle C., Consumption and Standards of Living, New York:
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1936, ch. VII.
83
Oig1•ized by
Google
84 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
newer sections have been settled but a few generations, and in most of
the older sections new ethnic groups have been intermingled with the
older racial stocks. There is a possibility that some of the isolated
sections of New England may have been too stable in the eighteenth
century, but that condition has long since been removed by the development of industries and cities and by the immigration of thousands of
other Europeans. This situation is also true of the Middle Atlantic
States, while in the South the lack of large-scale immigration is more
than "balanced by the mobility of the tenant and cropper families.
MOBILITY BY AREA
Only crude measures of the mobility of the rural relief population
were available. For the most part the families were divided into three
groups: lifelong residents, referring to those families whose heads were
born in the counties in which they were living at the time of the survey;
predepression migrants, referring to those families whose heads moved
to the counties of survey at any time prior to 1930; and depression
migrants, including those families whose heads moved to the counties
of survey some time during the period January 1930 to June 1935.
Of the heads of rural families on relief in June 1935, 40.5 percent
were lifelong residents of the county, 45.6 percent had moved to the
county before .the depression, and the remaining 13.9 percent were
depression migrants (table 24). Lifelong residence was correlated
rather closely with the period of settlement of the various areas and
with the extent of urbanization.
That the more recently settled areas had fewer lifelong residents
among the heads of rural relief families was very evident. The proportion of such residents was 14.4 percent in the Winter Wheat Area, 17.8
percent in the Lake States Cut-Over Area, 22 .4 percent in the Ranching
Area, and 28.0 percent in the Spring Wheat Area. These are all areas
of comparatively recent settlement, and, indeed, portions of the two
Wheat Areas and of the Lake States Cut-Over Area were settled as
recently as the World War. Proportionately more lifelong residents
were found in the South and the other sections of older settlement.
In the New England, Spring Wheat, and Appalachian-Ozark Areas
only a few of the heads of rural relief families were depression migrants
in comparison with much higher proportions elsewhere. Unusual
migration from January 1930 to June 1935 may be attributed primarily to one or the other of two "causes," the drought or industrial
depression. The extreme drought in the Spring and Winter Wheat
Areas resulted in a large-scale migration out of the territory, and the
business depression in the cities was the cause of a considerable backto-the-furm movement. 2 The back-to-the-fann movement was ap2 Baker, 0. E., "Rural and Urban Distribution of the Population in the United
States," Annals of the American Academy of Political ar.d Social Science, Vol.
188, November 1936, pp. 264-279.
DigtizedbyGooglc
,
.
. ... .. ...........
.
...
.. .......
. ...
: .: .:-..:. .: ·.: .
:. : : ...
· ..:•·.·.. :: : :· :.::•::... :·-~
::-~
.L• Oci atca Pr
~.
llovi11g Ti me .
Dig,tizedbyGoog[e
Digitized by
Google
MOBILITY • 85
TofJle !4.-Mobiliiy of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence
.
and Area, June 1935
1138 counties and 116 New England towlll!hlp~)
Total
p~~~~r- DepreS-slon
Number
Percent
Llfelolllf
residents
of county
62,060
100.0
40.5
45. 6
7,684
1,808
I~. 972
3,712
8,602
7,470
3,184
1, 2f.O
l,S5S
4,220
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
48.1
42. 9
58. 2
30. 0
2S. 5
42. 6
59.6
17. 8
34. 6
36. I
28. 0
16.9
21. 4
8. 2
17.9
21. 6
7. 3
14. 4
22. 4
32. 2
35.0
35. 7
33. 6
52.1
52. 9
50. l
31.3
6!l. 6
48. 9
46.2
6.~. 3
5i. 8
5•- 5
59. 0
35,346
100.0
45.8
39.9
14. 3
4,962
s. 3.10
1,632
4,660
3,404
I, 156
12,034
2. 430
50. 3
44. 2
31. 5
2,274
644
640
100.0
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
lrtl. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
13.1
40. 1
6.3.5
51.9
69. 7
18. 2
23. 3
7. 8
JR. 6
22-4
7. 4
8.8
15.0
17_ 7
20.5
6.5
30. 4
1;. 2
22,494
100.0
33.6
52. I
14. 3
44. 3
40. 3
51.0
27. 5
41. 3
14. 4
17. 7
8.9
Residence and area
I
grant~ to
county
mivrants
to county
TOT.t.L RURAL
All areas __ -----------------------------F.astem Cotton _______________________________ _
\Vhite ____________________________________ _
Keirro ___________________________ --- ______ _
We,;tNn Cotton ________________ --------------White ____________________________________ _
K=o ____________________________________ _
Appalachian-Ozark ___________________________ _
Lake StatPS Cut-Over ________________________ _
Hay an<! Dairy_ -----------------------------Corn
f..,rin,:Belt_-----------------------------------Wheat_ _______________________________ _
Winter Wheat ________________________________ _
Hanching _____________________________________ _
New England ________________________________ _
13. 0
1-----
5,040
2.644
7, 0!'8
5. 2\0
0.1
13. 6
16_ 5
17.7
6. 7
27. 8
19. 1
8.8
OPEN COUNTRY
All areas•------------------------------Eastern Cotton _______________________________ _
White_-------------- - --- --------- ------- -_
Negro ____________________________________
Western Cotton ______________________________ _
White ____________________________________ _
:Kegro __ __________________________________ _
A ppalachian-Orerk __________________________ _
Lake States Cut-Over ________________________ _
Hay an<! Dairy _______________________________ _
Com lleJt_ ___________________________________ _
Spring Wheat _______________________________ _
Winter Wheat ________________________________ _
Ranching _____________________________________ _
5. OlS
2. i84
62. 7
31. 2
~- 7
44. 5
611_8
18. 3
35. 9
39. 4
31.0
17. 7
32. 5
29.5
50. 2
50.9
4S. 1
24. 4
6R. 7
46. 4
VILLAGII
All areas•------------------------------Eastern Cotton _______________________________ _
White ____________________________________ _
KegroCotton
_________
--------· ------------· ---- .._
Western
______________________________
White ____________________________________ _
Negro ________ ----_-----------------------Appalachian-Ozark
___________________________ _
Lake Rtntes Cut-Over ________________________ _
Hay and Dlliry _______________________________ _
Com Belt__----------------------------------.
Spring
Wheat_ ______________________________ _
Winter Wheat ________________________________ _
Ranching ____________________________________ _
-- ---100.0
2. 722
• E,clll!!lve of heads of families whose mohllity
• Exclusive of New Ent.:land.
I. 710
I. 012
2.5'.!8
1,880
652
4, 0:18
1. 21,2
3. ,',/,1
4, f,86
910
616
1,218
W!lS
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
lllO. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
23. 4
39. 3
41.9
17.0
32. 9
42.0
40. I
55.8
56_6
53.6
48. I
71. 9
62. 3
34. 2
49. 7
20.4
11.0
69.9
64.0
62. 7
27. 3
16. 7
20.0
7. I
10. 0
11. 1
14.8
16. 1
9. 7
25.0
20.0
unknown.
parently of greatest importance in the self-sufficing areas of the
Northeast. It was also of great importance in the mountain areas of
the South. This movement from the cities to the farms was of little
importance in the areas of commercialized and extensive agriculture.
Migration because of the drought came principally from the Wheat
.Areas and the Western Cotton Area and resulted in a shift of population within those areas and also a movement to the villages and to
States in the far West.
The southern areas stand out as areas of comparative stability.
Relatively more of the heads of relief families were lifelong residents,
and there were relatively fewer recent migrants. It is a known fact,
Drgmed by
G oog lC
86 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
however, that many of the occupational classes in the South are extremely mobile within short distances. The average white tenant,
cropper, and laborer family _on plantations stays about 5 years on
each farm while the average Negro family remains just over 6 years. 3
Most of the mobility of these classes in the South is of such relativ:ely
short range that it does not appear in the tabulations on which this
report is based.
The greater mobility of white than Negro relief families in the
South is demonstrated by the large proportion of white heads that had
moved into the county of residence since 1929 (table 24). Between
two and three times as many white as Negro heads of rural relief families were depression migrants. These relative proportions held true
in both the open country and villages. Almost three-fifths of the Negro
heads of families in the Eastern Cotton Area and just over two-fifths
in the Western Cotton Area were lifelong residents of the county.
In contrast the proportions of white families that were lifelong residents were only two-fifths and one-fourth, respectively.
The contrast between the open country and village families reveals
again the fact that villages as a whole stand between the open country
and cities in many social characteristics. In all but the Ranching
Area a larger proportion of the heads of relief families in the open country than in villages were lifelong residents of the county. The difference was greatest in the Appalachian-Ozark Area where 66.8 percent of
the heads of these families in the open country were lifelong residents
of their counties as compared with 41.9 percent in the villages. The
Appalachian-Ozark, Spring Wheat, and Ranching Areas had slightly
more depression migrants in the villages than in the open country,
probably for entirely different reasons.
Excluding lifelong residents, rural relief families were considered
from the standpoint of the time of migration. Among the migrant
families there were more depression migrants proportionately in the
Eastern Cotton and Winter Wheat Areas than in the other areas
surveyed. The back-to-the-farm movement was evident in the
greater proportion of depression migrants to the open country than
to villages (table 25). Only in the Spring Wheat and Ranching Areas
was there a larger proportion of depression migrants to villages.
The distance of migration during the depression was also reflected
in the proportions which came from elsewhere within the same State
and from other States. Again migration in the South was seen to be
primarily for short distances. The depression movement from the
cities to farming arens wns probably one of the factors in these migration data. The proportions of relief migrants who came from the
a Woofter, T. J., Jr., Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation, Research
Monograph V, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration,
Washington, D. C., 1936, ch. VIII.
Dig tized by
Google
MOBILITY • 87
Table 25.--Mobility of Mi,rant Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by
Residence and Area, June 1935
(138 counties and JUI New England townahlps]
Total I
Radd- and area
Nu.m- Perber
cent
--
Depression migrants
to county
Predepresslon
migrants to county
Frede- Depreepresslon
slon
Durml•
mlIng
Durflf&Dts
granta
Ing
youth
to
Total
to
child•
or
oounty
county
hood adulthood
--
From From
Total ·same another
State State
-- -- -- - -
TOTAL K111LlL
All areas .......... 38,980
Ealtem Cotton •... .....
White •••••... ......
Necro ..••••..••.•.•.
We11tem Cotion ........
White .••••••.•.•.•.
Necro ..••••.•.••••••
~achlan.Ourk .•.•.
e States Cut-Over.•.
Bay and Dairy ••...•.•.
Corn Belt .••.•.••••...•.
=Wheat...........
ter Wheat .••••.•...
3,9M
2,878
1,108
4,m
3, 114()
1,038
II, 862
3, oc,o
6,622
4,770
2, 2112
1,078
Ranching ....... .... .... 1,442
New England •••. •.••••. 2,861
100.0
76. 6
23.•
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
67. 6
62. 6
80. 3
7-i. 4
71.1
87.3
77.•
83.•
74.8
72. 2
90. 8
87. 6
76. 6
87.0
32. 6
37. 6
Ill. 7
26. 8
28.11
12. 7
22.8
16. 8
25.2
27. 8
9. 2
32. 6
24. 6
13.0
100.0
73.6
:ie.•
20. 6
100.0
'19••
-----100.0
19. 6
80. •
100. 0
~
20. 7
17. 8
17. 9
18. 7
29. 3
20. 11
20.0
17.11
81.11
77.11
74.11
72.8
711.11
79.3
82.2
82.1
81.3
70. 7
79. 1
80. 0
82.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
22.1
77.9
100,0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
19. 8
20.0
111.6
28. 4
27.1
24. 1
21. 8
18.6
18. 3
18. 1
31.8
23.4
21.1
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.1
22. 6
25. 11
27. 2
:au
72..
27.6
---27.6
72..
71. 6
76. 1
78.6
77. 4
28. 4
78. 7
67. 8
72. 8
76. 6
e,. 8
73. 7
61. 0
•11.a
23.11
21.4
22. 6
10.6
21.3
U7
27.2
:U.6
37. 7
26.3
811. 0
IIO. 7
100.0
73.9
28.1
80.2
80. 0
80. 6
73. 6
72. 11
76.11
78.2
81.•
81. 7
81.9
68. 7
76. 6
78.9
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
71. 6
70. 6
78. 6
76. 2
74.8
88. 4
80. 8
M. 4
73.1
711. 6
61.3
82. 7
28. 6
29••
23. 4
80.•
100.0
72.8
27.2
!Kl.8
84. 7
73.11
711.0
72. 6
86.3
!Kl. 6
83. 7
82. 6
80. 9
76. 2
81.2
80. 7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
74. 6
74. 2
76. 6
83. 6
82. 6
91.3
76. 3
64.8
72. 2
72..
63.6
62. 3
63. 1
26. 6
811••
ORM CO'O'MTKY
AD areu •·-·--·-·- 19,142
Eutem Cotton._. __ •••. 2,488
White • •• ••.•.••..•. 1,868
1110
Negro . .•....••..•...
WestemOoUon ........ 8,138
White ••••..•.•..... 2,41111
642
Negro ...............
~achlan.Ozark ..... 8,992
StaUIII Cut-Over.•• 1,986
Bay and Dairy._ .•...•. 8,218
Com Belt .•• . .• .•.••.... 1,686
- - --100.0
ea..
1,668
630
6611
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
158. 2
711.0
73.0
69.6
86.6
73.6
81. 7
72. 6
66.2
112. 1
63. 0
80. 2
36. 6
41.8
21. 0
27.0
ao. 6
13. 4
26.•
18. 3
27.6
33.8
7. 11
87.0
19. 8
All areas'····-·--· 14,0:'le
100.0
78. 4
21. 6
100.0
19. 8
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
Jf().0
100.0
100.0
74.1
70.4
81.9
77. 0
73. 8
88. 4
82. 8
86. 7
77. 9
75. 6
87. 8
71.9
72.6
25. 9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
JOO. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
19. 2
16. 3
26.1
24. 0
27. 4
13. 7
19. 4
16.3
17.6
19. 1
24. 8
18. 8
19. 3
it:,L::::::::
~f!»t!
Banchlna••••••.•••••.••
M.•
23.8
25.2
11. 6
111. 7
46. 6
26.11
20.4
38. 7
17. 3
43.11
Tn.U.GS
Eutem Cotton .........
White .•••.•••......
Negro ••••...••......
Western Cotton •••.....
White •••.•••••.•••.
Negro .. ....... .. •...
~achlan•O•ark ...•.
e Stau-s Cut•Over •.
Bay and Dairy •......•.
Com Belt . .. .. ..•.....•.
uirlng Wheat ••.•••••.•.
Inter Wheat .. ____ ···Ranchlnl-••·· ..... ·-·-1
I
1,616
1,020
41111
1,840
1,444
31111
2,870
1,064
2,404
3,084
724
648
886
29. 6
18.1
23. 0
26. 2
11. 6
17. 2
13.3
22. 1
24. •
12. 2
28.1
27. 6
26.8
24.4
16. 6
17. 6
8. 7
24. 7
36.2
27.8
27.6
36.4
37. 7
36.9
E1eluslve or mfflJ'8,llt beam of families whose period of mlflf&tion was unknown.
EsclUBIVe of New England.
same States were fewest in the Lake States Cut-Over, Ranching,
Spring Wheat, and New England Areas. There were more depression
migrants among whites than Negroes in the two Cotton Areas, but
white families more of ten came from another State (table 25).
Mobility of relief families may also be approached from the point
of view of the number of years of last continuous residence in the
Drg1r1zed by
Goog IC
88 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Ta61e 26.-Length of Last Continuous Residence in County of Heads of Rural Families
Receiving General Relief, by Residence and Area, June 1935
[138 counties and 116 New England townships)
Total I
Residence and area
Num•
ber
Per•
cent
Years of la.st continuoos residence In county
1 or
Jess
2-3
4--15
H
10-14
16-111
--- - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL RURAL
All areas.•••••••••....•.•••... 62,256
:1101'
more
--
100.0
3. 4
5. 7
5.1
10. 2
8.1
8. 2
511.3
6.8
1. 7
6.1
6. 5
1.2
2. 9
1.3
3.4
4.2
1.6
6.3
5.4
1.8
8.8
3.6
7. 6
9. 2
2.9
3. 6
7.3
6. 0
7.4
3. 2
10. 7
8.4
3. 3
6.8
3.0
6.0
6. 7
3.8
2. 8
6.6
7.3
6.3
3.1
12. V
5.9
4.2
10. 4
6.6
12. 7
13. 5
10. 4
6. 3
11. 4
13. 2
12. 9
8.1
17. 4
9.9
11. 2
6.3
5.4
II. 7
9.8
9. 5
6.0
12. 0
6. 7
6. 3
8.8
g_ I
8.0
7.0
13. 0
8. I
6.8
9.0
8. 0
9.4
11. 2
55.2
73.4
45. 2
64. 2
71.4
48. 5
52. 1
M.9
68.8
1,866
4,232
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
All areas 1 ••••••••••••••••••••• 35,474
100. 0
3.6
6.9
6.1
II. I
6.8
6.9
82. 6
Eastern Cotton ••••••••••••••••..••. 4,962
White •••..•••.••••••••••.•.•... 3,328
Negro .•.....••••••••••••••••..•. 1,634
Western Cotton •.•.•••••........... 4,006
White .••••..••••••.••....•...•. 3,440
Negro .........•.•••.•.••....•••• I. 166
AppslRchian•Ozark ..•......••...•.. 12,038
Lake States Cut•Over .•..••.•••••.. 2,456
Hay and Dairy •••••••..•••••••••••. 5,024
Corn Belt ..........••.•••••••.....•. 2, 790
Spring Wheat .••....•••••.•••...•.•• 2,298
Winter Wheat ..•••.•••••..•.....•••
662
Ranching ••••..••••••...•.•.••••.•••
638
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
6. I
6. 7
1.8
L. 4
6.9
1.0
2.6
1.4
3. 3
5. 7
). 7
5. 4
3. I
7.2
9. 2
3. 2
8. 1
9. 7
3. 4
3.3
8.5
6.8
8.0
2.4
13.9
8.2
6.9
7. 4
2. II
6.0
6. 7
3. 8
2.9
5. 9
7.8
7.0
2. 3
13. 3
6.0
8.3
9. 7
5. 5
12. 6
14. 0
8. 7
5.4
10. 7
13. 5
12. 2
6.6
14. 8
10.0
5. I
5. 2
6.0
9. 7
9.8
0.3
4.8
10. 7
9. 7
6. 3
6. 2
7.9
9. 1
6. 3
6. 4
6. 2
7.6
7. 7
7.4
5.1
13. 7
7.4
5. 7
8. 6
6.9
11. II
62. l
55.4
75. 4
50.6
45.2
- - - - -- ---- - - - - - --- -100.0
4. 3
7.0
5.5
O. I
6.0
6. 6
61.5
Eastern Cotton ••.••.••••••.••••.... 7,688
White ••.•.••••.•••.••••••••..•. S,042
Negro ...•.•••••••. __ •••••••••... 2,6-46
Western Cotton ••.••••••••••••.••.. 7,160
White •••..•••.•.••••••.•.•..... 6,340
Negro ......•.•.••••.•...••.•.... 1,820
Appalachian-Ozark ...••••••••••••.. 16,974
Lake Stst,is Cut•Over ••..•••.•.•.•• 3,744
Hsy and Dairy ••.•••••.•.•......... 8,612
Corn Belt. ••....•.•••••••••••••...•. 7,484
Spring Whe&t. •••••••••••••••...•... 3,222
Winter Wheat ..•..••••.•••••••••.•. I, 274
~:~~~~ian,C.::: :: :: :: :: :::::::::: I
0.9
7.5
6. 2
8.9
7.0
13. 2
60.1
36.8
64.0
55.1
OPICN COUNTRY
- - - ------ - - - -- - - - - - - -
66.4
76.1
49.1
51. 7
55. I
73.2
37.8
61.7
VTLU.OIC
100.0
.UI areas'····················· 22,550
--- --Eastern Cotton .••.•.•••••••...••••• 2,726
100.0
White •.•...•••••.......•••••.•• I, 714
100.0
Negro ......••••••••.•.•.•••••••. 1,012
100.0
Western Cotton •.••.......•..•••••. 2,5M
100.0
100.0
White •••••.••••..•.•..••••.•.•. 1,900
Negro ..•..•.........•••••••.••••
664
100.0
Appslachian•Omrk ...........••.... 4,936
100.0
Lake St.ates Cut•Over ..•.••••.••.•. I, 288
100.0
Hay and Dairy ........•••••••••..•• 3,S88
100.0
Corn BelL ......•......•••.•.•...••• 4,694
100. 0
Snring Wheat. •..•....•.•••.•.....••
924
HXl.0
Winter Wheat ..••••.••••••••...•••.
612
100.0
Ranching
1,228
100.0
--------------------------
3. 5
6.9
5.3
7
9.1
9.5
55.0
-6.-7 -4.-10.-5 --7.0
- --8
7.6
3. 1
60.3
11.
4. I
1.4
4. 6
5. 7
1.6
3. 4
I. 2
3. 4
3.3
1.0
6. 2
6. 5
8. 2
4. 3
6. 7
8. 4
1. 8
4. 2
6.0
4.8
7.0
6. 2
7. 2
8. 5
6. 7
3. 2
6.0
6.6
4.0
2.4
5.1
6.9
6.0
5.0
12. 4
5. 9
11.8
8. 3
12. 8
12. 6
13. -~
8. 5
12. 6
12. 9
13. 3
II. 9
20. 3
9.8
8. 5
6. g
9. 8
9.8
9. 8
9. 2
H.4
10. 3
8. I
8. 7
10. 1
5.9
7.4
6. 5
11.0
11. 6
9. 2
JI. 7
14. 3
9.0
7. 4
10.0
9. 2
8.1
64.3
70.4
49.1
45. 3
60. 2
60.6
47. 4
52. 7
64.11
58. 2
3.~. 6
55.3
• Exclusive or heads or families whose length or la.st continuous residence was unknown.
• Exclusive of New England.
county. Again the South stands out as being, in general, a region of
stable families and of long-time residents in a single co;.inty (table
26). Rural relief families in the Eastern Cotton Area were more
stable than those in the Western Cotton Area. More long-time residents were found in the Appalachian-Ozark than any other area.
In contrast, the Winter Wheat and Lake States Cut-Over Areas had
the fewest residents of 20 years or more. Almost the reverse was true
of families which had been resident in the county for less than 6 years.
IJ1gi11zed by
Google
MOBILITY•
89
More of these families were found in the Winter Wheat, Ranching,
and Western Cotton Areas and fewer in the Spring Wheat, Appalachian-Ozark, and New England Areas.
Again, in the classification according to years of residence, Negroes
stood out as a more stable group than whites (table 26). In the
Eastern Cotton Area 73.4 percent of ·the Negro relief families and
55.2 percent of the whites had lived in the county for 20 years or
more. In the Western Cotton Area the comparable percentages were
64.2 and 45.2, respectively. Considered according to the proportion
of families which had lived less than 1 year in the same county,
whites were again seen to be more mobile than Negroes. lnd~ed,
there were three to five times as many white as Negro families in this
category.
MOBILITY BY OCCUPATION
Agriculture is an occupation which encourages stability as contrasted with nonagriculture. Of all rural relief families whose heads
Ta61e !7.-Mobility of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence
and Usual Occupation, June 1935
[138 counties I J
Residence and usual occupation
Total•
Lifelong
1 - - - - - - - 1 residents
Number
Percent
of county
~e~7.'"
grants to
county
Depression
migrants
to county
_____,_____ ,____
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- ____ ,
TOTAL RURAL
Total_...................................
58,000
100. 0
40. 9
44. 6
14. 8
---•i----1-----1------l---24,746
100. O
47. 5
38. 3
14. 2
Ji, 974
JOO. O
49. 7
38. 3
12. o
6, ii2
100. 0
41. 4
38. 5
20. I
Nona~riculture .....•....................•.... _ 23,014
JOO. 0
3tl. 2
46. 4
17. •
White collar...............................
2,008
100. o
33. 9
44. I
22. O
Skilled_...................................
3,240
100. 0
28. 6
48. 9
22.6
Semiskillecl................................
3,346
100. O
36. 4
42. 2
21. 4
Unskilled..................................
14,420
100. 0
38. 3
47. O
14. 7
1
Agricultnre....................................
Farm operator.............................
Farm laborer..............................
tk~
~~~~~i~.~~~:'.~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::g
~J
::~
g:~
OPEN COt"NTRT
Total ••••..•.•••.........•••••.•.•••.....
Agriculture ...................•.......•..•.... _
Farm operator ............................ .
Fann laborer .•••...................•......
NonR,n-iculture ....•................•........•.
White collar.............•.•...............
Skilled ...........•.•••••••.•••.•.•........
Serr-iskilled ....•.......•••••.••............
Unskilled ......................•...........
35, 462
20, 300
15,006
4. 340
9, i92
604
~~:!~~i~.~~~:'.~~: :: :::::::::: :::::: ::::::::
100. 0
45. 7
39. 7
14. 8
----1-----1----1---100. 0
49. 2
37. 3
13. 6
JOO. 0
51. 0
37. 7
II. 3
100. 0
42. 6
35. V
21. 6
JOO. 0
41. I
39. 3
19. 6
100. 0
32. 6
38. 4
29. I
1,274
IUO.O
28.9
43.2
27.V
I, 4i2
6,442
100. 0
100. 0
35. 7
39. 5
26. 0
15. 6
f>i2
ICXl. 0
4, 602
100. O
38. 3
44. V
60. 4
37. 7
29. 8
9. 8
52. 5
V. 8
VILLAOII
TotaJ_···-··················-········ ..•.
Agrlculture ..... _..............................
Farm Ol)<'rRtor ..• • •• • • . • . •• • . . . . . . . • • • . • . . .
Farm laborer..............................
Non~r,\~~I~~;;~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
flkilled. _.. ....• ..••. ..•• •...• .•. •. •.•.....
22,538
100. O
33. 5
61. g
14. 8
---·1----1-----1-----1---4,440
100. O
39. 3
43. I
17. 6
2, {M)8
100. 0
311. 4
43. I
17. 6
2, 432
100. O
39. 2
43. 2
17. 8
1u~
I, 966
Semiskilled ...••..•.•.••.•.•.• _............
Unskille<l ......•..•••••• ············-·. •...
I, S,4
7,978
~~~~i:.-:~~~.t'.~~--::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I
1
4,
l::z
:n
100. 0
28. 4
100. 0
34. 9
32. 9
ICXl. 0
mi ::: z
~J
!~:61.5
g
47. 3
6.l. I
iu
15. 8
rn: g
17. 8
14. O
1
~:g
Data not avai!Rble for New En1lnnd town~hips.
Exclusive heads families whose mobility
of
of
was unknown.
o,gmzedbyGooglc
90 •
RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
were usually engaged in agriculture, 47.5 percent of those in agriculture were lifelong residents of the county in contrast with 36.2
percent of the heads in nonagriculture (table 27). Farm operators
were more stable than farm laborers, but among the nonagricultural
occupations unskilled laborers were the most stable group. Some
differences appeared among these occupational levels in regard to the
number who had been migrants before the depression, but the most
important differences appeared in the number of depression migrants.
More nonagricultural than agricultural workers had moved during
the depression. More than one-fifth of the white-collar, skilled, and
semiskilled workers and one-seventh of the unskilled workers had
moved since 1929. Within agriculture more farm laborers than farm
operators had moved during the depression. Among farm laborers
and among nonagricultural workers there were more depression miTa6le 28.-Mobility of Heads of Rural Families Receivin_g General Relief in the Eastern
and Western Cotton Areas, by Color and Usual Occupation, June 1935
(44 counties]
Total
Color and usual occupation
I
Percent
J,ifelong
residents
of county
100. 0
39. 2
43. 0
17. 8
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
41. 4
42. 5
39. 5
36. 3
39. 9
28. 6
33. II
38. 1
46. 8
36. 5
40. 2
41. 2
38. 6
42. 2
39. 8
40. 1
42. II
42. 9
36. 2
53. I
18. 4
16. 3
21. 9
21. 5
20. 3
31. 3
23. 2
Ill. 0
17. 0
10. 4
0------1
Number
~l~e~"j::"· Depre..ss!on
grants to
migrants
county
to county
TOTAL RURAL
Total_ •. ----·--·---·--· - . -- ·--. ------ -- -·
Agriculture ........ ____ .·- .•. _. __ . ____ ._. __ ._ ..
Farm operator ___ .··--·····-····--·-·--···.
Farm laborer.·-··-········--··----···-·-··
NonBl!ficulture ..... --···-··-···--------·-----·
White collar·---·---···---··--···-·-·······
Skilled .. ------······-·---·---·----··--····
Semlskllled ..... _...... ---·····-·-·-·----··
Unskilled ........ ·-·-·· .... -·-·---···---·-·
No usual occupation ..... -.--·-··-·-·-----·-·-·
Nonworker ...• ·---·---····-·-·······-·-···---·
14,850
7, 514
4. 614
2, 900
4, 186
532
518
820
2,316
3i6
2, 774
---1-----f----1----
Wlil'fll
Total.·-·----------·--·-·-·--··-------···
Agrlculture .. __ ··-----·--· ·-·-·· ... -----·· .•...
Farm opcrator-··-·-·-···-·---·-·····-·-••·
Farm lahorer ... -··-···-·-·····-·-·--·-·•-·
Nonairriculture .. -.. ···-·---·-·-•··-·-··---·--White collsr.. --·-·---·-·---·--···-··-·-···
Skilled ... ---···----·---·--·-··-·-······-··
Semiskilled .• -··-······---·-··-·--··--·····
Unskllled .... - .. ···•---··-·-·-·-·-·-·---···
~~:.!~:i~.~~~:'.~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
10,384
100. O
33. 8
44. 3
21. 9
5. 408
3,516
1,892
3,142
502
470
700
1,410
100. 0
100. O
100.0
100. O
100. 0
100.0
100. O
100. 0
34. 5
37. II
28.1
33. O
42. 2
26.4
32.1
32. 3
43. 4
43. l
44.0
41. 6
37. 11
39.1
4.1. 2
43. 0
22. I
~:;
i;J
------·t----11----~---
1,
~
1:: g
111. O
27.9
25. 4
Ill. 9
34.5
24. 7
24. 7
~r=
NEGRO
Total .. __ .• ______ .. _-·-. ___ .•.. ·- --- . - . - .
4, 466
Agrirulture .................. ··-·-·· ··-- ...... .
Farm operator .. ·-·-··-·-···-···--·-·······
Farm lahorer ·-·--·----······--··-····-····
Nonngrirulture. ···-. ·--·-··--·-·-·-·--· ·-·-···
2, 106
1, Oil/!
White collsr.-·-·---·--·----· ... ·-· ···--·-·
Skilled .. _.··-·---·----·----·-··----·---· ..
Semiskilled. _______ ._---· •... _..... __ .. _·-·
Unskilled .•.. _··---·--··-····-···--·-·-··.
No usual occupation ... -·------··---·--·----·-Nonworker ..... __ . ______ ._. ___ ····--······-···
100. O
51. 7
40. 2
8. l
---1----,------100. 0
59. l
32. 0
8. II
100. 0
67. 4
00.11
46. 4
906
100. 0
100. 0
1,286
100.0
-
1,oos
1,044
!~
f,0
:m
100. 0
1mo
l
t
35. I
28.6
43. 8
7. 5
10.5
9. 8
li6. 7
47. 0
40. 0
42. 8
3. 3
10. 2
7
SO.II
6.4
t
,.
t
l
t
t Percent not computed on a base or fewer than 50 cases.
1
Exclusive of beads of families whose moblllty was unknown.
01gmzedbyGoogle
t
t
MOBILITY • 91
gra.nts proportionately in the open country, but among farm operatol'B
there were more depression migrants in the villages. Thus, the
depression meant a move to the village for farm operators and a
move to the country for nonagricultural workers, while many farm
laborers simply moved to another location in the open country.
The greater mobility of white families on relief in the South was
principally a racial difference rather than an occupational difference.
This is indicated by the fact that there were more lifelong residents
■
:.~~
Residence In yeors
~ 2-3
□ 4-5 ~ s-9 ~ 10-14 ~ 15-19
11 ;~,:
60
J
50
50
J
40
30
20
10
0 ~-~-~F~a,~m~F•a-,m~~-,m~~•,m-~W•hiteLS•k••·11eLdA~• m
• l-~ Un•-~Na• u•suL0IA'~
- ---J0
o_, tenon! cropper laborlr collar
skilled skilled occupotlon worker
F1G. 24-LENGTH OF LAST CONTINUOUS RESIDENCE IN COUNTY
OF HEADS OF RURAL FAMILIES RECEIVING
Gf;NERAL RELIEF, BY USUAL OCCUPATION
June 1935
AF•Hlll,WPA
and fewer depression migrants among Negroes than whites for both
agriculture and nonagriculture (table 28). The difference was greater,
however, in agriculture than in nonagriculture.
The occupational differences according to length of residence in the
county in which they resided at the time of the survey also show that
workers in agriculture were in general more stable than those in none.griculture; 63.2 percent of them had lived 20 years or more in the
same county in comparison with 52.9 percent in nonagriculture (fig. 24
and appendix table 29). The stability of the specific occupations
within agriculture lessened with progressive steps down the scale as
indicated by the proportion that had resided in the same county for
20 years or more. In contrast, stability in nonagricultural occupations
increased with progression down the occupational scale with the
Digitized by
Google
92 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
exception of white-collar workers. The explanation for these differences lies in the fact that the increased responsibility for property in
the upper occupational levels of agriculture has a tendency to tie the
family more firmly to a particular farm and to increase the interest in
improving and developing one farmstead. Farm laborers, however,
must necessarily move about frequently from one place to another
and do not often identify themselves completely with any particular
location. The reversed position of nonagricultural workers in rural
areas was due to conditions of labor supply and demand in isolated
districts. This was most strikingly brought out in the differences
between the open country and villages. In the village there was a
slight tendency for mobility to increase in the lower occupational
levels although unskilled laborers were a relatively stable group. In
the open country, however, the most mobile groups were the whitecollar and skilled workers, and mobility decreased successively with
the other occupations. This was due to the difficulty encountered by
unskilledlaborersinfindingotherworkinruralenvironmentswhentheir
original occupation was discontinued. In contrast, white-collar and
skilled workers were more in demand in rural areas and had greater
bargaining power and greater resources in seeking employment.'
In every occupational group Negroes were much more stable than
whites (appendix table 30). Since Negroes in nonagricultural occupations were less stable than those in agriculture, however, the comparative differences between whites and Negroes were most marked in
agriculture.
RELATION BETWEEN MOBILITY AND FAMILY TYPE
Mobility varied greatly among the rural relief families in different
areas of the country and had different consequences. As pointed out
above, families in some areas were much more stable than those in
Qther areas.
So far as the usual rural migratory movements are concerned, the
country may be divided into areas which roughly correspond to the
length of time since their original settlement. The rural relief families
in the older areas of the East and South, having been settled for generations, were less mobile than those of the North and West where the
populations have lived but a comparatively brief time and have not
become firmly attached to the soil. Some modifications of this principle were introduced in the Middle Atlantic and New England States
where the extensive urbanization and industrialization have increased
' For a more complete discussion of the difficulties encountered by skilled and
Unskilled industrial workers in a rural environment, see Zimmerman, Carle C. and
Frampton, M. E., Family and Society, New York: D. Van Nostrand Company,
Inc., 1935, ch. XVI.
Drgmed by
G oog lC
Rt:a ett lcw f ut A dminisln1tiu11
i
Lu 11~/ ( J .
.l/iyrulory Luburl'r Fumily,
DiglllzedbyGoogle
Digitized by
Google
MOBILITY • 93
the mobility of the population generally. 6 Another factor in the
Northeast is the relative importance of foreign immigration in the
last 50 years. Thus, mobility is roughly correlated both with geographical regions and with type of agriculture, and one may say that
mobility in the rural relief population increases as one moves from
the East to the West and from the South to the North.
The small-scale and yet rapid migrations in the South were largely
excluded by the definitions of migration which were used in this study.
A well-known fact was concealed in so far as residence was considered
according to county and not according to farmstead. Since it seems
probable that the most important effects of migration are to be found
in its social results rather than in its economic results, however, this
mobility in the South was really less serious for relief families than that
in other parts of the country. Thus, families in the South normally
move only a few miles at any one time and probably do not often get
outside the bounds of their immediate primary group relationships so
that the stability of the social structure is maintained. The principal
loss involved in the high rate of mobility in the South is the degeneration of property and other capital goods on the farm and, on another
level, there is the psychological effect.
In contrast, mobility in the commercial and extensive agricultural
areas, particularly in the Wheat and Ranching Areas, is of a type which
maintains economic stability through property ownership or long-term
tenantry. At the same time it allows the complete disruption of
intimate social relationships, customs and traditions, and cultural
values. Most of the areas west of the Mississippi have been settled in
a very recent period, and families and groups have not succeeded in
sinking their roots deeply into the soil. Of even more importance is
the fact that this population is comparatively heterogeneous, and
settlement has been an individual rather than a group affair. Migrations in this part of the country have continued to be comparatively
frequent, over long distances, and by individuals and families rather
than by groups and communities. Under such conditions of mobility
there is a tendency, however, for the social structure to become more
homogeneous over wide areas and for group loyalty to become more
associated with the larger aggregates and less with the immediate and
intimate primary group. Yet, since in the long run a system of stable
relationships cannot be firmly built upon secondary groups, it is evident that the type of mobility in this section of the country tends to
have more important social effects than that in the Cotton Areas.
Thus, in the South, the immediate primary group relationships may
6 See, for example, Whetten, N. L. and Devereux, E. C., Studies of Suburbanization in Connecticut, I. Windsor, Bulletin 212, Storrs Agricultural Experiment
Station, Storrs, Conn., 1936.
D1g111zedbyGoogle
94 •
RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
be maintained to a greater extent and the fundamental basis of the
social order may be kept relatively intact.
Mobility is, then, related to the type of rural relief families.a Individualized family groups are usually associated with high rates of
mobility; and the family type at the opposite extreme, in the familistic
society, is associated with stability. Such mobility may be either a
cause of or an effect of individualization. Yet the understanding of
the direction of causation is less important than the appreciation of
interdependence and of the fact that the final effects are not absolute
but relative. The first effects of migration are possibly an increased
family unity, and the group becomes necessarily more self-centered if
it is to survive. Later, however, if this process continues and is
prevalent among other families, a rapid mobility tends to break down
all established social relations, including those of the family. In this
manner the individualized family has set the prevailing tone of the
social structure in the newly settled as well as the urbanized sections
of the country. Familism is most evident in the Appalachian-Ozark
Area and other areas of stability; and the Cotton Areas, with their
short-distance mobile families, fall into an intermediate position.
Here the family has indeed become more self-conscious and more selfeentered, but the dominant familism of the social system has not been
destroyed.
• For a more detailed study of migration of families during the depression of
the early thirties, see Webb, John N., Migrant Families, Research Monograph
XVIII, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1938.
Diglized by
Google
Chapter X
EDUCATION OF RURAL RELIEF FAMILIES
EoucA
AS
TION
measured by the number of years of formal schooling is a valuable index of the socio-economic position of rural relief
families. In general it is correct to say that there is a rough correlation between social status and the duration of schooling. This is not
meant to imply any one-way relationship between the extent of a
person's education and his success in life. On the average, however,
persons who have the most ability, according to the standards of the
culture, tend to remain in established schools the longest. This is
true in comparing large numbers of cases within a particular area, but
different localities are hardly comparable. Nevertheless, it is very
useful to compare the number of years of education for the aggregate
population in these different areas in order to gain some understanding
of the comparative educational level.
EDUCATION OF HEADS BY AREA
Heads of rural relief families were on a comparatively low educational level. 1 Less than 4 percent were high school graduates and only
about 35 percent had as much as a grammar school education 1
(appendix table 31). This means that about two out of three of these
heads of families had dropped out of school some time before the
eighth grade. In addition, great differences were evident between the
open country and the village heads. In every area more of the village
heads had completed the eighth grade, and for the country as a whole
this difference was 11.1 percent. The areas which stand out as
apparently providing the best educational facilities are the urbanized
and commercial sections (excluding the Cotton Areas), where almost
two-thirds of the heads had an eighth grade education or better. In
1 For a comparison of the educational attainments of the heads of relief and
nonrelief households, see McCormick, T. C., Comparative Study of Rural Relief
and Non-Relief Households, Research Monograph II, Division of Social Research,
Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935, p. 30 ff.
I Data on education were available for October rather than June 1935. See
Introduction, p. xn.
95
Dig trzed by
Goog Ie
96 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
sharp contrast were the cotton and the self-sufficing areas where very
small proportions of the heads had the minimum grammar school
education. 3 This was true for both races in the South although
Negroes were on a much lower educational level even than whites.
If the length of schooling for heads of rural relief families is expressed
in terms of median school attainment, the areas retain the same
relative positions but a generally more favorable impression is received. The median for all heads of rural relief families in the United
States was 6.4 grades, but in the Corn Belt, Wheat, Ranching, and
New England Areas this median was more than 8 grades (table 29
and fig. 25). Progressive changes in educational standards in the
United States as a whole are also evident in that the median number
of years of schooling was higher for each younger age period. However, since the educational level in New England has been consistently
high for over a century, the change was not great in this area, and the
median was more than 8 grades for each age group. In contrast, the
rapid change in the Cotton South was evident, inasmuch as this
median was from 4.5 to 5. 7 grades for heads 45 years of age and over
and from 5.8 to 8.2 grades for heads aged 16-24 years. Thus, promise
is given of a future educational level in the South comparable to other
sections of the country.
A low educational level is not a phenomenon peculiar to the South,
but it is also prevalent in all areas of the United States where subsistence or small-scale agriculture is predominant. The median school
attainment for rural relief heads of families in the Eastern Cotton and
Appalachian-Ozark Areas was slightly more than 5 grades, in the
Western Cotton Area 6.4 grades, and in the Hay and Dairy and Lake
States Cut-Over Areas between 7 and 8 grades. In all other areas
the medians were more than 8 grades. This difference was most
important, however, for the older heads, and in all areas except the
Eastern Cotton and Appalachian-Ozark relief heads 16-24 years of
age averaged more than 8 grades.
Differences between whites and Negroes in the South are again
evidenced in that the median school attainment for heads of rural
relief families in the Eastern Cotton Area was 5.9 grades for the whites
and 2.9 grades for the Negroes and in the Western Cotton, 6.7 grades
for the whites and 5.3 grades for the Negroes. In the Western Cotton
Area the great improvement in education in recent years appeared in
the case of the Negro heads whose educational level had been brought
up more nearly equal to that of the whites (table 29).
• Comparison of education in the South and other area.a according to years of
schooling is made difficult by the fact that in many Southern States a high school
education is completed in 11 years and a grade school education in 7 years. Yet
this practice is not uniform throughout the South so that no standard can be set
for the region as a whole.
IJigmedbyGoogle
-
"'
~~
~1,~~
::,: ' .
u~~
..
..1.
1
\_.
llf.
•
'iii
~
..
"
J' cud1i11y . \11 11 / .\'c11u·u 'J'u l< cw l.
Gig ttzf'd by
Goog Ie
Digitized by
Google
EDUCATION • 97
Ta.,. 29.-Average
School Grade Completed by Heads of Rural Families Receivln9
General Relief, by Residence, Area, and Age, Odober 1935
1
(138 counties and 83 New England toWDBblps ']
A versi!e grade completed, by 111111
Resldenre and area
Total•
1~24
years
21>-34
35-4-l
years
years
45yean1
and over
-----------------1--- --- --- --- --TOTAL &URAL
All&rl'IIS--····································
Eastern Cotton .......•••••••• ••••• ••••• •••••••••••••
-::~~:::: ,:::: :: ::::: ::: :: ::::::::::::::::::::.
6.4
7. 8
7. 4
6. 4
5.6
- - - - -- - - - - - --6. 3
6. 2
6. 8
5. 9
4. 5
6.9
2. 9
6. 4
6. 7
6.3
6. 3
7. 3
7. 9
8. 2
8. 1
8. 2
8. 4
8.3
Wesu-rn Cotton .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• - ••••••.
White ..•••••••• •.• .....••••••••••••••••••••••••.
Negro .......•.•••••••••••••• ••••• •••• ••• ••• .••.•
Appalachian.Ozark .•.• ••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••.••
Lake States Cut.Over ••••••.• •• •• ••• •••••••••• •••• ••
Hay and Dairy •••.••..•••••.••••• •••.• ••••• ••• •• •••.
Corn Belt ....•.•......•••••••••••••••. · ······· ··-···
Spring Wheat. •••.•...•.•.•••.••••••••••••••••••••••
Winter Whrat •••.... •.•.••••••.•••.•••••••••••••••..
Ranchtn1r. •• ·•·····••·••· •·••••• ·••• •• •••••••••••• •·
New
Enaland •••.. •••.• ..•• • ••••••• • ••••••••.•••••• .
6. 7
4. 9
8.2
8. 3
6. 9
6. 6
8. 4
8.6
8. 7
8. 3
~- 7
9. 4
8. 6
6. 6
3. 6
7. 0
7.1
6. 9
6. 0
8. 4
8. 3
8. 6
8. 3
8.3
8. 7
8. 6
6.1
3. 0
6.3
6.6
6. 2
6. 3
7. 2
8. 0
8. 2
7.9
7. 9
8. 3
8.3
6. 2
l. 9
6. 7
6. 1
4. 8
4. 5
6.4
6.9
7. 1
8. 1
8. 1
8.2
8. 2
OPIIN COUNTRY
All areea •. . .........•••...••••.•...•...•••....
Eastern Cotton.•.••...•..• •• •••••••••••••• •••• ••••••
White ...••••..••••• ••.. • •••••• ••••.•••••••••• ••.
Negro ...••.•.... •••..•••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••
Western Cotton •.• ...•. .• • ••••••• ••• ••••••.••• ••••..
White .••••••.•.•••....••••••.•••• .•• •. ••••••••.•
Negro ......•.....•••••••.••••.••• •••••• • ••••••••
Appalachtan•Ourk .•.•••••..•••••••••••••• - •••••••••
Lake fltates Cut.Over ..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .
Hay and natry ......•.•.•.••• . •• ••••• • ••••••••••••• •
Com Belt . ..••••.•.••• •• ••••••••••••••••••• _••••••••
Spring WheJ\t. •..•..•.• ••••. .••••• ••••• •••••••••••••
Winter Wbrat •.••.• ..•••••••• ••• •.••• •••• .•••••••••
7. 2
7.0
6. 2
11. l
6. 1
- -6.-7 - -6.-1 - - 4.-4
----6. 1
6. 8
Ranching . _ •••••....•..••.••••••••••••.•••••••. • ••• •
6. 6
2.8
6.4
6. 7
6. 4
6. 1
7. 2
7. 8
8.0
8. 1
8. 1
8.0
6. 4
4. 8
8. 1
8. 2
6. 8
6. 1
8. 4
8. 4
8.6
8. 3
8.6
8. 0
6. 3
2. 4
7. 0
7. 1
6.6
6.8
8. 2
8.2
8. 6
8.2
8. 3
8.3
6. 8
3. 1
6. 3
6.6
6. 6
6. 2
7.4
8.0
7. 7
7. 3
7. 8
7. 2
4.8
2. 0
6.6
6. 9
4. 4
4. 2
6. 3
6.8
6. 9
8. l
8.0
7.3
6. 9
11. 3
8.1
6. 7
6. 1
7. 2
3. 1
6. 4
6.8
5.1
6. 7
7. 5
8. 0
8. 3
8. 2
8.3
8. 6
7. 0
4. 11
8. 4
8. 4
7. 7
8. 3
8. 9
8.8
8. 4
8. 7
7. 4
6. 2
6. 7
7. 2
6. 3
6. 3
8. 6
8. -~
8. 6
8. -~
8. 3
9.0
9. 0
6. 9
2. 6
6. 4
7. 0
4. 6
6. 4
6. 8
8. 0
8. 3
8. 2
8. 0
8. 6
VTLU.011
All areas• ................ . ... . .. ·· · ·-······-··
Eastern Cotton .•••..••.. •• •••••••••••••••.• •• •••••••
White . •.•••• ••.••.••••••• •• •••• • ·-·· ••••••••••••
Negro ........••.•. ••••• •• •••••••.•••••••••••••••
Western Cotton .••• . ••••••••.•••••••••• •• •••••••••••
White .••••••.••.•••••••••.••••• ••••• · -···· ·· ··· ·
Ne,ro ..........••••••.••••••••••••• •••••• •.•• .•.
Appalachian.Ozark ......•.••••••••••••••••••••• ••••.
Lake Btatr.s Cut•Over .•.... •.•• •.. . ••• •.•••••••••• •.
Hay and Dairy .•.. •• ....•..•••..••.•••.•••.•••••••••
Corn Belt . ........•• ••..•.••• ••..• •••.••••••••• •••••
Spring Wheat. ••..••••..•. . .••••••••••••••••••••••.•
Winter Wheat .••..•........••••• •. .•.. . . •••• •• ••.• • .
Ranchin~ ..•.... . .•.•......•.••••.•••.•.•.•••••••..• •
- - 4.-8
- -6.11
- - -6.- -6.-6 - -6.8
9
t
7. 2
1.8
6. 1
6. 5
4. 8
6.0
15, 6
7. 0
7.9
7. 7
8.3
8.3
t Median not computed on a base of fewer than 60 casea.
Median.
• Townships in Connecticut Rnd MRSSBchus,,tt.s only.
• Erclusive of heads ol ramifies whoso school attainment was unknown.
• Exclusive ul New England.
1
Although the education of heads of families 16-24 years of age was
on a higher level than that of any older group of family heads, there is
still much which should be done. Among the families studied, less
than 9 percent of the youthful heads were high school graduates and
more than two out of five were not even grammar school graduates
(appendix table 32). For the country as a whole 42.1 percent of these
heads in the open country and 58.0 percent in the villages had at least
Digitized by
Google
98 •
RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
8 grades to their credit. Relatively small as these proportions may
seem, it is encouraging to note that these proportions are much higher
than in the case of all heads of families (appendix table 31). In every
area the proportion of grammar and high school graduates was
considerably higher for heads 16-24 years of age than for all heads.
10
10
8
8
-8 6 ~
t
C
.6..,
:I
CII
.!5!
j
4
4
2
2
01-..IIZlllg._....,.,_-..._._:J.mr,Ql._~LJ~~--~L...1~---"l--..w.iiL.JW!l.lL.......JO
Al I
While N~ro WM• Negro Appa• Lake Hay
Corn Spr ing Winter Ra>ehing New
oreo s
Eastern
Cotton
Western
Cott on
lachian - Stctes and
Ozark Cut-Over Dairy
Belt
Whea t Wheal
England
FIG. 25-MEDIAN SCHOOL .GRADE COMPLETED BY HEADS OF RURAL
FAMILIES RECEIVING GENERAL RELIEF, BY AREA
October 1935
AF•l!III, WPA
EDUCATION OF HEADS BY OCCUPATION
The fact that education and social status are roughly correlated can
be demonstrated best by the proportion in each occupational group
that had completed an eighth grade or a high school education. The
proportion of high school graduates among heads of rural relief
families was about 2 percent for agricultural workers and almost 7
percent for nonagricultural workers (table 30). In addition, there
was a rough stratification within these broad occupational groups.
For the country as a whole education was positively correlated with
occupational level within agriculture with the exception of farm
laborers. For the last group there were almost as many high school
graduates proportionately as in the case of owners, and there were
in fact more grammar school graduates. Percentages for owners
were apparently unduly weighted in a downward direction by a group
with but little education. An example of this is the fact that there
were more owners. with no formal schooling than was the case among
either tenants or farm laborers. The higher school attainment of
farm laborers was also due to their lower average age as more of them
Diguzed by
Google .
Ta&le 30.-School Attainment of Heads of Rural Families Receivin9 General Relief, by Usual Occupation,• October 1935
(300 counties and 83 New England townships I I
Last grade or year completed
Total•
Grade and high school
Usual occupation
Number
Percent
None
1-3
4-5
8
7
8
College
9
10
11
12
I
3
2
Graduate
work
4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - 2. p
7.;
1. 7
0.4
o. 5
0.1
12.8
20.1
10. 6
9. 5
26.1
4.1
3. 3
0. 2
100.0
Total .••....•••...•.•..
78.886
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - 0. 2
0. 2
0.1
40,014
100.0
14. 9
10. 6
9.6
24. 5
3. 2
2 5
1.0
1.6
0.1
Agriculture ........•••••.....
s. 7
22. 8
-
.
Farm operator. ••.••.....
Owner _______________
Tenant ........•..•..
Cropper• ............
Farm lahorer .• _.........
Nomwrieulture _______________
While collar •...•.••..•..
Skille<l.. .....•..•.....•..
SerniskiJled ....••.....•..
Unskilled ..............•.
No usual occupation .........
Non worker .•................
27,2H
9, 4i2
12.~20
4. 952
12, 7i0
31. 766
2, i72
4,746
4,894
19,3M
2,108
4, 91l8
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
8.8
8.8
7. 4
12.5
8. 4
6.0
1.1
2. 4
3. 7
~- 2
3.9
11. 6
15. 0
13. 6
12. 9
22.9
14. 8
10. 4
2.8
4. 4
7. 5
13. 7
6.9
13.2
23. 5
2"2.8
21. 8
:Ill.I
21. 2
16. 5
5. 2
12. l
13. 9
19.9
20. 1
21.6
10.9
10. 1
ll.3
11.6
9. 9
10. 6
3. 2
10.2
11. 4
11. 5
8. 6
12, I
9. 6
9.5
10. I
8. 2
ll.6
9.8
5.3
11.3
10.8
9. 7
9.3
8.0
24. 7
25. 9
29. 3
11. 3
24. 5
28.4
2S.3
37. 2
32. 9
25. 2
W.8
22. 6
2. 7
2. 7
2. 9
2. l
4.1
4.9
6. 7
6.4
5. 5
4. l
9. l
3. 6
2.1
2. 9
1.9
I. l
3. 4
4. 3
5. 9
5.6
5.4
3. 4
3.0
3. 3
0. 7
0. 9
0.8
0.4
I. 4
2. 4
8.4
2. 4
2.9
I. 4
4.3
1. 4
I. 3
1. 7
I. 2
0.6
2. 4
4. 6
16. l
6. 2
4. 5
2.5
5. 3
1.9
0. 3
0. 5
0. 2
0.1
0.1
0.6
5.0
0. 2
0. 5
0. 2
I. 2
0.1
0. 2
0.3
0.1
-
0.1
0.8
5.6
1.3
0. 7
0.1
1.0
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
--
0.2
1. 4
0.3
..
0. I
-
.
0. I
0.2
0 l
0.1
0.4
4.1
-
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
--
0.1
0.9
---
.
• Less than 0.05 percent.
Data by tLsnnl (){'CUpntion and srhool attainment were not av'lilahle for the area 5ample used elsewhere In this analysis. Hence, 8 l•r~er State sample, taken under the SBme
conditions, was utilized. For a ,Jescription or the State sample see Mangus, A. R., Changing Aiptcl• of Rural Relit/, Research Monograph XIV, Didsion or Soci~l Research, Works
Progrrss Administration, Wnshington, D. C., 1938, appendix B.
• Townships in Connecticut and Massachusetts only.
• Exclusive or heads or families whose school attainment was unknown
• In the 2 Cotton Araas.
1
0
<i'i"
;c.
;::;
"'O"
Q.
'<:
C;
0
o2
'Fi"
rn
C
C:
"
►
::!
0
z
•
~
100 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
have been affected by the increased educational facilities of recent
years.
In the case of nonagricultural workers there was a well-marked
hierarchy which correlated education and relative socio-economic
status. The trend from low education to high education clearly
followed the lines from unskilled to semiskilled, to skilled, and to
white-collar workers. Here the differences were much more exaggerated than in the case of agricultural workers, and the proportions
of high school graduates ranged from 33.1 percent for white-collar
workers to 2.9 percent for unskilled workers. White-collar workers
as a class were very clearly separated from the rest of the occupations,
and all of the nonagricultural occupations were seen to be on a higher
educational level than those in agriculture. Unskilled workers, who
were on the lowest level among the nonagricultural occupations, were
on approximately the same level as the highest group in agriculture.
The educational level of the heads who either were nonworkers or
had no usual occupations was also fairly high, inasmuch as from onethird to one-half of them had a grammar school education. This
compared favorably with agricultural workers and with workers in
the lower levels of nonagricultural occupations.
EDUCATION OF MEMBERS OTHER THAN HEADS
The average school attainment for family members, other than
heads, 16 years of age and over was more than eight grades in each
area except the Cotton and Appalachian-Ozark Areas (table 31). In
contrasting the median number of years of schooling for members
falling within the various age groups, it was evident again that educational standards have been raised conside,ably within the last generation. Because of the longer period of school attendance, youth
16-24 years of age had completed nine grades or more on the average
in the Corn Belt, Winter Wheat, Ranching, and New England Areas.
Most of the rapid recent improvement in education has taken place
in the South, as evidenced by the fact that the average school attainment even for those 45 years of age and over was 8 grades in the New
England, Spring Wheat, and Ranching Areas. That the Southern
States differ among themselves in educational standards is shown by
the fact that the median school attainment for other family members
was 7.6 grades in the Western Cotton Area but only 5.8 grades in the
Eastern Cotton Area.
Schools in many areas today have relatively high standards and
long periods of continuous attendance. This is particularly true in
the villages where the average school attainment was almost nine
grades in six of the agricultural areas studied. In contrast, the
lowest average for any group among the sample families was found in
the open country in the Eastern Cotton Area where the median school
attainment for persons 45 years of age and over was but 3.7 grades.
Dig ttzed by
Goog Ie
. ... . .. .
:..: .:·-.:. .: ·.:
..
TaUe 31.-Average 1 School Grade Completed by Persons 16 Years of Age and Over,
Other Than Heads, in Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence, Area,
and Age, October 193 5
(138 counties and 83 New England townships •)
Averflg<! grade completed, by age
Residence and area
Total
I
25-34
11\-24
yenrs
45 years
and over
35--44
years
years
------------------•--- --- --- --- --TOTAL RURAL
All area., ____ ·--·- - --- -- -- -- -- ---- - -··-· -- -- ••••
Eaatern Cotton __ • ___________ --·-·- _________________ _
White___
__ ·····----·---- - --·---- -- ·--·-Negro
----·-···-·---______
.•••-···--____________
___ -_
7.6
8.2
7.4
6. 7
5. 8
6. 0
3. 2
7.6
7.8
6. 6
6.3
8.4
8.4
8.6
8.4
8.5
8.8
8.6
7.3
3.6
8. 2
8.4
7. 2
7.3
8. 7
8.8
9.0
8.6
11.2
9.3
9.0
6. 3
3. 9
7. 4
7.6
6. 7
6.2
8. 4
8.4
8.6
8.3
8. -~
8.8
8. 7
6.3
3.1
i.0
7. 2
5.5
5.4
7.0
8.0
8.4
8.1
8.2
8.6
8. 4
5. 5
1. 0
6.0
6.6
4.6
4. 7
5.6
7. l
7. 5
8.1
7. 7
8.3
8. 2
7.1
8.0
7.0
6.2
5.4
6.3
2. 7
7.6
7.8
6. 7
6.0
6.9
3.0
8. 2
8.3
7. 3
6.9
8.6
8. 7
8.8
8.5
9.1
8.6
6.1
3 4
7.4
7. 5
6. 7
6.0
8.2
8.3
8.6
8.3
8.5
8. 5
5.U
I. 4
6.9
7.0
6.0
5.1
6. 7
7. 7
8.3
8.1
8.1
8. 4
4.6
I. 4
0.0
6. 6
4.8
4.4
5.1
6. 7
7. 2
8. 3
7.6
8.1
8.6
8. 1
7.6
6.3
8. 7
4.8
8. 3
8.5
6.9
8.1
9.6
9. 2
0. 5
8. 9
9. 4
9.9
7. 4
4. 7
7. 7
7.9
8.3
5.3
7.3
7. 5
6.9
0.8
5.8
6. 7
4.0
5.2
7. 0
7.8
7. 6
6. 9
7.Q
8.3
- --- -5.-8 - -6.4- - -5.-8 - -5.6
4. 4
Western Cotton __ ·····---_--· ____ ---·- __ ---- --- ____ _
Whlte_·---·-··----··-----·-·----------------·-·Negro __ --·--···-···
··- -·--·-·--- -·-----·______ __
ApJ)Blachlan•Ozark
_____________________
• ___________
Lake State, Cnt•Over_ ·--·--·-·--------------------Hay and Dairy_--··-·-·-·-·-·- ______ --·---···---·- __
Corn Belt__··-··--·-·---·-_-·-- _____ --·---·-- ______ _
Spring Wheat __ ··-·---·-·---·- ___ -·- ___ ---·---·-·-·_
Winter Wheat·-··-·---··-----··-·_--·---·-··--- -- --Ranchlnr .. _.• _. _·- _-. -.• ···- ·- --• -• -·-· -• -. --· - -- -- New England_-·--····-··-·-···-----------··------·OPEN COUNTBT
All
RreM ·- - ·····---···-········- ·- ·-·-- -·-- -··
Eaatem Cotton ••. ___ ···-·-·--·--·-·-·-·------·--·-·White_··-··········-··- --- ·- ·- -- ·--·- -- -- --- -- -Negro_ -·····---- ·-···-·-·--- --·--- --·-- ________ _
Western Cotton.··-·- ___________________ --·---- ____ _
White .•••••• _····- _________ -·-·-·- __ -- -- --- --··Ne1tro .• -·-·-·--·-·- -· --- -- --·-·-· --· -- ---- -· -- ·Appalachian-Ozark_. __ -·- ________ -·-·- __ .-···· __ -·-_
L!lke States Cut•Over .. ·----·-·---·---·····-----····
Hay and Dairy·············-·······---··-··--·····-Corn Belt_·-·············· ____ ·-·-·- ____ --·- ____ -·--
- -5.-5 - -5.-9 - -5.6- - -5.-3 - - 3.-7
Wf!~:r
~hh~C:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ranching_······-·············---·- _______ -·-- --- ----
!I. 3
8.3
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.5
VILLAGE
8.1
All areaa •. _··-···· --·- ----- -· _- ___ - -·- --·-· - ..
--Eaatem Cotton_. __ --·-·---- __ ---·- _________________ .
r..8
8.1
White_······---·--·-·-·--··---------·-----·- -- -4.4
Negro
__
········-·-·---·-·----·-----______
·-·--Western C'otton_._ -··-·- _. ________________ . ________ _
7. 7
White_·······---·-···-·- ______ .-·- __ ---- - . - ____ _
7.9
Negro __ ·--···--···-···- _________ --·- ______ -· ___ _
6. 2
Appalachlan•Ozark __ --··-- ____________________ . ____ _
6. 9
Lake States Cut-Over _____________________ . ________ _
8. 7
8. 5
Hay and Dairy_··-·-·-···----·---------------·-----Com Belt.--·-·-·--··-----·-----------·--- _________ _
8. 6
Spring Wheat_----------·-·-----·-- ________________ _
8.5
8. 6
Winter Wheat--··-·-·---·-----------------------···_
Ranching....•••• -_ •. __ ··--·-··-·-- __ --··- __________ _
9.0
- -7.-7 --- -6.-7 - - 5.6
6. 4
t
6. 7
8.8
8.5
8.6
8. 5
8. 7
8.9
t
6.1
8. 2
8.2
8. 4
8.0
8. -~
8.8
t Median not computed on n base or fewer than 50 cases.
Median.
• Townships In Connecticut and MnSMchusetts only.
• Exchtsive or memhers or families whose school attainment was unknown.
• Exclusive of New England.
1
In the South the low standards of education for Negroes dragged
down the average for all families (table 31). The greatest difference
between Negroes and whites appeared in the Eastern Cotton Area
where the median for Negroes was less than four grades at each age
up to 45 years and only one grade for family members of that age and
over. In the Western Cotton Area the difference between whites and
Negroes was only one grade for the two age groups under 3(> years
and two grades in the age groups 35 years and over. Thus, the
o,gmzedbyGooglc
....
...........
.......
. ... . ... •.. .. ..
....
. ·.· : :: : ...·
• • · .• .-H~2••• RURAL F~ILIES
:•·.::::.-· .... .... :.·.·.•
■ ■
•
■
•
I
■
•
■
■
•
ON RELIEF
improvement in education in recent years in the South was reflected
in the school attainments of Negro family members.
In addition the education of many youth in rural relief families
was not complete since they were still attending school at the time of
the survey. Indeed two-fifths of the number aged 16 and 17 years,
other than heads, were still in school as were one-tenth of those 18-20
years of age (table 32).
Ta'1le 32.-School Attendance of Youth 16 Through 24 Yean of Age, Other Than
Heads, in Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence and Area, October
1935
(138 counties and 83 New England townships•)
16-17 years
Total
Residence and area
"
~
z"'
--
8.c -g
.. ,c
<I
1 ... zlil
Ill
<I
18-20 years
3
I., :i
E-<
Z"'
<I
3
0
E-<
8 -g
.. ,c
.c
lil
...
<I
OU
z"'
21-24 years
<I
0
.a
OU
- - -- -- - - -- --
I.a :1zil
<I
3
0
E-<
-----
TOTilRUlliL
All areas .......... 26,244 100.0 17.0 83.0 100.0 41. 4 58. 6 100.0
Eastern Cotton.••••••..
Western Cotton.•••.••..
Appalachlan•Ozarll: ••••.
Lake States Cut•Over••.
Hay and Dairy •••......
Com Belt.. ........••••.
~ring Wheat.. •••..••••
Inter Wheat ••.••••.•.
Ranching ••....•...•••••
New England .....••••••
9. 7
90.3 100.0 0.9 00.1
- - -- -- - - -- -- - - -- -- - - -- --2,364 100.0 15. I 84. 9 100.0 34.6 65.4 100.0 10.0 90.0 100.0 I.II ll8. 4
2, i58
9,934
1,632
2,858
1,492
l, 470
492
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
6118 100.0
1,676 100.0
20.4
12. 8
17. 6
20. 8
22.0
14. 8
33.3
31. 7
19. 6
70. 6
87. 2
82. 4
79.2
78.0
85. 2
66. 7
68.3
80.5
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
46. 3
31. 2
48. 3
55.6
53. 2
32.1
69.8
67.6
61. 7
53. 7
68. ~
61. 7
«. 4
46. 8
67. 9
30. 2
32. 4
48.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
13. 2
7. I
8.6
9. 7
14.2
12. 3
21.1
15.6
8.0
86.8
92. 9
91. 4
90.3
85.8
87. 7
78.9
84.4
112.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-100.0
1.1 llS.11
0.4 00.G
0.4 Oil.II
0.8 00.2
I. 7 ll8. 3
'-3 95. 7
-100.0
- 100.0
100.0
0.8 00.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1.8 118. 2
-100.0
0.8 99. 2
o. 5 99.6
o. 7 99.3
- 100.0
0.11 1111.4
'-8 95.2
-100.0
OPl:NCOUNTRT
All areas'···· ..... 15,208 100.0 13. 8 86.2 100.0 33. 7 66. 3 100.0
Eastern Cotton .•••.•.•.
Western Cotton .....•...
trre-~i~:~nc~f.~fver:::
Hay and Dairy ••...•.•.
Com Belt.......•.•.•••.
wring Wheat ..••.•••.••
Inter Wheat .••...•...
Ranching .•••.••••..•...
7. 7 92.3
- - -- -- - - -- -- - - --7 93.3
-I, 756 100.0 11.6 88. 6 100. 0 26.8 73. 2 100.0
ff.
1,974
G, 514
I, 194
1,650
684
1,024
316
196
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
18. 9
10. 6
17.8
16. 4
16. !!
8.0
33.5
31.6
81.1 100. 0 44. 0 56. 0
89. 4 100.0 25. 4 74. 6
82. 2 100. 0 47.8 62. 2
83.6 100. 0 47. I 52.9
S.1. 2 100. 0 41. 4 58.6
92.0 100.0 19. 3 80. 7
66.6 100. 0 66. 7 33.3
68.4 100.0 62. 3 47. 7
100.0 11. 9 88. I
100. 0 G.O 94.0
100.0 7. I 92.11
100.0 8.9 93. I
100.0 9. 2 90.8
100.0 8.4 93.6
100.0 19.G 80.4
100.0 23.6 76. 6
VILLAGI:
All areas• .........
Eastern Cotton •••...••.
Wes tern Cot ton ....• _.••
Appalachian•Ozarll:. _•••
Lake States Cut•Over•••
Hay and Dairy ••••.••••
Com Belt.•.•.•.•••.•••.
~[!~:ri\':i::::::::::
Ranching •.•.•.•.•.••...
8,360 100. 0 22. 4 77.6
-- - -- -008 100.0 26. 7 74. 3
784
3,420
438
1, 20!!
908
446
li6
372
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
24. 2
17. 0
17. 4
26.8
26.3
30. 6
33.0
31. 7
75.8
83.0
82. 6
73.2
74. 7
69. 5
67.0
68.3
13. 7 88.3 100.0 1. 3 ll8.7
- -- -- - - ------ -100.0
56. 7 43. 3 100.0 19.5 80.6 100. 0 1.1 118.11
100.0 53. 6 46.4
-100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
61.8
42.6
60.0
65. 7
61.9
66.6
76.9
77.6
48.2 100. 0 16. 3
67. 4 100.0 9.2
60.0 100.0 12.8
34.3 100.0 13. 5
38. I 100.0 18. 7
•a. 4 100.0 24. 7
23. I 100.0 23. 5
22.4 100.0 11. 3
83. 7
90.8
87.2
86. 5
83. 3
76. 3
76.6
88. 7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-100.0
1. 7
118. a
-100.0
-100.0
1.4 98.11
6.2 94.8
3.6 96.4
-100.0
Townships In Connecticut and Massachusetts only.
• Exclu.sive of New England.
1
Contrasts among areas again appeared, and youth in relief families
remained in school most of ten in the Winter Wheat and Ranching
Areas and least often in the Spring Wheat, Appalachian-Ozark, and
Eastern Cotton Areas. Opportunities for work in the country, as
well as more restricted educational opportunities, were apparent in
the fact that youth in the open country were less likely to remain in
D,g 1,zed by
Google
ll'orh l'rovrc•• Ad 111i11io t ra t io11 .
Hl'li<'( <:hildrt'n (io lu Sdwul.
Oig1 ,zed by
.: .: ..: •.: : ·. : :.. ...
.. . . . . . ... .:•
Google
Digitized by
Google
EDUCATION • 103
school than were village youth. In general, however, there was a.
tendency for rural relief youth to drop out of school rapidly after the
age of 16 years, and less than 1 percent of those aged 21-24 yea.rs were
still in school.
The situation of children 7 through 15 years of age was similar to
that of youth, and the proportions in school were lowest in the southem areas and highest in the New England, northern, and western
areas (appendix table 33). A small number had dropped out of school
at each age until 12.7 percent of those 14 and 15 years old were not in
school.
SIGNIFICANCE OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Education among rural relief families was correlated directly with
relative social status. This held true for occupational classes within
the country as a. whole and within each area, and also in comparing
one area with another. The principle seems valid that the higher the
proportion of nonagricultural occupations the higher is the number of
years of forn1al schooling. In the South the great majority of the
population is still in agriculture so the educational level of relief
families is low in comparison with the areas which are more industrialized and urbanized. This does not necessarily mean that individuals in the South are less prepared to live successfully within the
social order since less formal education is demanded by agriculture
and since there is frequently more informal education within the
family group among farm families. Nevertheless, as the South
becomes increasingly industrialized and as its workers wish to compete with those in other areas, the necessity for higher educational
standards will be obvious. In the other areas the average education
appears more nearly satisfactory for workers of this level, and the
greatest improvement can come in these regions through bringing a.
higher proportion of the population up to this standard and through
raising the quality of this training.
Needless to say, most heads of rural relief families are not illiterate
but have had some formal schooling. In general the claim that
illiteracy is an all-important factor in relief does not seem to hold.
Rural relief families may not have had a. great amount of education
but in general formal schooling is only one of the various factors
necessary to explain relief needs.
Dig11zed by
Google
01 II
edb
Google
Appendixes
105
Diguzed by
Google
Dig11.edbyGoogle
Appendix A
MEANING OF TERMS
SINCE MANY of the terms in this study are used not only as the
rigid definitions necessary for schedule enumeration but also in their
broader significance, a brief discussion of terminology is necessary.
Additional terms have been defined as they occurred in the text.
The most important term is naturally the word family. Historically it was a Roman law term which denoted the community of producers and consumers in a household, including slaves and other
servants as well as members connected by common descent or marriage. The original use of the term family was developed for households which were largely self-sufficing. Other definitions have emphasized the biological or the social aspects of the family, such as blood
relationships or status-determining roles. Family is also used in
modem times for a unit which has a legal and economic basis. 1
According to any of these bases the family may be larger than the
household, or it may exclude certain persons within the household.
This present study is primarily socio-economic, and the household is
used as the closest general statistical approximation to the family. 1
By household is meant essentially those persons dependent upon the
same family budget. In general the members of the household are
biologically related to each other. 3
l See Zimmerman, Carle C. and Frampton, Merle E., Family and Socidy, New
York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1935, ch. II.
• For a more restricted use of the word family with respect to relief data, see
Mangus, A. R., Changing Aspects of Rural Relief, Research Monograph XIV,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
1938, appendix C.
1 The actual definition used in the study was as follows: "Relief Case: A relief
case consists of one or more related or unrelated persons who live together and who
receive ll8sistance as one unit and are considered as one case by the agency giving
the assistance. If two or more families (or nonfamily persons or a combination
of families and nonfamily persons) in a household are handled as separate cases,
each is a separate case for the purpose of this survey." Form DRS 110-B,
Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., 1935, p. 4.
. 107
019 tized by
Goos le
108 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
The concept famuy head is a socio-legal term based upon privileges
and obligations within the family. American law does not emphasize the family head since the legal rights of family members are
stated in terms of relations and of individual interests (domestic
relations, husband and wife, parent and child). But ordinarily, for
economic and social purposes, & family head has the responsibility of
providing for the family or seeing that such provision is made. In
the normal family of husband, wife, and children, the husband is
considered the head. In the broken family consisting of mother and
children or father and children, either the mother or the father tends
automatically to become the head. In the case where a man or a
woman lives with his or her child and the child's husband or wife,
with or without others, such as grandchildren and outsiders, the
tendency is for the son or son-in-law to become head of the family,
chiefly on &eeount of the senility of the other persons. In most cases
the family head is determined by the informal organization of the
family.'
• In the statistical study reported here the instructions concerning family head
were: "Uthe household consists of only one family, the head of that family is the
head of the household. U the household consists of two or more families, consider
the oldest family head as head of the household, unless he or she is 65 years old
or over. In such a case consider as head of the household the oldest family bead
who is less than 65 years old. In determining which member is to be designated
as head of a family, proceed as follows: In oases of married couples, with or without
children, designate the husband-father as bead, except when he is over 64 years
of age and is living with a son or daughter between the ages of 21 and 64 who is
working or seeking work and who is not a member of another family group in the
household. In such a case enter that son or daughter as bead. In the case of a
"'.fdowed, divorced, separated, or single person with children designate the parent
as head, except when be or she is over 64 years of age and is living with a son or
daughter between the ages of 21 and 64 who is working or seeking work and who
is not· a member of another family group in the household. In such a case enter
that son or daughter as bead.
"In cases of households consisting only of single and/or widowed, divorced, or
separated persons, without children, designate the person with the largest earnings or property rights as head. In cases in which a male and female are equally
eligible to be considered as head of a family give preference to the male. If two
or more persons of the same sex are equally eligible to be considered as bead of &
family give preference to the oldest. No schedule should be filled for only one
person under 16 years of age. If such a person is living with adults who are not
his parents and if he is the only member of the household who is receiving relief,
the members of the family with whom he is living should be entered on the
schedule also.
"All members of the head's immediate family and all non-family persons should
be shown in their relationship to the head. When a second or third group in the
relief case constitutes a family unit, the head of the relief case must be designated
head (1) and the heads of the other families as head (2), head (3), etc., showing
also their relationship to head (1). The relationship of the other members of the
second family must be shown to head (2), other members of the third family to
head (3), etc. * • •." Ibid., pp. lS-20.
D,g 1,zed by
Google
MEANING OF TERMS • 109
The term relief, as used in this study, means grants by public and
semipublic agencies. 6 Relief generally means an economic consideration given to a needy person without regard to an economic quid pro
quo or return. In the depression of the last few years the Federal
Government has given two types of general relief, t1JOrlc relief and
direct relief. Work relief has usually been given for services of some
public nature similar to those widespread under the Civil Works
Administration of 1933 and under the Works Program of 1935 and
later years. In this case a quid pro quo or return of some kind or
other was secured by the public or community for the relief given.
In some cases work relief has included a situation in which men have
been hired to work for themselves, as, for example, in the planting of
their own gardens or the building of sanitary conveniences on property
which they own or on which they live. It generally is assumed that
• The exact definition is 88 follows: "Relief: The type of relief received to
render a case eligible for inclusion in the study may be one or both of the following:
1. Any form of material relief supported wholly or in part by FERA funds.
2. Unemployment relief in any material form provided it is aupported wholly
or in part by public relief funds, i.e., Federal, State, county, or municipal funds
designated for the purpose of giving unemployment relief.
These may include:
(a) 'Direct' relief: Material relief in the form of: cash, orders for food, clothing,
fuel, household necessities, rent, medical care given in the client's home or in a
doctor's office (but not medical care given in a clinic or hospital), transportation,
moving expenses, etc.-for which the client is not required to work for the benefits
received.
(b) 'Work' relief: Temporary emergency employment through ERA, generally
on some specified project undertaken by the municipal, county, State, or Federal
Government (or several of these in cooperation).
"In some areas a person working on a particular work relief project may be
paid according to a stipulated wage scale, but only up to the limit of the relief
agency's budgetary allowance for his type of case. In other places, a person
receiving so-called 'direct' relief is required to do a certain amount of work, under
direction of the relief agency, in order to be entitled to his budgetary allowance,
but which work is not (generally) on a definite work relief project, and for which
no wage scale is set. This or any other form of relief given under the requirements
that some work be done should be considered 'work' relief, unless it is reported
88 direct relief to the State ERA.
Do not include:
1. Cases which received only services from the relief agency but which received
no material aid.
2. Cases which received only surplus commodities.
3. Cases receiving Mothers' Pension or other forms of regular assistance which
are not reported to the State Emergency Relief Administration.
4. Transient case1t-interstate and intrastate transient cases do not fall within
the scope of this survey.
5. Cases which received only emergency orders pending investigation of their
applications for relief if the application wa., rejected. However, if the case was
accepted for relief, the date of the emergency order is to be considered the date
of first relief." Ibid., pp. 2-3.
Oig ltZCd bv
Google
110 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
these private types of work relief have a public purpose or will help
to bring about the permanent rehabilitation of the family. Direct
relief is made in the form of gifts to dependent families with regard to
their needs but without expectation of visible return. The legal basis
of such gifts lies in the concept of "status" 6 in which it is held that a
member of society, no matter how unfortunate he may be, has inherited the right at least to sustenance and to the necessities of life.
The concept rehabilitation is related closely to some forms of work
relief. A special rural rehabilitation program 7 was established in
April 1934 under the direction of the State emergency relief administrations to assist rural relief families 8 to become self-sustaining.
Rehabilitation differs from relief to the extent that many of the
rehabilitation grants are made in terms of capital goods. Relief
itself is ordinarily made in money or consumers' goods. The assumption back of rehabilitation is that the provision of capital goods, such
as a cow, a horse, a plow, a season's rental on a piece of land, or the
adjustment of previous debts, will enable a family to produce sufficiently so that it will have not only consumers' goods for the present
but can also in time accumulate further capital goods in order to regain
complete self-support. Beneficiaries have been expected to make
repayments in cash, in kind, or in work on approved work projects
for all advances received. 9 The rural rehabilitation program of the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration was terminated on June 30,
1935, and rural rehabilitation cases became the responsibility of the
Resettlement Administration. 10 Since September 1937 they have
been under the care of the Farm Security Administration.
For purposes of the schedule enumeration it was necessary to define
clearly the relief status of the family at the time of the survey. A
family accepted on relief rolls during the month of the survey which
had never before received relief from the agency accepting it was designated as a new or opened case. A family which had been given relief
at some time previously and which was again accepted for relief by
• Status is a concept in law used to define rights which cannot be alienated as
can most of the obligations of contract.
'Division of Research, Statistics, and Records, Monthly Report of the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, June 1 Through Jum SO, 1938, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., p. 13.
1 For a statement concerning rehabilitation families, see Asch, Berta and
Mangus, A. R., Farmers on Relief and Rehalnlitation, Research Monograph VIII,
Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C.,
1937, ch. II.
• Division of Research, Statistics, and Records, Monthly Report of the Federal
Emerge'l'lcy Relief Administration, May 1 Through May St, 1934, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., pp. 6---8.
10 Division of Research, Statistics, and Records, Monthly Report of the Federal
Emergem:y Relief Administration, Augu,st 1 Through August SJ, 1935, Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, Washington, D. C., p. 14.
Oig lized bv
Google
MEANING OF TERMS • 111
the same agency after having received no relief for at least 1 full
calendar month or after having lost Works Progress Administration
employment or Resettlement status was designated as a reopened
case. A case to which an agency had ceased giving relief from Federal Emergency Relief Administration funds, whether or not the
family continued to receive aid from some other Government agency,
was considered a closed case.
The data included in this study are restricted to the rural population receiving relief. The rural population is defined according to
the United States Census as persons living on a farm, in the open
country but not on a farm, or in a village with less than 2,500 population. A farm is defined as having at least 3 acres of land or a productivity valued at $250 or more if it is less than 3 acres in size. 11
Open country nonfarm is generally taken to mean residence in an unincorporated region. In this study it includes all nonagricultural
families living outside of communities with a population of 50 or more.
Conversely, a village is defined as a center of population containing
50 to 2,500 persons. Since a community has been defined in terms
of house aggregation and density of population on the land, it excludes
townships as municipal corporations and other definitions sometimes
used for community. In New England townships under the name
of "towns" are considered minor public municipal corporations and
seldom is there any other type of municipal corporation except a
large aggregate known as a city. Since all New England towns are
considered incorporated, there is no such thing as a resident who is
not in an incorporated region. Consequently, it is difficult, and to a
large extent of little value, to attempt to classify New England families as to whether they do or do not reside in villages.
u "A 'farm' for census purposes is all the land which is directly farmed by one
person, either by his labor alone or with the assistance of members of his household or hired employees. The land operated by a partnership is likewise considered a farm. A 'farm' may consist of a single tract of land or of a number of
separate tracts, and these several tracts may be held under different tenures, as
when one tract is owned by the farmer and another tract is rented by him. When
& landowner has one or more tenants, renters, croppers, or managers, ihe land
operated by each is considered a farm. Thus, on a plantation the land operated
by each cropper or tenant was reported as a separate farm, and the land operated
by the owner or manager by means of wage hands, likewise, was reported as a
separate farm. The enumerators were instructed not to report as a farm any
tract of land of less than 3 acres, unless its agricultural products in 1929 were
valued at $250 or more." Bureau of the Census, Abstract of the Fifteenth Census
of Che United States: 1930, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.,
1933, p. 497.
Drgmed by
G oog lC
.........
F1G. 26 - AREAS REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES SAMPLED
"°•
SITUATION
;II:,
C:
;II:,
>
r-
>
~
E
~
2
;II:,
m
C:
m
.,,
0
<O.
""
;:;-
~
!l
C")
0
~
rv
Note· Mossochuselfs, Connechcul, ond
New Hompshire sompled by townships.
AF · 2153. WPA
Appendix B
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Tol,le 1.-lntensity of General Relief 1 in the United States1 by Residence, July 1933
Through December 1935 (Estimated)
Percent of population on relief
Percent of population on relief
Year and month
Year and month
Total
11133
loly_ -----··········
Auguat. ············
September•••••.•.•.
October •••••••••••••
November ••••••••••
n-m1>er..........
11134
11111aary... .........
February •••••••..••
March •••••.••••.•..
ur11. ··············
ay ••••••..•...•••.
lune •••••••••••••.••
loly ••••••••••••••••
A1Jg11Bt ••••••••••••.
September •.••••••..
October•••••••••••.•
1
Rural
Urban
13.1
12. Cl
11:,
11.6
12.8
10.3
10. 1
10. 2
8.1
8.9
10.CI
8. 0
16. 2
14.3
13. 8
1$-4
14.4
11.9
9.8
10.3
12.0
14. 0
14. 6
9.3
9,8
11.3
10.6
11.6
12. 2
12. ll
14.1
13.8
13. 3
10. 2
10. 7
12. 6
17.6
16.0
16. 7
15.8
14. 2
14,CI
16.3
16.4
15. 6
Total
--- - - -
Rural
Urban
- - - --1934-Contlnued
November •••..••.••
December ••••..•.•.
16. l
17.0
14.0
14.8
17.8
18. 6
17.CI
17.6
17.3
16. 8
16. 2
16. 2
14.0
14.1
16. 0
16. 2
14.8
14.1
13. 2
11.4
Ul.3
II. 1
8.3
7.11
0.8
8.2
19. 1
19.2
19.1
18. 7
18.4
17.11
17. 7
17. 7
16.6
16. 7
15.0
12..,
1936
lanuary ••••••.••••.
February ••..•••..•.
March •••...•.•...••
tferll •••...••.•••.••
ay•••••••...••••••
lune •.••••.••••••...
luly •••••••••••..••.
August •••..•••.•••.
September.••..•••••
October •..••••••••••
November •.•••••••.
Deoember••••••••••
UL!
16.CI
17.1
1,i,0
12.4
11.CI
8. 7
Percentai;e ratio of total estimated nwn ber or cuea to all families or the same residence class.
Souttes: Bmlth Mapheus and Mangm, A. R., Ca.tu &telrlflg <h'Mral &lkf In Urban and Rural Area,
Ju/J 1983--De~ 19~6 (Eltimaltd), Research Bulletin Serles Ill, No. IL. Division of Boclnl Research,
Wort■ Protm!SS Administration, W118hlngton, D. C., AultUSt 22, 1113(1; and H111'81Ul of the Census, Flflttn/11
C,mu, of Uu United Stalu: 1~80, Population Vol. Il, U. B. Department of Commerce, Washinlrton, l>. C.,
11133.
Tol,le !.-Incidence of General Relief in Rural Areas, October 1933 Through October
1935
[1!!8 counties!
Rural relief case.s per 100 rural famllles
Area
October
1933
All areas.............................
Eutem Cotton............................
Westem Cotton...........................
ApDalacblan•Ozark ....•.••..•.•.. _.. •. . . ..
Lue States Cut•Over. ....••.•.. ...• .. .. . .
Hay and Dairy............................
Com Belt ••••••••.••••....•.••.•.. ···-....
~f!i:;~.\e:i.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
RanchJnc ............ ....... _..............
I
October
1934 I
P.0
13.7
l====:I====
12. 4
11. 3
6. I
21. 2
16. 5
18. 5
18. 6
32. 1
6. 1
8. I
2. ri
8. 7
1~:Z
6. 8
ill
13. O
February
1936
lune
11136
October
1935
1~. 2
10.6
7.11
8.6
6. 7
11.0
19.6
31. 7
7.fl
8.4
19. 7
:U.9
19. 8
38.11
11.6
12.0
33. 6
16. 8
16.6
7. i
22.9
10. Cl
123
a. a
26. 3
6. 7
3. 2
1-l. 2
7.0
7.1
1 Computed from data In Unemplo,m,nt &lief Cen,u,, Odober 1933, Report No. 2, Federal Emergency
Relief Admlnlatratlon, Wasbia~ton D. C., 1934, table 9.
• Data from Survey of the Ru~ Relief Situatlon,.9rtoher 1004, Division of Research, Statistics, and
Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, w ashington, D. C.
113
Diglized by
Google
114 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Tol,le 3.-Age of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence and
Area, June 1935
(138 cmmtles and IHI New England township.•)
Total
Are In years
I
Residence and area
Number
Percent
16-24
25-a4
36--«
46-M
55--M
65 and
over
- - - - - - --- --- - - - - - - --- --TOTAL BUR41.
All areas ...................
Eastern Cotton .•..••••.•. _..•.••
Western Cotton._ .....•.•..••.•.
Appalachlan-O,:ark ...••.•••...• _
Lake States Cut•Over ••.•••••.•.
Hay and Dairy..•.•••.•...•.•.•.
Com Belt. __ ....•.•••••...•••••.
iie:~i ~:::::::::::::::::
~r~~:r
Ranching ... _••••••••••••••••••••
New England •••••.•••••••••••••
II.II
--2
62,m
100.0
7. 7
23.1
22. 8
21.2
15.3
7,730
7. 266
17,016
3,776
8,626
7,512
3, ~74
I, 288
1,886
4,303
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
7. 4
9.6
9.1
6.6
6. 2
6. 3
6.6
9.8
7. 3
6.9
22. 5
25. I
24. 4
22. 3
20. 4
22. 7
30. 2
29. 7
21. 3
16.0
21.9
21. 2
23.3
20.9
23.5
23.2
24.8
23.3
22. 6
23. 0
20.6
17. 9
21.6
21.5
23. 2
21. 7
19. 7
18.Q
17. 7
24. 3
16.4
12. 4
15. 3
15.8
14.9
16.6
13.3
12.1
17. 2
18.5
~768
100.0
8.0
2-1.8
23.3
20.5
14.6
5,002
4. 684
12,066
2,480
6. 028
2,802
2,386
670
7. 4
9.6
9.3
5.9
6.4
7.1
II. 0
10. 7
6.5
22.9
27. I
25.9
21. 4
20. 7
23.6
32.3
32.8
19. 4
21.0
20.8
24. 0
22.3
25.0
24.0
25.2
25. I
22. l
18.Q
17. 2
20. 7
22. '/
23.2
22.9
660
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
17.6
19. I
16.Q
12. I
14.8
15. 8
14. 4
14.3
13.3
9.6
lQ. I
22, 70II
100. 0
7. 4
21.8
22. 0
21. 7
15.9
11.2
21.8
21.0
ll!. 0
19.9
22.1
24. 7
~-2
22. 3
23.6
21.8
21. 4
18.2
21.6
22. 7
23. 9
21. 4
22.8
23.8
19. 0
23.9
19. I
23.1
21.0
19. 4
20. 4
17.0
15.5
13.0
16.5
15. 7
15.6
17.9
13. 4
14.9
16. 2
8.0
14. g
11.6
16. 0
14.0
10.2
10.5
8. 4
13.Q
- - - - - - --- --- --- --- ---
11.
13.8
6.3
12. 9
11.8
9.5
5.4
6. 2
13.Q
12. 3
OPJ:11" COUll"TRY
All areas'············-····
Eastern Cotton .••.•••...•••...•.
Western Cotton ..•.•••••.••.....
A~arhian-O<arlr ......•.....•.
L e States Cut-Over ••...•.....
Hay and Dairy ...••........••...
Com Belt. ....•...•••••••.•.•...
';;\-:!c:::::::::::::::::
~f!~:r
Ranching ..••• _••••••••••••••••• _
- - - --- --- - - - ---
IQ.Q
8.8
--12. 9
13.2
5.3
11.9
10.3
8.1
a. 3
(.2
13.8
VJLI.4011:
All areas 1••.••••••••••••••
EAstern Cotton ...•• _•••••••.•.•.
Western Cotton ...•••••••••.••..
Appalaehian•Ozark ..••••••..•...
Lake States Cut-Over •..••.•..•.
Hay and Dairy .....•..•..•......
Com Belt. •.........•.•.........
~f1~~!r
ihhe:~i-~:::::::::::::::::
Ranching ..•.••••••••••••••••••. _
-- -------2, 728
100.0
7. 4
21. 7
2,582
4,950
I, 296
3,598
4,710
988
618
1,236
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.5
8.6
8. 0
5.8
5.8
8. I
8. 7
7.8
• Exrlusfre of heads of families whose age was unknown.
• Exclusive of New England.
Tol,le 4.-Age of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Usual Occupation, June 1935
(138 counties and 116 New England townships)
Total
Age In years
I
Usual occupation
Number
Percent
16-24
25-3(
35-44
46-M
M-64
- - - - - - --- --- --- - - - --Total •••••.••..••••••.••••...•.....
Agriculture .•.•••••••••••••••.•..•...... _
f'arm
operator
•••••••••••.••••.....•._
o~rner
__________________________
Tenant. ...•••••.•.•...•..........
Far~•,~~,~~~:-·.~::::::::::::::::::::::
Nona~rlculture ...• _••.•.•.•...•.•. _... _. _
White collar••.•••••.•.•••••......•...
Skllle<L _•.•.•••••••.••••••...•....•..
Semiskilled ..••.•...•..•... __ ..•.••..
Unskille<I. _.. --·············· ••......
No usual occupation •••••.••••••.••...•.•
52,938
100.0
8.8
26. 6
25. 6
23. 4
15.G
25,522
18,421
6,692
9,705
2,024
7, IOI
25,871
2,313
3,799
4,284
15,475
I, 545
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.1
7. 2
4.0
8.8
9.8
14. 2
7. 8
8.1
3. 2
8.5
8. 7
22. I
27.2
25.6
14. I
32. 2
32.0
31. 5
26. 3
25. 7
21. 5
30.9
26. 2
21.9
24. 7
25. 5
25. I
26.1
24.0
22. 5
26. 5
27. 8
27. 5
211. I
25.5
23.3
22.9
24.6
30.9
21.4
19. 7
18. 3
2-1.2
23. I
30.0
20.0
24. 1
18.6
lG.1
17.1
25.9
11. 5
14.6
13.5
15. 2
15.3
17.8
11. 5
15.6
14.1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
1 Exclusive or hea<I~ of ramilles who were non workers or whose age was unknown.
• In the 2 Cotton Areas.
0,911,.ed by
Google
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 11 5
Toflle 5.-Age of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief in the Eastern and
Western Cotton Areas, by Color and ,Usual Occupation, June 1935
(44 counties)
Tot.al
Age In years
I
Color and usual occupation
Number
Percent
l&--24
25-M
3H4
45-M
65-M
---------------1---- - - - --- --- --- --- --WmTII
11,014
100.0
10.6
29. 3
24. 7
21.4
14.0
Nonagrlculture_ ••••.•..•.....•••.••••••..
White collar._ •.••.•.•...•.••..•.•.•••
Skilled .....•.••••••...••..• _•..••..•.
Bemiskliled ••• ····-·· ·-·· .••••••••••.
Unskilled ......••..••••••••••.••.•.•.
No usual occupation.-.. ······-·· •••••••••
3,562
604
1,438
1,520
1,940
3,164
504
472
762
I, 426
348
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
!<XI. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
11.0
3.6
9.0
11. 2
14. 2
9.9
11.5
4. 2
9. 4
II. 4
13. 2
27. 0
11. 9
26. 7
33.0
30.8
31.l
30.6
25.8
35. 5
30. 7
28.2
23. 4
19. 6
24. 8
23. 7
23. 8
26. 5
24. 6
27.5
27. 0
26.6
25.11
23. 9
33.2
25.6
18. 7
18.9
20.8
21. 4
17. I
19. g
15. 5
16. 7
31.8
13.11
13. 4
12. 3
II. 7
II.II
13. 6
11.0
11. 4
17. 2
NEGRO
Total·----···-······-··············
3,192
100.0
8.8
25.1
25. 4
23.3
17.4
1,104
154
446
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
4. 3
1. 3
4.0
5.6
12. 3
9.11
25. 4
13.0
25.6
28.11
24. 2
25.6
24.1
20.8
24.2
25.0
26.3
26. 7
25. 7
35.0
26. 5
22.6
20.0
23.5
20.5
29. 9
19. 7
17. 9
17. 2
14. 3
100.0
100.0
6. 7
10.3
29. 7
26.4
23. 3
22. 4
13. 3
13.6
Total __ - -------······ ••••••••...•.•
Agriculture ••......••••...••.•.•.•.•...•.
Farm operator.•.••..............•....
Owner .•.•...•.....•.•......•....
Tenant ...••.........•.•. - .•...•..
F~~~~i!r::::::::::::::::: :::::: ::
- - - - - - - - - - ------ -6,602
100.0
10. 9
28. 2
23. 6
22.1
15. 2
28.11
- --- --- - - - - - - -----2, 114
100.0
8. I
24. 8
25. 2
23. I
18.8
Agriculture •••••. ····---- ....•••.•.......
Farm operator·-··············-·······
Owner ••••••.•••.•...•.••.••.••••
Tenant .•... - •...•••.•....•.•.•.•.
F~)~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::
NonagrlcuJture_ .•...•••. _.•...•. _.•.•.••.
White collar ••.....•.•••.•.•......•...
Skilled_ ••••...•••••••••••.•..•••.••. _
Semiskilled.- ..•.....••.•.•.•.••...• _
Unskilied ••. -·············-·-········
No UBual occupation •.....•...•...•••..•.
504
1,010
1,048
30
48
60
910
30
t
t
t
t
t
t
f
t
t
Percent not computed on a ba.58 or (ewer than 60 cases.
1
Exclusive or heads or Camilles who were nonworkers or whose age was unknown.
f
27.0
27. 3
o,gtizedb;
t
t
t
t
Google
f
t
116 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Tobie CS.-Sex of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence and
Area, June 1935
(138 counties and lUI New England toWDSbips]
Total
Male
Residence and area
Female
Number
Percent
62,831
100.0
85.6
14. 4
7,268
17,016
3,814
8,620
7,612
3,374
1,288
1,886
4,315
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
82. 7
86.4
00.9
89.11
89. 7
112. 8
111.6
84.4
86.6
17. 3
13.6
9.1
10. l
10. 3
7.2
8.4
16.6
13. 4
35,802
100.0
87.3
12. 7
4,686
12,066
2,512
5,028
2,802
2,386
670
650
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
86. 7
87. 7
91.4
Ill.II
114.1
96.2
95. 6
88. 6
13.3
1:2.3
8.8
8. I
6.11
3.8
4.6
11-4
100.0
82. 7
17.S
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
75. 6
83.3
89.9
87. 2
87.1
84.6
87.4
82. 2
24.4
16. 7
10. 1
12. 8
12.11
15.4
12. 8
17.8
TOTAL R~'RAL
All areas- -- --·· -- ------- --- --- -- -. --- -- -- --------·------Eastem Cotton ___________________ .... ____________________ . ___ .
Western Cotton .. _____________________________________________ _
Appale.chlan-Ozark _____________ . _____________________________ _
Lake States Cut-Over __________________ -----------------------Hay and Dairy ______ --------------------·-·------------------Corn Belt _________ ----------_----_ - _________ ------ ------- __ .. - .
wr~:..it":i::::::::: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: ::::
Ranching _____________________________________________________ .
New England ______ ----·-·· ___ -----------------·--------------.
---- - -70.-7 - -29.3
7,732
100.0
OPEN COUNTRY
All areas'--------------------- --- -- -------------- ------ --
Eastern Cotton. ______________________________________________ _
Western Cotton. _____________________________________________ ..
Appalachian-Ozark ___________________________________________ .
Lake States Cut-Over _________________________________________ .
Hay and Dairy ____ --------------------------------------------
Corn Belt ______________________________ --------·-·-·-------··-_
Wf~1t!r
WhS:i:::
:: ::: :::. :______
:::::::• ___________
::::::: ::::::
::::: ::::::::::::
Ranching
____ • __________
._-···--···
________ _
---- - -71.-2 - -28.8
6,002
100.0
VILLAG'I:
22, 714
All areas 1 ___ . ______ ------------------------------------··
Eastern Cotton __ .. _____________ . ________ . _______ . ____________ _ - 2,730
Western Cotton __ .. ______________________ ---------------------2,582
Appalachian-Ozark .. __ . _______ . ____ . _________________________ _
4,950
Lake States Cut-Over. ________________________________________ _
1,302
3,598
Hay and
Dairy
___ -------·------------------------------------Corn
Belt.
___________________________________
---- __ -----------4,710
Spring Wheat. _______________________________ . ________________ _
988
Winter Wheat._. _____________ . _________ . _____________________ _
618
Ranching. ______________________________ ---------·-----·---- __ _
1,236
1
-- - - -- - - 69.6
ao.,
100.0
Exclusive of New England.
o,gmzedbyGooglc
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 117
Tobie 7.-Male Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence, Area,
and Age, June 1935
(138 ooantlee and 11e New England toW1111hl1111)
Total I
Residence and ares
Average•
Num•
her
TOT.A.I. •llUL
All------------------
Eutern Cotton ______________ ..
Weetern Cotton•. _•• __ ·-_._ .• _.
Aplnyean
Per-
-
eent
19-:M
~
8&-44
411--M
and
M-94 6li
over
ace
-- - - - - - - - - -- - - -
63,740
100.0
8.0
24.6
22. 9
21.0
14.6
11. l
42. l
6,492
9,014
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.2
10.6
11.7
e.a
e. 2
e.1
e.e
10.a
7.6
6.9
:H.11
311. l
28.1
23.1
21.6
:H.1
80.9
21. 6
21.2
23.2
21.6
23. 7
23. 3
26.6
22. II
23.4
22. 7
20.3
17. 9
20.7
21. 7
23. 3
21.8
19.0
111. 3
18.2
24.6
16. l
11.9
14.2
16.0
14. 3
UI. 1
13. 0
11.2
16.6
18. 4
10.0
12. 4
e.1
12. 4
11.0
8.6
11.0
6.3
12. 3
11.7
40.6
44. I
43.0
43.0
39. 4
38. i
42.8
46.4
~lan-Ourk ............ H, 704
e Statee Cut-Over.··---··-· 3,430
Hay and Dairy .•. __ ·-. __ •..... 7,7M
Corn Belt .• ·-·····-··-··--····· e, 738
~111tWbeat ..• - .• ·---·-······ 3,132
lnterWbat •• ----·--···---·· 1,180
Rancblng._ ..... -·-···---·--·-· 1,m
732
New England-··-···-····-···-·
a.
ao.o
23.1
111. 7
42. 4
40.
~
ORN COUNTBY
100.0
11.4
211.1
23. 4
20.2
13. 7
8.2
41. I
8.3
10.e
II.II
a. e
11.4
8.8
11.1
11.3
11.8
25.2
27.8
27. 7
22. 3
21.4
:H.1
32. 7
82.8
20.1
:JO. 1
:JO. 9
2, 2IMI
MO
678
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
24.0
22. 7
26.1
:If.II
211.0
26. 0
24.4
18.9
17. 4
19.6
22. 7
23. 4
23.0
111.0
18. 1
18. 7
16.8
11.8
13.6
16.4
14.1
14.0
12. II
8.4
17.4
11. 9
11.9
6.3
11.3
11.6
7.6
3. 3
4. 4
12. 8
42. 7
40.1
311. 7
44. 2
43.3
42. 3
38. 8
30.9
44.0
Allareu•---·-·-----·---- 18, 772
100.0
7. 7
23. 4
22.0
21.11
16.1
10. 2
1,800
1, 1162
4,124
1,168
8,138
4,102
836
MO
1,016
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
8. 1
10. 1
11.2
7. 7
6.9
6. 7
7. 9
9.3
8.1
24.6
23.0
22. 0
24.8
21. 6
24.0
26. 2
26. 7
24.8
:H.O
21.9
21.2
19.0
2).9
22.6
24.2
20.4
22.8
22. 8
19. 1
23.8
19. 7
23.2
21.0
18.9
:IO. i
17. 9
14. 3
12. 5
16. 9
14.4
14. 5
17.4
13. 2
14. 4
14. 4
8.3
13. 4
8.1
14.4
12. 9
9.3
9.8
8.5
12. 0
- -41.8
-
Allareu•-··-·-··-······· 31,219
Eu tern Cotton .• __ • _________ ..
Weetern Cotton·---·---·---·--·
~lan-Ourk
... -·-----··
e States Cut-Over·--.
___ .. _
Hay and Dairy_. ___ •.... ____ •.
Corn Belt·---·--·----···-·----·
~Wbellt.·-----·---·-·-··Inter Wheat_ •. __ -· ______ ·-·Ranching. - ---·- --· -. -- -. -. -- ·VII.I.Ao•
Eastern
Weetern Cotton--·--·---------Cotton ____ .• __________
Appalacblan-Ozark. ·---------Lake Statee Cut-Over. ___ ..... _
Hay and Dalr:v---·----··-----Corn Belt·-·------------·---·-~Wheat-------····-----·Inter Wheat-.--·--·--------Ranching ______ . ___ ---·-------.
3,692
4,062
10,680
2,294
4,620
2, ll39
43.1
42. 2
43. 4
43. 7
44.8
43. 6
41.1
41.4
42.0
:ft;i':i~• of male beads of families whose ace was unknown.
• Exclusive of New EIJl)and.
D,g 1,zed by
Google
118 •
RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Tofil• 8.-Female Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence
Area, and Age, June 1935
(138 counties and 118 New England townships)
Total
Residence and
a.re&
Agetnyear.i
I
Averaae•
Num•
her
Per•
cent
l&-24
~
36-ff
4b"-M
~
65and
over
age
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TOTil RVB4L
All areas ..••...•••••.•.•.
-
9,037
E&11tern C'otton .•••.••.•.•••... 2,268
Western Cotton ....•.••••....•. 1,252
Appalarhlan•Orark •........... 2. 312
Lake States Cut•Over ....•.... _
346
Hay and Dairy ..•••.•.•.•.•.•.
870
Corn Belt .....•.••.•.•.....•...
774
if~~r ihi::c:::::::::::::::
Ranching ....•.•...•.•.••..•...
New England .•.••••••••••.•.•.
100.0
---
242
108
294
671
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
4,632
100.0
16. 3
6.8
22.
22. 3
20.1
--------16. 8
6. 6
22. 9
21.3
19.6
1
14.4
47.6
46.8
46. 2
47.0
50. 2
50.0
48. 8
47.4
41.8
63. 8
48. 2
6.3
4.9
9.8
6. 0
7.8
7. 4
3. 7
6. 1
6. a
20.8
14.7
14. 6
10.4
12. 1
17. 4
25.9
11. 6
11.9
20.9
23. 6
14. 6
21.8
21. 4
16. 6
27.8
18. 4
24.8
17. 6
27.3
19. 7
21.8
21.2
211.8
14. 8
16.0
21.9
16.0
22. 2
23.0
20.9
20. 7
JR. 2
22. 2
26. 5
19.3
14. 0
20.4
7. 4
18. 5
19. 3
16. 8
10. 7
6.8
22. 4
16. 8
6. 3
16. 6
21.11
22.5
20.8
13.0
47.3
46. 7
46. 3
47.0
49. 3
47.8
48. 7
49.0
OPJ:N COVNTIIY
All areas• ••••••..•••.•••.
Ea.stern Cotton .••••.•••••••...
Western Cotton ...••.•••.....•.
Appalachian•Ozark ........•.•.
Lake States Cut•Over...•.•....
Hoy and Dairy ••..............
Corn Belt ........•..••.....••..
if~~. i11:;i:::::::::::::::::
Ranching •••••••.•••••••.•••••.
--- - -- - - -- - - --1,440
100. 0
6.3
17. 6
23. 0
18.8
20.1
90
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
3. 2
4. 7
9.3
6.9
10. 8
4. 4
14.1
13. 0
12. 3
14. 5
20.0
20. 6
24.0
16. 7
24.0
15. 7
6. 7
16.1
28.5
23.0
20. 6
21.6
42. 3
16. 4
23.4
20.4
18.6
19. 3
24. 4
15. 3
21. 2
6. 3
17.8
17.8
18. I
2.2
30
74
100.0
6.4
13. 5
6. 4
21.6
32. 6
21.6
M.8
47.8
--46.8
622
1,486
216
408
166
t
-
23. 5
t
t
t
t
-
-
VILLAGJ:
All areas 1••••••••••••••••
Esstern C-0tton •.....•••••••••.
Western Cott-00 ......••...••.••
Appalachian•Oznrk ..•..•.•..••
Lake States Cut•Over ..•.•.•••.
Hoy and Dairy ••..•••.•••••••.
Corn Belt ....•...•.•.....•.••••
Spring Wheat. •••.••..••.•••.••
Winter Wheat •..••••••••••••••
Ranching ••••••••••••••••••••••
3,934
100.0
6. 4
14. 5
21.8
22. I
111.5
15. 7
828
630
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
5.8
7.3
6.3
10.8
5. 2
6.9
II. 2
5. 1
6. 4
15.5
18.1
15. 7
16.9
8. 7
11. 5
15. 8
23.1
10.11
22. 7
21. 3
22. 5
10.8
19. 6
23.0
22. 4
28. 3
22. 7
25.8
!9. 0
25. 2
13.8
22.9
21. 1
22.4
17.9
12. 7
18.4
14. 6
19. 9
27. 7
22.9
21. I
14. 4
17. 9
24.6
11. 8
19. 7
II. 4
20.0
20.8
16.4
15.8
7. 7
22. 7
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - 82fl
130
462
608
152
78
220
46. 2
47. 1
62. 8
51.8
48.6
45. 7
42.2
62. 4
t Percent not computed on a base or fewer than 50 cases.
• E,clustve of female heads of families whose 11&e was unknown.
• Med inn.
• Exclusive of New England.
o,g t1zed b;·
Goog Ie
Ta&le 9.-Marital Condition of Heads of Rural Families 16 Throu.!Jh 24 Years of Age Receiving General Relief, by Residence, Area, and Sex,
October 1935
[138 counties and 83 New England townships'}
Residence and area
Total I
Percent
Nun1•
Iler
TOTAL RURAL
All areas_.- -·---· 3, 816
Eastern Cotton_ .. _.. _.
450
Western Cotton ..... ·-·
438
Appalachian-Oiark . _.. I, 756
Lake States Cut-Over ..
188
Hay and
---····
354
Corn
BeltDairy_
______________
196
Spring Wheat. ____ _____
138
WinterWheat. ________
66
92
Ranching
..
-------·--·New England __________
13g
Single Mar•
ried
Female
Mola
Both sexes
Total
WidDi- Sepe•
owed vorced rated Num· Perher
oont
-- ---- -- --
Single Marr icd
- -
Total
D i- SepeWid•
Di- SepaMar- W idowed vor ced rated Num- P er- Single ried owed voreed rated
ber oont
-- -- - -
100.0
24. 5
69. 3
1.0
0.8
3. 5
3,334
100. 0
21. 4
78. 2
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
IW.O
100. 0
35. 6
17. 4
22.1
34. 0
20.3
18. 4
29. 0
24. 2
26. 1
44. 9
52.0
2. 2
6. 4
1.6
I. 3
0. 9
0.6
2. 1
8.0
3. 2
2. 2
5. 3
3. 4
1.0
2. 9
9. I
4. 3
4. 3
320
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
28. I
19. 4
19. 3
30. 4
19. 6
15. 9
23. 0
ZI . 4
17. 9
38. 6
71. 3
80. 6
79. 0
69. 6
80. 4
84. I
77. 0
78. 6
82. 1
61. 4
0. 5
-
72. I
73. 5
58. 6
75. 2
75. 5
68. I
66. 7
69. 6
50. 8
-
-
--
1.1
1.0
-
4. 1
392
1,592
158
326
176
122
56
78
114
0. 2
--
-
--
--
-- ---- --
-0. 2
-
482
130
46
IOt
30
28
20
16
10
14
24
0. 3
0. 8
0.6
-
0.3
7. 7
26.
12. 2
6. 1
20. 7
46. 0
7. 1
13. 3
100. 0
63.8
7. 7
JOO. 0
48. 8
12. 2
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
-t
---
252
100.0
45. 2
10. 3
16. 7
4. 8
76
30
98
14
20
2
10
100.0
57. 9
7. 9
6. 3
100.0
49. 0
16. 3
8. 2
4. 1
t
-t
---
10. 5
t
-
t
t
t
t
ft
--
6.6
4.. 6
100.0
t
-
--l
-
t
t
t
--
26. 1
~
t
l
!
t
OPEN COUNTRY
0
,6"
N.
""
CD
Q.
CT"
'<
0
0
a
....(v
All areas•- - --·- -- 2. 220
316
Eastern Cotton .. · -··- ·
Western Cotton. ___ __ ..
328
Appalachian-Ozark ____ l.0-12
Lake States Cut-Over_.
148
Hay and Dairy ________
194
Corn Belt ____________ __
66
S~ring Wheat ___ ___ ___ _
78
"\ inter Wheat _. ___ __ __
32
16
Ranching _.- - -- -- --- --·
100. 0
24. 0
70. 5
2. 1
0. 5
2. 9
], 968
100. 0
21. 2
78. 3
0. 2
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
35. 4
12. 2
25. 0
32. 4
16. 5
6. 1
30. 8
55. 7
78. 7
70. 9
63. 5
77. 3
90. 0
66. 6
2. 5
6. I
I. 2
J. 3
J. 2
0. 4
5. l
1.8
2. 5
4. 1
4. 1
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
100. 0
100. 0
28. 3
13. 4
22. 5
29. g
16. 1
6. 3
23. 5
70. 9
86. 6
76. 7
70. 1
83. 0
03. 7
76. 5
t
t
t
240
298
944
134
174
64
68
32
14
t
t
t
0. 4
-
1,252
100.0
20. 0
79. 7
80
94
648
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
27. 5
38. 3
72.5
14. 8
84..6
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
23. 7
21..
22. 2
76. 3
78. 6
77.8
18.8
81. 2
t
t
t
-
2.1
3. 0
-
--
-
2. 6
--
t
t
t
-
-
VILLAGE
All areas•---· --- - I. 458
Eastern Cotton __ . ____ _
134
Western Cotton _____ ___
110
Appalachian-Ozark ____
714
Lake States Cut-Over __
40
Hay and Dairy _______ _ 160
Com Belt ________ ______
130
Spring Wheat ______ ·- -60
Winter Wheat_ ________
34
Ranching ______________
76
100.0
23. 6
68. 9
1.8
100. 0
JOO. 0
100.0
35. 8
32. 7
17. g
46. 3
52. 7
77. 4
I. 5
7. 3
2. 2
t
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
t
t
t
25. 0
72. 5
24. 0
26. 7
67. 7
70. 0
26. 3
68. 4
t
t
-
---
I. 4
J. 5
-t
6. 2
---
0. 8
4. 3
14. 0
7. 3
I. 7
t
24
2. 5
]. 5
152
112
t
64
24
M
a. a
5.3
t
t
100. 0
t
t
61. 7
t
t
o. 3
-0. 6
----
-
----
-
o. 4
-
-
----
-
-
2
t
t
t
t
t
t
-
t
t
t
-
t
-
-
t
t
--
Townships in Connecticut and Massachusett.s only.
22.4
l
t
-
206
100.0
45. 6
3. 0
10. 7
9. 7
30.1
54
100. 0
48. 2
7. 4
3. 7
3. 7
37.0
16
66
16
8
18
6
10
12
t
100. 0
t
t
t
t
t
t
-
48. 4
lt
t
t
t
6. 1
----
t
18.2
--
9. 1
-t
t
---
t Percent not computed on a base of fewer than 50 cases.
1
23. 0
18.4
t
t
• Exclusive of beads of families whose marital condition or ago w~ llllknown.
• E1clusive of New England.
t
18. 2
;
V,
C
::g
rm
?
m
z-4
>
"'-<
-4
>
a,
r-
t
m
i _.•
_.
'°
Table 70.-Marital Condition of Heads of Rural Families 25 Through 34 Years of Age Receiving General Relief, by Residence, Area, and Sex,
Odober 193 5
.....
~
•
(138 COUDtillll and 83 New Ena:)and townahlpe 1)
~
C:
Both sexes
Residence &.nd area
Total
Number
I
P ercent
Single Married
Male
Total
WidDI- Sepaowed vorced rated Num- Perbor
cent
---- ---- -
Single Married
- -- - - -- -- -
-
~
>
r-
Female
Total
WldDi- SepaMar- WldDi- Sepaowed vorced rated Num- Per- Slngle ried owed vorced rated
ber
cent
- - -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- ----
TOT.H RURAL
All areas ________ _ 11,174
100.0
8.8
80.5
4. 9
1.1
Western Cotton ________ J.3J8
Appalachian-Ozark ____ 4,538
Lake States Cut-Over __
598
Hay and Dairy ____ ____
294
Corn Belt_ ___ ___ _____ __ J, 702
Spring Wheat__ ____ ____
602
Winter Wheat_ _____ ___
238
Ranching ______________
243
New England _______ ___
488
100. 0
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
6. 7
7. 2
10. 7
9. 4
10. 5
7. 6
11. 8
70. 2
84. 0
78.6
84. 6
711.8
87. 1
81 . 5
0.9
I.I
0."7
I. 4
I. 4
0. 3
4.1!
21. 7
88.8
68."5
8. 3
4. 4
4."0
1.2
2. 0
2. 7
2. 5
0.8
4. 1
t.;
0. 4
6. 3
2. 3
0.8
2. 4
5.3
100. 0
7. 0
83. 6
4. 0
o. 7
3.8
4. 7
- - - -9.-6 -65.-- - 0.9
- - Eastern Cotton ___ _____ I, 148 100.Q
3
12. 0
0
,6"
N.
""
CD
Q.
CT"
'<
0
0
a
....(v
ti
3. 3
9,756
100.0
7.6
00. 9
0. 6
o._2
7. 3
7.. 0
5.9
11.3
8.8
7. 7
7. 3
9. 9
00.3
91.5
02.9
87. 1
89.9
89.5
91.3
z. 1
I.I
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.6
0. 3
~
100. 0
100.0
100.n
100.ll
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100_0
19. 6
87."4
95. 6
7!>. 9
6,010
100. 0
6.1
ll2. 6
- - - - -- - - -764
I, 136
4,054
6.0
3. 4
l ,~
624
574
222
a.s
O.J
-
0.6
-
0. 5
2. 7
0. 9
0. 6
0.2
o. 7 1,418
100.0
16.5
0. 4
34. 6
7.1
32. 4
384
100. 0
100. 0
J()().1)
100. 0
100. 0
100.ll
14. 1
4. 4
18. 2
5. 9
17. 8
15.6
2.1
9. 9
II. 8
13. 3
2. 6
81.8
53. 9
39. 2
29.4
13. 3
12. 8
2.6
6. 6
7. 9
5. 9
20. 0
7. 7
35. 9
33. 0
47. 0
35. 6
43. 6
t
l
0.3
o. 4
o. 7
0.8
1. 0
I. 6
o. 7
--
182
484
68
90
78
28
t
t
t
33. 3
t
t
t
-
t
t
t
·i
24. 8
t
16
18
70
100. 0
742
100.0
14. 3
10. 8
39. 3
4. 0
30. 7
268
100. 0
100.0
100.0
12. 7
17. 9
18. 7
10. 1
33. 6
56. 2
43. 2
2. 2
10. 5
4. 3
33. 6
33. 3
23. 7
t
-tt
-
34. 3
-
25. 7
2. 9
37. 1
OPES COUNTRY
All areas• ----- --- 6,752
Eastern Cotton _____ ___
840
Western Cotton ________
996
Appalachian-Ozark ____ 2,910
Lake States Cut-Over __
390
Hay and Dalry ____ ____
756
Corn Delt ____ ____ ______
238
- ------ ---- -8.-8 - 67.- 7 -12.1
- - - - o.- 7 -10.-7 -572
100. 0
2. 1
100. 0
7. 0
90.9
100.0
4. 6
82. 8
7. 6
1. 2
8~2 100.0
5.2
I. 4
3.8
93. 4
100.0
6. 7
85.8
4. 3
2. 7 2,632 100.0
93. 7
o. 2
o. 5
5. 4
o. 2
8. 7
100. 0
85. 1
2.1
4. 1
370 100. 0
80. 7
8."l
1.)
100.0
89.9
2. l
6.9
I. I
724 100- 0
6.1
93.3
- 5.0
-5.9
100. 0
86.6
1. 7
0.8
22i 100.0
5. 4
0. 9
\11. 9
g1.2
388 100.0
6. 7
90. 2
2. 1
1. 0
100.0
6. 8
1.0
- 1.3
~Q[~r;,:r \i'ti8~i:
~:::::::
12.-7
16.0
2. 7
150 100. 0
80. 0
100. 0
84. 5
-- 2.2."58
Ranching
___ _______
____
4.8
81 100. 0
88. 1
5. 0
80 100.0
92. 6
- 7.1 -
n~
0. 5
-o. :,
-------- ---- -114
Z78
1.1
20
o. 6
J.8
1. 0
32
-
-
14
4
8
4
t
t
t
t
t
-
t
t
-
t
--
t
-
f
-
t
t
t
t
t
t
-
>
~
r-
~
2
~
m
r
;;;
...,
'ltl.JJ.GS
AD-•--------
1,934
100.0
10. 2
7&.8
4,
Weslern Cotton. _______
308
822
100. 0
100:0
100.0
100.ll
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
11. 7
13.0
8.1
14. 4
13. 0
12. 9
11.3
4. 5
4_g
l!II. I
11. 7
10. 11
4. 6
7. 7
1. 5
2. 2
3. 7
11. 8
1. 2
Eastern Cotton ________
Appalaohlan-Orarll: •• •• 1. 112~
203
Out-Over-States
Lall:e
___ _____
Dairy
Hay and
638
Corn Belt______________
~Qrln1 Wheat ____ • ___ __
\ Inter Wheat ___ __ __ ..
Ranching ____________ __
484
214
88
1114
88..3
81.0
88. 4
77. 0
711.,3
81.4
84. 2
811. 0
9
1.1
eos
100.0
17. 2
8. 9
30.7
10.2
84,0
1111
17.2
11.8
l'/.ll
10. 3
1.11
•.7
27.11
411. 11
34.0
41.1
82.4
-
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
8. 4
0.8
1.0
I . II
1.1
12. II
36.2
---
1.0
1.7
1.15
100. 0
100.0
U.8
87.15
e.11
~-15
81.0
8.3
14.6
40.8
u
&. 2
&.828
100.0
9. o
811.1
0.4
1. 8
111. 2
8.1
4;3
11.11
6. 2
&.11
4-7
192
3M
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
a. 3
81.11
16.0
91.2
81."2
84.8
81.0
91.8
112. 5
117. 3
2._1
-
2.1
u
1.3
1. 7
0. 11
4- 5
I. 2
-
1,422
180
480
400
190
a. 7
80
150
18.4
e. 8
18. 8
12.11
11. 0
8.l
6. 0
2. 7
o.a
0.8
0. 5
0.4
---
2.5
-
--
es
ios
48
68
M
34
8
14
t
i
- 13.1
1.1
-tt ---
"t
-
t
i i
t
-·tt
t Percent not computed on a hue of fewer than all-.
1
1
1
Towmhlps In Connecticut and Mas.sachmetta only.
E1clusive or heads ol lamllles whose marital condllloD or ap wu anll:nown.
Exclusive or New E111land.
Cl)
C:
:g
rrn
~
CJ
5
=.·
;:;·
"'a.
.'{
0
0
~
-
(v
~
XI
-<
>
ra:,
rn
Cl)
•
Ta&le 11.-Marital Condition of Heads of Rural Familia 35 Through « Yean of Age Receiving General Relief, by Residence, Area, and Se11,
October 1935
(138 oountles and 83 N- England toW'DShlJlll •)
Both sexes
,.,C:
Female
Male
....
"°
"°•
,.,
)>
rResidence and art\a
T otal
1
~um-
Prr-
bc r
Cl'Jl t
Sin gle
!\lar•
r ied
- -- -- - -
Total
W ld•
S,•pa•
Di•
owed v o rced rst ~d :-lurnP er·
her
cent
- - -- - - - - - - - -
T otal
Single
::-.tar•
r ied
Wld·
DISepa•
owed vorced rated
Nurn• P er·
bcr
- - - -
Sepa•
D i·
S ingle I\-Iar- W id•
r led owed v orce d rated
cen t
- - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
T Oi.\L R l"R AL
- -
IW.O
- -1, I:lO
IIK). 0
1. zsr,
IOll. 0
3,970 m1.o
ll:,/3 lllll. 0
1,428 100. ll
0
6. 3
77. 1
10. 3
1. 5
.I. :l
f,4 9
[,. 6
i 3. fi
80 0
78. 0
iS. 5
78. 6
86. 4
20. 0
12. 8
10. 7
4. 9
0.2
I. 2
0. 7
0. 9
1.3
5. ,I
I. 1
- - - - - - - --- 5. 2
10. i
9. 0
5_5
5. 5
1.2
3. 3
9.1
6. 2
4. 8
9. 6
6. 8
3. 4
5. 5
5. 0
4. 4
2. 2
3. 5
4. 2
3. 3
P. 178
100. 0
5. 7
8R 8
2. 5
91. 4
00. 6
83. 6
88.6
91. 4
00. 3
!M.7
89. 3
8i. 0
I. 9
2. 8
I. 3
1.0
1.6
3. 1
I. 3
2. 9
3. 9
0. 4
0. 2
1.0
0. 3
I. 6
0. 4
2. i
3. 9
I. 3
0. 8
I. 6
2. 6
I. 9
0. 6
0. 4
6H
5. 5
4. 8
II. 5
8. 2
4. 8
5. 8
1.3
3. g
6. 8
1.0
260
524
48
18t
102
28
22
36
108
0. 4
I. 4
852
)IK).
-~ 2
1..i.o
2!0
12'.!
11•J. 0
100.0
All sreos ' -- -- · -- · 6,234
100. 0
5. 4
80. 1
9.0
0.8
4. 7
5,382
100.0
5. I
91.0
2.1
100. 0
100. 0
11)(), 0
3.8
5. 4
4. 4
10 2
t\8. 4
79. 9
81. 0
7fi. I
0. 3
i.~
8. 2
8:l. 4
82. 9
91. 4
90. 7
Sil. g
19. 7
9.1
10. 4
,\. 3
3. i
2. 6
I. 7
548
i84
2,136
418
700
276
34t
102
74
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
JOO. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
1.8
5. 4
3. 8
II. o
8. 3
5. 1
92. 7
93. I
91. 8
81. 9
89. 4
91. 4
113. 0
94. 1
89.2
5. 1
0. 5
2. 6
I. 9
0. 6
I. 4
I. 7
..
1- •)
IIKI.O
R.1. j
7,1. 8
74. 3
[, , 8
i. 5
2. 2
I. 4 1,696
1()().0
100.0
I()(), 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
1,026
3,-H6
608
1,244
626
514
150
728-
6.0
4. ~
5. 8
9. 2
11.1
0. 6
100. 0
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - I. g
2. i
00.8
4. 6
746 100.0
384 JOO. 0
-
0
;;;
C1)
a.
~
C")
0
0
-
00
( ,)
F. 35tern Cotton .. .. ....
~
204
-
100. 0
100. 0
t
100. 0
100. 0
t
t
t
z
9. 2
8. 8
52.
6.
--4 -a -6 -50.0- - -0. -5 -24.23.-52 ,.,
JO.
6. 2
7. 6
14. 1
-
9. 8
-
4
4
3. 1
10. 3
55. 3
62.6
4. 2
30. 8
15. 3
10. 9
41. 3
33. 3
7. 6
29. 4
26. 1
27. 5
t
-
-
t
t
100. 0
22. 2
I. 9
100. 0
7. 5
10. 8
t
t
t
t
51. 8
4. 6
-
t
t
t
7. 4
l'TI
t
t
t
t
16. 7
OPF.N CO UNTRY
cg·
~
E
0
All areas . ••••.• • . 10, 874
Eastern Cotto n .•.•.. ·W estern C'otton __ ______
A p1, alachian-Omrk .• ..
La ke Sta tes C ut-Over . _
Hay am! Dairy .... ....
Co rn BelL .... . . .......
Srring \\'h tKlt. .. . ... .. .
\\ lnl er Wheat ...... ...
Ran ch ing . . ____ ________
;,.;ew Engl"nd ____ ......
>
- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --- --- ---
790
\ Veste_rn Cri tt on __ ____ ..
\121
A ppalr.chian-Owrk . ___ 2, -ii2
4,l(J
Lake States <'11t·O\'er __
Ha y anti D ai r y ...... . .
/1.0
Corn ReJ t __ _____ ______ _
304
~pring Wheat __________
3,1()
108
Winter Wheal ........ .
Ranching .......... _. •.
76
J()()_Q
1()1),
0
l fXl 0
100.0
1110. 0
100. 0
5. 9
•i.fl
I.U
5. 3
-
2. 6
-
1.0
I. 3
-
3. 3
o. 6
3. 7
2.6
5. 6
3. 2
7. 1
4. 7
5. :1
I. 7
3. 7
2.6
4. 7
2. 0
5. 4
--- - 8-3 -13.-2
- -- - 0.-4 -2H 100. 0
5. 7
1.0
140 100. 0
5. 7
0. 3
I. 5
8. 3 12_5
336 100.0
1. 4
3. 8
32 100. 0
100.0
6. 7 13. 3
- I.I. 74 f,028 100.
0. 7
0
t
0.6
6 100.0
-3. 9
6 100. 0
2. 7
2. 7
2 100.0
- -t
53. 0
3. 3
25. 4
52. 9
57. 2
59. 5
0. 8
24. 8
5. 4
31.4
14.3
--- --- - t
40. 0
-
-
t
-
--
-
t
t
40,0
t
t
t
r-
m
...,
l'lLLAOII
All areas 1•••••••• 3, 1118
100. 0
EBStern Cotton .•••••..
340
Western Cotton ....••• •
362
Appa.lachian•Oz:ark . • .. 1,498
Lake States Cut•Over ..
206
Hay and Dairy . ••..•. •
668
Corn Belt ... .......... .
424
Rprin~ Whoot ...•..••..
192
Winter Wheat ..••.....
64
Ranching ..••••••••...•
164
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
7. 1
73. 1
12. 0
8.
fl. 1
4
11. 7
6. 2
7. 3
67. 1
67. 6
78. 4
82. 6
73.0
76. 4
77. 1
2. 4
70. 7
20. 8
22. 1
2
3. 9
9. 0
8. 6
10. 4
15. 6
12. 2
-- -- --8 ---- 4.
11.
a.
9. 9
-
n . 11
2. 4
4
0.3
2. 7
7. 1
2. 1
II. 4
11. 8
6. 4
S, 182
100.0
8. 8
88. 2
13. 6
9. 9
7
1. 9
6. 4
8.8
3. 1
8. 1
4. 9
1118
170
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
48
130
6.1
6. 8
fl.4
12. 8
8. 1
4. 8
8. 2
85.8
85. 9
88. 7
87. 4
87.6
91.4
M. 7
100. 0
3.1
89. 2
s.
:.142
1,310
190
644
350
t
-
t
2. 9
0. 7
--
3. 0
e. 8
3.1
L7
1. 6
7
6. 9
0. 7
2. 3
-
1. 8
-
fl. 1
LS
Z.2
J.
-- &t
'- e
-
L2
736
100. 0
142
120
188
18
124
74
22
18
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
34
t
100.0
100. 0
9. 2
7. 8
14. 1
fl.7
a. 4
)fl. 9
t
17. 7
8. 1
-
fl. 4
9. 7
- -t
f - --
61. 7
~ -1
63. 3
88.l
t
41. 9
40. 6
f
-- --a t
9. 8
21. 7
23. 9
10. 0
2.1
30. 0
17. 0
11.
211. 7
111. 4
21 . 8
l
t
i
t Percent not computed on a base orrewer than l!O cases.
Townships in Connecticut sod MBS1!8Cbusetts only.
• Exclusive or heads or families whose marital condition or age was unknown.
1
a Exclusive of New England.
VI
C
,,,r-~
0
co·
;ca.
N.
CD
Q.
CT'
'<
0
0
0
00
,..._
(v
,,,~
z
>
-<
~
-t
)>
m
r-
u:
....tO•
w
Taflle 12.-Marital Condition of Heads of Rural Families 45 Through 64 Years of Age Receiving General Relief, by Residence, Area, and S.x,
Odober 1935
R esld en("(, and nn•rt.
- - - -Kum •
lw r
--
~
M al~
Tora!'
S!n~lc
'.\far r ied
W!dDISe paowed v orcc<l r a t ('d
Num•
her
Cf'tlt
~
Female
Total
P er•
Total
Single
P ercen t
l\larrled
'\V ielDi•
Sepaowed vorcC'd r a te d NumP e r•
cent
h er
- - - - - - - - - - - - ·- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - --
Di- SepaSingle Mar- W!drled owed vorood rated
- - - - --- -
-
All areas ___ ____ _ 113. 01':0
---J, {>,O
l , f\24
[1, 522
I , IJO
ll a y nnd D fl iry . .. . _
2, l:18
Co rn Bel l . . _____ __ ____ . I, 114
710
!'prin~ Wh ea t. .. . . .... .
Wint,·r W hea t._ .. ... 320
Hnnch !n~ __... ... .. ..
3S>l
l\"1•w En glaod ___ __ ____ _ 1, 184
,. ,
1()0.0
- - --IIJ/1. 0
5. 2
100. U
6. 9
All arc>cs •-·----- · 8, 714
'g~
1':fls l ~rn ('(i t t on ___ _._
i
.\ JI J>: ~J ad1i>m -01.J1rk ___
~r
,El
C"'J
0
0
-n
OCt
,\·1•s h•rn <'o ttou .. ___
La ke Sla lt'S C ut-Owr ..
Jl (ly11nfl Dni rY- - --- ~(' o r n B,•lt ·- - -- - · ·· - Sprin~ \ Vh <'3t ___ ____ ___
W inter Wh eat. .... . .. .
R o.aching .•• .•• . ... - . ..
70. 6
17. 4
I. I
3. 2 13,
fl;>!
100.0
7. 5
82. 4
i.5
0. 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 3. 6
61. 4
5. 4 1. 008 100. 0
85. 1
8. i
~ -0
-fi4. 3
24. 9
3. 9 1, 246 1()(1, 0
5. 1
82. 5
10. 6
I<IO. fl
5. 2
IOU. 0
100_0
100.0
18. i
9.0
7·t. t1
61. 5
7-t 1
9. 3
l (M'L 0
ll)O. 0
100. 0
100. 0
4. 6
4. 4
R. 7
II. i
70. fi
79. 8
84. 9
57. i
r,9_ 6
16. 9
14_5
10. 4
14. i
13. 2
6. 9
29. 4
16.0
100. 0
5.8
74. 6
16. 1
l,ll1 -1
1, 0-12
:!, ·IH
100. 0
lflO. 0
4. 7
5. 2
:J. 4
67. 1
2:l. 7
8/l'I
1, 2tJ(J
H-i. (I
6\1. 8
77. 2
t),,')_ 4
70. H
21. 7
16. 9
II. 4
9. 4
13. 7
11.3
3. 3
- - - - - - - - -- - - -
3:,1
47S
lM
134
HMJ. 0
100. 0
1(0 . ll
1IJ0. 0
100. 0
100. 0
IS. 8
6. 0
6. 9
4. 6
4. 3
4. 5
~
;=
0
I.I
1.6
2.0
2. 7
0.8
1. 3
3. I
0.3
2. 2
3. i
4_5
2. i
I. 4
2. 5
3. 1
2. 4
4_q94
2,094
92,;
626
2SR
276
1, 024
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
HJ0. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
4. 8
20, 9
8. 9
9. 3
5. 4
4. 2
6.5
11. 3
84. 5
68.8
81.;
82. 9
85. 9
90. 2
80. 5
80.3
5. 2
7. 7
3. 5
10. 2
i.2
2. 5
7, 336
100.0
5.3
85. 1
7.4
4. 5
700
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
2. R
2. 6
2. 6
87. 4
8.~. 0
87. 3
70. g
85. 9
84.5
87. 9
988
8 .1
6.9
5. 4
0. 9
1.0
I. 3
2. 2
-
1.4
1.4
-
I. 8 2,832
- 572
-2. 6
1.8
I. 7
2. 4
2. i
0. 4
1.0
7
I. 4
1. 2
o.
378
828
132
344
188
84
34
112
160
100. 0
8. 7
15. 7
63.3
100. 0
100. U
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
8. 0
12. 7
7. 7
3. 0
9. 9
9. 6
19. 6
4. 2
18.4
6.1
27.3
9. 6
33. 3
61.9
72.0
66. 9
71. 2
40. 7
61. 7
54.8
100.6
100. 0
7.
13.8
1J
I. 3
- - - - - - - --- -
-
t
z
2. 5
9. 8
-- 10.- 5 X,
r
'"
- 11.5, 31 ;;;
1. 7
6.1
6.4
5. 3
7. 1
13. 6
15. 7
13.8
4. 8
72. 4
7.1
2. 5
10.0
76.
i
-
7.t
OP t: N C'Ot' S T HY
0
>
Bi
--
TOTAi. R(IR ..\.L
E r.s tern , otton __ ___ _
W,;.st.rr n Co tton __ __ ___
ti Pl •-.lach ia n , Ozark . _.
L)\k r-. Stat es C ut-Ow•r_ _
tO
•
1138 oount11111 and 83 New Enrland toWDSblpa t]
Both se1e~
....
....
7.l. 4
82. 8
90. 2
62. 6
25. 4
1. 5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --- - - - - - - - - - -8. 3
I.
1.0
-
0. ~
3. 3
l. i
3. 2
1. 2
1. 9
3. 4
0. r,
2. 2
4. 5
1. 3
3.0
-
2. 9
sn
2,91 4
; :is
1, 120
312
412
lfi6
102
au
5. 9
7.1
5. 1
4. 8
5. 9
91. 6
82. 3
10. 3
8. 4
6. 0
4. 5
5.8
6.5
I. 2
9.8
0. 7
-
0. 5
0.8
1.6
2. 6
-
2. 4
7
2. I
I. 2
2.2
2.1
-
0.5
2.0
1, 378
100. 0
8. 6
19. 3
62. 3
2.3
7. 5
314
190
530
70
140
38
46
18
32
100.0
100.0
100.0
1(,().0
100.0
9. 6
16. 8
7. 5
5. i
7.1
21. 7
2. 1
21. 9
5. 7
31. 4
57. 9
72. 7
63.8
68.6
48. 6
2. 3
5. 7
4. 3
14. 3
t
--
-
f - -l
-- --- - 10. 8
8, 4
-
--t
f t
4. 5
8.6
-
t
t
t
"Tl
TD.LAG•
All •-------- &, lO'J
Eastern Cotton __ • _____
l5eG
Western Cotton_ _____ - .
/182
~ - O a a r l t . ___ 2,078
e States Cut-Over•.
312
Hay and Dairy ______ __
Corn Belt. ____ ___ ___ ___ 1,178
7M
~ring Wheat __ ________
232
Inter
Wheat
•
•••.••
-_
Ranching ___ ___ _______ _ 1311
26'
100.0
9. ti
M.11
111.6
1.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
11.0
10.0
8. 3
18. ti
12. 2
10.6
6.2
61.2
5'.2
86. 7
8(). ti
111.11
-L4
'-'
7.11
70. 1
61. 3
88.0
88. 2
73.3
77. 11
65. I
22.,
1L5
16. 2
17. 2
11. 8
31.6
2. ti
2. 0
2.'
2. ti
-
2.'
'- 5
4,808
100.0
9.11
78.7
7.8
7.1
a.2
3.1
a.1
tl.8
3. 7
1. 7
6.11
8.1
808
3H
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
1010
l'.l'.1.0
lo:J. 0
a.a
10. 7
8. 3
23.2
12. a
80.0
77.1
80.0
II. 7
11.2
7.tl
II.ti
II.ti
4.11
10.3
11.7
10. 3
1. 780
250
111,
1114
UH
120
174
lo.'
II. 2
a. 3
II.II
112.,
77.0
82.0
81.4
89. 3
1,u
L2
2.,
l.llllt
100.0
8. 2
U.8
AO
258
188
2118
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
loo. 0
100.0
tl.2
8. 6
8.1
17. 1
e.,
M.tl
1.tl
LIi
0.8
2.0
4.6
1.0
2. 6
3. 2
a.a
o. 7
2.1
L7
1.1
12.1
11.6
34.6
12.0
12.,
--
--
2. 3
82
21K
150
38
111
80
100.l
11. 8
10. 7
-
10.i
-
t
2. 6
7L3
2.8
-o. 7
74.1
86.8
57.a
11.6
7.8
'- 0
11.l
2. 6
t
-
12.2
10.1
u. 8
11.7
12.11
nt1
111.0
d
t Percent not computed on a base of fewer &ban 50 cues
Townahlpa In Connecticut and MamacbWIBtts ollly.
• Excluaive or beada or famlllea wboee marital condition or age wu UDltDown.
• Excluatve or New England.
I
~
::g
I'""
D
~:
;;;
Q
~
~
,-t
a.
cr
~
C;
>
'<
0
0
00
,._
fv
-<
a,
I'""
m
....•
I<)
VI
Tol,le U.-Marital Condition of Heads of Rural Families 65 Years of Age and Over Receiving General Relief, by Residence, Area, and Sex,
Odober 1935
Both
Male
S<' I CS
1- - - - -- - - -- - -· - -· - -
He,i de nce- and an'!\
T otal I
- ----
Single
:Siarr led
~
X,
F emale
r>
---
To t al
Xum- Pf!r·
bcr
C<'Ot
-- -- --
- -·
-
WJ.1 D I- Sepn·
owed vor ced r ated
N umber
Total
Single
Prr•
c,,nt
-- -- -- -- -- - -
:-Si ar r led
-- --
W lcl D i- SepaW it!D i- SepaSingle 1\laro wed vorced ra ted :-.um•
r led owed vorced rated
Perber
cent
--- -- -- -- ---
--
II. 9
40. 1
3-1 .6
100
llJO. 0
\ Vt•stern Cott on .... . ...
910
A p palachian·Ozark ... . 1, 322
Lnk e Rtatus C u t -Oyer .
594
ll ay an,J Dairy . ... .. . .
932
C orn Brit . . .. . ... . .. ..
390
S pring W heat. .•... . ...
106
Win te r W heat. . . . . . •. .
46
!00.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
8. 8
7. 3
7. 0
Z:l. 2
10. 3
9. 2
26. 4
46. 2
40. 9
2\l. 5
43. 1
3.3. 0
33. 3
17.0
120
278
t
3R 7
49. 1
60. 8
25. 3
46. 7
50.8
50. 9
100.0
100. 0
t
11. 7
12. 2
35. 0
50. 7
2. rro
100.0
II. i
51. 8
70
.562
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
ml. O
8.6
5. 3
.~. 5
24. 7
16. 7
8. 9
35. 7
45. 7
5-3. 8
6/l.6
22. 7
47. 2
68. 0
46. 4
l<anchin2' _. ___ ___ __. __ _
New England .........
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - HKJ. 0
t
t
43. 3
24. 5
1. 7
2. 7
3, 866
100. 0
12. 9
- - - - - --- -6.-3 -100
100. 0
9. 4
0. g
0. 6
4.0
1. 9
61. 5
--- -
22.1
-28. 3
21.1
19. 2
37. 6
21. 2
20. 5
11.1
73. 4
20. 5
13. 3
-
3. 3
6. 7
662
1,124
604
728
312
90
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
10. 0
6. 4
25. 8
16. 8
9. 6
31. l
t
2.9
100.0
100. 0
t
0. 7
36
78
226
17. 9
10. 6
I. 4
2. 1
2008
100.0
11. 5
62. 8
22. 7
0. 5
I. 5
3. 5
2. 4
688
346
400
80
54
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
3. 5
26. 0
15. 5
5. 0
37. 0
76. 7
26. 0
58. 0
77. 5
48. 2
18.0
41. 6
22. 5
12. 5
H.8
4. 1
1. 9
0. 6
6.~. 5
67. 7
71. 6
29. 8
59. 0
63. 5
57. 8
2. 1
4. 4
2. I
2.6
3. 8
1. 8
1.6
t
51. g
t
0. 7
4. 0
1.9
4. 5
1. 0
992
3. 8
0. 6
2. 1
2. 8
I.I
1.9
54
248
198
90
204
100.0
7. 9
--
0.6
7. 7
2. 7
78
16
10
42
52
I. 5
I. 5
432
100. 0
12 5
-
0. 6
3. 5
2. 0
5. 0
-
1. 2
2. 9
2. 0
106
50
U2
10
2
100. 0
!IIO. 0
100. 0
18 . 9
lfl.O
21.7
-
-
83. 5
22
5. 8
- - - - - --- - 100. 0
7. 4
- 81. 5
- 11.1
100. 0
03. 6
1.6
4.8
100. 0 10. 1
2 0
- 87. 9
100.0
8.9
4. 4
73. 4
13. 3
7., . 4
5. g
100. 0 14. 7
2. 0
2.0
100.0
7. 7
2.6
5.1
- 8 1.6
t
t
t
t
t
t
-t
t
t
t
100.0 19.2
73. 2
3. 8
-
aJ
OP& S COL'N T RY
A ll area.s • .•.• . ...
a
<C
:c.
N
lS.
rr
'<
CJ
0
0
00
n
F.ri.st<"rn Cotton __ ___ . ..
\\'t~ tern Cotton _______ _
A Pf~1ln<'hian•Ozar k ... .
La ke State.s Cut-O ve r.
llnya n,J D airy • . .. . . . .
( 'orn
n ,,Jt_ ___ __ _____ __ _
s1,r ing W heat •.. ... . .. .
\\ In ter Wbeat ...... . ..
R anch ing • • • •. •..••. . ..
- - --· --- --794
396
4fi2
00
.S(i
18
22
!tlO. 0
100. 0
t
t
?
E
0
100. 0
En.slPrn C o tton ___ _____
...,
>
- - C:
- -
TOTAL R l' RA L
A ll area.s . ........ 4, 8.'.S
~
•
(138 counties and 83 New England townahlpe 1)
I
....
-t
t
t
--
33. 0
40.0
38. 1
25. 9
46. 1
32 1
17. 8
17. 9
t
t
0. g
82. 0
4. 6
--- --- - - - --- -7.- - --- - - - - - - - - -- - -59.-3 - 25.--g - - -i4
5. 7
54 100. 0
.4
16
t
t
t
1. 4
1.4
414 100. 0
i.2
73.0
18.8
1. 0
ll8 100. 0
9 1.9
2. 7
5. 4
-
a. o
1. 6
4. 4
-
-
I
u
18
t
t
-
t
t
t
-
t
-
-
t
4
4
t
t
t
t
-
t
77. 3
;n. o
-
3. ~
-
H. 0
t
-
t
t
-
-
7-t. 0
t
-
4. 3
-
z
X,
c...,'"
YILL.t.O•
E
w
A
L
II
C
,,s
Allareas 1••••••• •
2,080
em Cotton •••••••.
90
100.0
12. 1
44. 4
38. 0
2. \
3. 4
1,572
States Cut•Over •.
and Dairy •••••••.
Belt . ....•••••••••
ng Wheat .••••••• •.
ter Wheat ... .. . . . .
~
1
Ran,cbing ..............
198
«o
300
50
15.1
68.4
30. 8
67. 7
58. 9 . 25.0
113. 3
21.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
11. 5
14.5
II. 0
25. 3
18. 3
11. 2
28
118
100.0
16. 7
2-tS
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
t
100. 0
~-2
15.9
9. 3
16.0
t
10. 2
30. 3
45. 9
•-~- 4
56.0
37. 3
34. I
38. 0
16. 0
6. I
32. 7
46. 11
t
t
t.O
II. I
1.8
3. 3
8.0
158
328
2:12
36
4. l
6.1
60
2. 3
4.0
-
-
22
22. 6
100. 0
-33.-3 ----- -100.0- -52 100.0
51. I
8.9
-- - II.2. 73 -100. 0
u,m Cotton .. ..••• • 348 HXJ.0 10. 3 42.0 45.4
436 100.0
34.8
62. 3
al!lehf an-Ozark_·_. .
9.1
3. 0
0.8
528 100.0
; ;
38.0
00.4
58. 6
~I
29.1
19.5
23.3
6.1
1.8
2.5
40
4.3
2.11
112
118
14
l --23.
3
50!
2. 2
38
- --- -100
I.II
92
3. 7
0. 9
1.8
-
-7
6.
6
38
100.0
100J
100. 0
t
100.0
100. 0
!
2.8
I.~
-- --- 3. 6
-- --t
- t
8,9
2.11
86.8
118.!
100.0
a.1
7. 1
-t
4. 0
--
76.1
3.11
88.3
2. 9
i
t
-t
t
-t
7.1
6.11
-tt
t Percent not computed on a b888 of fewer than 50 case.,.
Townships fn Connectie-ut and Me.ssachusetts only.
I E1clusive of heads of families whose marital con<lilion or age was unknown.
• Exclusive of New Eogl!lnd.
I
~
::g
r
~
0
<e'.
~
a
0-
'<
0
0
0
00
n
~
>
-<
,0
►r
a,
~
-"...,•°
Tat,le 14.-Marital Condition of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General R•lief In the Emt.rn and Wamn Cotton Areas, by Residsnce, Ag•,
S.x, and Color, Octobsr 1935
(44 OOUDtleel
_..
"°
•
CX)
~
C
Both aexee
Residence and
ace
Total
Male
Num•I
Per•
her
cent
Female
Total
I
Single Mar•
rled
Dl• Sepe.Wld•
owed vorced rated
Nam•I
Perber
cent
~
>
r
Total
Bln&le
Marrled
Wld•
DI• Sepe.owed voroe<.I. rated
Nam•!
Per•
ber
cent
Df. Sepe.owed voroed rated
Bingle Mar• Wld•
rled
TOTil. Bt:ll.U.
~
Total •••••• • •••••. 7,614
100.0
7. 7
70. S
16-2.f years . • .••••••••• .
684
25-34 years .••••.••• . •.. 1,984
35-44 years ..• •• •• ••• •.• 1,892
4~years ..• . . •• ••••.. 2,410
65 years and over •••••• •
644
100.0
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
22.2
8.2
4.3
6.6
5.3
M. 6
75. I
73.8
67. 8
57. 4
100.0
tl.2
74. 8
--
m
16. 2
0,5
5.3
6,1106
100.0
6. 3
4.4
I. 5
0.6
7
5.3
7.0
II. 7
3.8
1.6
M8
1, 6112
1,452
1,804
510
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
18. 2
7.2
1.3
4.5
6.9
4.
C. a.so
100. 0
'311
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
9. I
J~.5
21.8
3.S. 1
o.
-
0.6
87. 11
4.11
0. 1
---81.4
- --91.4
1.0
0.8 1,708
o.,
136
392
440
11.6
100.0
12.5
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
3g, 1
12.2
7. 7
12. 6
3.0
9.2
9.6
12. 6
1.,
M.4
1.11
22.1
41. 8
M.0
64.1
91.0
7.4
3.1
2.3
-II0.6
25. 0
33. 7
26. 5
10. 9
6.0
113. 2
86.4
72. 6
2.2
7.6
20.4
0.3
0.8
-
0.4
1.0
1. 5
0.4
4. 8
80.8
4.11
0. I
o. 7
1,014
100. 0
114
JO.a
M. 2
1. 8
20. 3
ltl. 6
6. 6
:I.fl
2.2
1. 2
83.0
113. I
95. l
88. l
74. 11
1.3
--1.3
0.6
80
250
344
37. 6
II. I
4.8
15. l
18
7.6
9. 7
10.4
13. 4
25.0
43.4
80. 8
61.0
86.1
10. 0
3.0
0.8
20. 0
32. 8
0.6
l. 6
0. 6
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
7
0.3
1. 3
-5.-- 1. 7
- I.-I 11
8.4
6.5
20.6
-- 1.1-
Cl84
100.0
12. 7
8.6
M.7
2.0
21.0
611
U6
190
382
82
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
39.8
14. 5
11.tl
9.2
8.2
7.1
8. I
8.4
11.4
17.9
38. 7
47.4
67.9
96.8
3.11
8.2
32.1
85. 5
28. 4
11. 6
606
134
-
--
OPICN COUNTBT
Total ••• . •• •••••••
5,364
_ --516
--, 19.
100. 0
8
71.2
CJ
16-24 years .. • ••••••••..
1ii
35-44 years • • ••• • •••••• • 1, 350
~
fl
C")
0
0
-
oa
ro
25-34 year.i .. •••• •• •.•.• 1,510
41H!4 year,, .. .• ••••• •.. . 1,600
116 years and over •••.••.
388
100. 0
JOO. 0
100. 0
100.0
6. 6
3. 0
5. 0
3.1
14. 2
~
3. 9
8. 7
12. 7
19. 6
4
---I.ti
3. 5
0. 4
0.5
o. 2
711.4
7V. 4
72.0
60.8
82.6
1.0
5. 8
4. 7
3. 5
16
I. :.142
I, JOO
1,256
3Ul
1.8
8.1
20. 3
-
268
72
-
--
23.2
10. 6
11. 1
VILLAOIC
Total .••• •• •• •••• 2,250
16-24 years ..•. •••••••••
2b-34 years .•••.••• • .•..
35-44 years .•••• •• ••.•..
•~years •...• ••••••••
Myearsandover •••••••
~
F
ffi
0
z
WHITE
(0
>
168
474
542
810
256
100.0
11. 3
611. 4
21 . 1
0.8
7.4
1,Mfl
100.0
10. 7
82. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
29.8
13. 1
7.8
9.6
8. 6
52.3
65.5
69. 8
69. 5
62. 3
6.0
JO. 1
18. 8
311.4
111.1
1.2
0.8
2.2
10. 7
10. 5
11.4
.. 5
112
350
352
548
194
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
25.0
116
5. 7
9.9
10.8
76.0
85. 7
87.6
816
ell.I
--
-
-
4.2
-- -
r
m
~
Nll:OR.O
TOTAL BUlliL
Total •••••••••••• 2,430
16-24 )'Ml'II •••••••••••••
26-84 years •••••••••••••
M--4-&years •••••••••••••
46-M years •••••.••...••
1115 years and over•••••..
2)4
482
624
7114
426
100.0
10. 4
49.11
30. 1
0. 7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
41.2
7.6
11.5
4.6
10.8
4.8.0
2.1
0. 8
0. 9
13. 7
13.4
7.3
3. 8
308
32>
47.11
32.9
3.9
14.1
22.1
40.3
61.11
82. II
64. 2
9.2
1,SOO
100.0
12.0
73.11
12.1
II.ti
IM
<&D.2
7.1
8. 7
4.0
17.8
69.8
89.0
81. 9
72.9
3.9
4~
258
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
G. II
64.3
18. 2
25.11
9.3
- 2.,
-- --- :I.Ii
<&.II
• :a.a
030
100.0
7. 7
11.0
811.2
40
174
2CM
M4
1118
t
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
t
8. 0
10.8
111. 1
t
624
100.0
211
114
132
lCIO
92
- aa.1
100. & ll.6 111.8
100.0 12.1 10.11
42.4
100.0 11.2 111. 2
118.8
100.0
- - 116.7
- 36.t
8. 8
-- 34.11
8.8
<&.3
-
408
100.0
G.11
11.9
111.6
LO
14
80
72
184
711
t
t
10. 0
30.0
-5. II
-
811.8
1.11
6. 2
10.8
15.1
82.3
411.1
811.2
IILII
-7
2.0·
2.4
8. 2
11.11
M.2
<&.Ii
- -
6.
21.2
t
37.9
30. 8
10. 6
e. 0
ORN COUNTIIT
Total ••.••..••••.. 1,518
100. 0
10.2
64.11
26. 7
1.11
7.11
11114
100.0
11.3
77.8
128
311.1
II.I
11.0
{.8
11.8
61. 6
M.4
6G. 6
611.1
<&D.2
G.3
H.1
18. 7
33.8
47.11
3.1
2"4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
1.11
--
3.1
12. a
13. 7
6. 3
0.8
102
212
232
2911
162
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
36. 3
7.6
10.3
{.0
16.8
11"-7
88. 7
82.8
77. 7
11"-6
6. 2
14.11
18.4
Total ••••••••••••
1112
100.0
10.6
<&o.4
87.3
0.4
11.4
60e
100.0
13.4
11"-8
17.8
1&-2" years •.•.••..•.•••
25-34 years •....•.••..••
711
11511
160
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
44. 7
10. 3
42. l
14.1
-2. 6
--
13. 2
111. 7
12. 6
10.1
7. 7
fl2
1111
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
48.4
61.11
811.6
79.11
113.11
39.11
l&-2" JMl'II •• - •••• - •••••
25-34 years •.•......•...
~years ...........•.
4b--Myears ....•••.•••••
1115 years and over•••••••
3211
3M
4.511
a.-8
-
--1.8
1.11
-I. 7
3.4
-
t
111.6
VII.LAOS
years ..•....•••••.
41H!4 years .....•••••••.
615 years and over•••••..
~
338
182
'l.2
{.1
12. 1
158. fl
48.8
311. 7
23.1
30.0
411.1
57.1
88
164
108
• Leas than 0.06 percent.
0
co·
""
.;;·
f Percent not computed on a bue of fewer than 60 cum.
1 E.J:clmive
of beads of famfllell whoee marital condition or ap wu untnown.
8.3
'- 6
3.11
2D. 8
'- 2
11.4
24.7
85.8
----
4.0
-"-11
7.8
3.8
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
111. 7
8.3
.. 3
-
11.1
14.1
62.8
IIG. II
--
2D. 7
t
43.8
22.2
12.0
13. 2
VI
C
~
m
I:
ITI
z
0
>
"'-<
>
~
e::
.....•
i
S!
0
~
a,
r-
!8
130 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Tol,le 15.-Si:r:e of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence and Area,
June 1935
(138 counties and 116 New England townships)
Total
Number of pel'!IOns In family
1
Residenoo and area
'
Number
Percent
1
2- 3
4- 5
6-7
8-9
!Oor
more
- - - - - - - -- - -- - - - -----TOT.lL RURAL
All
a,eas __ ____ ___ -· -. - ·-·- -
Eastern Cotton __ _____ ·· · - . ·-· ...
White -------·-------- --- --- ·
NegroCotton_
. - --···-·-····
· ···___
·· ·Western
.. ________
. __·
White -·· · ··· · •• · - •- ···· · · ···
Negro . ······ ··- -- - __ __ --- ·- Appalschlan-Otark .. _.. . .. ...•..
Lake States Cut-Over. __ -· ·· -· . _
Hay and Dairy •. . . • ___ -· ---·····
Corn Belt _______ . _____ ___ ._. _. __
~r~r:r i.ie~t·-~ ::::: :::::: ::: : ::
Ranching··-·········-··· ..... .• .
New England ··- -·- -· ---- · ·-·· --
62,809
100. 0
9.9
33. 3
28.9
16. 8
7. 8
7,732
5,084
2,648
7,268
5,432
1,836
17,016
3,792
8,626
7,512
3,374
I, 288
1,886
4,315
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
10. 3
6. 6
17. 4
8. 7
5. 5
18.1
6. 1
21. 8
10. 3
8. 8
8.3
6.8
17. 6
15.1
35, 8
34. 6
38.1
35. 3
36. 1
32. 8
30. 4
29. 8
34. 2
36. 6
28. 8
35. 7
32_2
35. 5
29. 0
32. 5
22. 3
30. 0
32. 2
23. 7
30. 4
24. 2
27. 5
30. 4
26. 8
3.1. 5
2fl. 4
26.6
16. 5
18. 3
13. 0
16.0
16. 4
14. 8
19. 5
13. 2
16.6
15. 2
18. 7
15. 7
16. 0
14. 0
6. 1
- - - --------------- --- ~
6.2
6.0
7. 3
7. 4
7.0
9.9
7.8
7.6
6. 4
10. 2
6.4
6. 7
6. 0
!'
OPEN COl-"NTRY
All
area., I _ - · · · - · · • ••••• - · ·
Eastern Cotton . . . ........... .. . _
White .... .. .... . . _______ ____
Negro •• . · -···· · · ··· ·· ··· ····
Western Cotton ·-· · · ··-·· · · · -· ·White -- --- -··--·- ·······-- - Nei:ro- -- -· - -· · ············-Appalachlan-Otark •.. • _.. ____ _. _
Lake States Cut-O ver _.. _. . . .. . _
Hay and Dairy •. .... ____ . . ___ __.
Corn Belt __ ··-···- -·· · · ·· · ··- - · ·
Spring Wheat ...• _. _._ . . . _. .. •. .
Winter WheaL . .. ... _....•• ....
Ranching .... .. . .. .. ..... .. _ - ·· ·
2. 3
1.8
I 3.2
: 2. 7
2. 4
3. 6
3. 7
, 3. 2
3.8
, 2. 6
, 7. 2
1. 9
2. 1
, 2.8
35,782
100. 0
7. 5
30. 4
29. 9
18. 8
9. 3
5,002
3,366
1,636
4,686
3,510
I, 176
12, Of,/\
2. 492
MO
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
l(J(}_ 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
9.5
5.8
17. 1
7. 1
4. 2
15. 8
3. 3
21. 2
9. 1
6. 1
7. 3
4. 8
19. 4
33. 6
33. 0
34. 8
32. 7
3:l. 8
29. 3
27 . 6
29. 8
32. 3
32. 8
26. 2
31. 0
31. 3
29. 3
32. 3
23. 2
31. 5
33. 2
26. 4
3 1. 6
24. 2
27. 6
32. 8
26. 5
35. 8
24. 3
17. 7
19. 6
13. 7
17. 7
18. 0
16. 7
21. 7
12.6
17. 4
18. 0
20.0
17. 9
16.3
7. 1
7. 0
7. 2
8. 0
8.1
7. 7
II. 2
8.6
9.3
7.6
11.0
7.2
6.6
22, 712
100. 0
12_5
37 . 5
27. 8
H.2
5.8
2. 2
2,730
1,718
1.012
2. 582
I, 922
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
11.6
8. 0
17. 8
11.6
8. 0
22. I
12. 9
22. 9
12. 1
10. 4
IO. 7
9.1
rn. 7
40. 0
37. 7
43. 7
40. 0
40. 3
3K 8
37. 0
30. 1
3~. 7
39 0
34 . 8
io. 1
~2- ~
28.4
32. 8
20. 8
27. 4
30. 3
19. 1
27. 5
24. 0
Z7. 3
28.9
27. 7
31. 1
27. 5
14. 4
15. 9
II. 9
13.0
13. 5
II. 5
14_1
14. 5
15. 5
13. 6
I~. 7
rn. 3
I.~. 9
4. 4
4. 7
4.0
6.0
6.1
5. 8
6.8
6. 2
5. 2
5. 6
8. 3
5. 5
5. 3
1. 2
0. 9
I. 8
2. 0
1.8
2. 7
I. 7
2. 3
3. 2
2. 6
2. 8
0. 3
2. 1
- - - - - - --- - -- - - - --- ---
5.028
2,802
2.386
670
· 4.1
~
2. 3
4. 0
I 3. o
2. 7
4.1
4. 6
3.6
4. 3
2_7
9. 0
3. 3
2. 2
\'ILLA.OE
All areas• .. -- -·· ··_ . •... -.
Eastern Cotton .. . . · -··· · ··· · · · · ·
White .. . . .. . ·- -----·------ -Negro _•. .. ...•• ••.. . . ...•. . .
Western Cotton _. ·· -··_ ... _____ .
White . . - · -··· -- · ·-· · · ··· - ···
Negro __ ... . ___ . . . .. . __ ... ...
Appalachian·Ozark . . __ _. _-- ·- · ·.
Lake States Cut-Over. . .. _•.•..•
Jlay and Dairy .... . .... . . . . _.. _.
Corn Belt_ _.. _-·-· · · · ·· ---· · -···
Spring Wheat .. . ... . .. .... •• . . . .
Winter Wheat. ....... •. ... .... . .
Hanching .. -.. ... . . __.. . . ____ .. .
- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - --- ---
660
4, 9.'iO
1,300
3,598
4, 710
988
61 8
I, 236
• Exclusive of families whose size wu unknown.
• Exclusive of New EoeJand.
Diglizedby
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 131
Ta61e 16.-Size of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Usual Occupation of
Head, Area, and Color, June 1935
(138 ooantlee tJ
Total 1
Usual oeeupetlon of
tiead, - • and color
Num•
ber
Percent
1
2
3
4
6
II
7
8
9
lOor
more
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- --
ALL~
Total ___________
Number of penona In family
9.6
Ul.2
Ul.8
Ul.1
12. 9
10.0
7.1
4.8
3.2
3.4
11. 2
9.6
10.0
8.4
13.6
15. 7
14. 8
16.9
15. 7
14.1
16. 9
19.11
20.3
18. 4
17. 4
17.3
15. 2
18. 3
18. l
17. 8
18. 0
H.7
14.9
13. 9
15. 7
14.3
H. 0
14. 0
12. 2
12. 9
13.4
12.8
11. 7
10. 4
10. 4
9.1
9. 7
9.11
10.0
8. 8
7.6
6.9
6. 6
7.3
8.0
7.2
6.4
4. 7
4.3
4.6
5. 2
6. 7
6. 2
3.9
2. fl
2.7
4. 7
fl,860
23, 136
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
2. 7
2. 0
3.fl
1. 2
1. 2
4.4
7.4
JO, 342
100. 0
ao.e
31.11
13. 6
9.4
6.0
3. II
2. 4
L6
0.8
0. II
Total.-····-···· 10,512
100.0
e.o
17. 6
18.0
18. I
14.2
10.8
11.6
4.4
2.4
2.1
3,562
604
1,438
1,520
1,1140
3,164
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
1.3
0.8
2.fl
0.8
0.1
2. 2
4.2
12. 4
10. 9
12.9
8.1
12. 8
15. I
16. 4
17. 1
17.6
14. fl
15.9
20.3
16. 3
21.1
19. 2
20. 2
22.fl
19.8
19. 3
17. 7
20.0
)fl. 5
15.8
18. 3
lfl. 0
14. fl
17. 7
14. 7
12. 8
12. 7
13. 2
13. 9
11.4
13. 0
10.9
8. fl
8.5
7.9
8.1
9.1
8.8
11.4
5.8
11.1
2.3
8.3
5.5
5. 2
3. 7
3.3
3. 8
2.6
4.5
3. 7
2. 4
a.-0
3.0
3. 7
3.0
4.fl
3.2
1.11
LIi
1,846
100.0
23.2
34.4
111.8
11.6
11.4
4.9
2.1
1. 6
0. 4
0.3
4,484
100.0
17. 7
20.8
16.3
13.3
9.5
7.9
5.8
3. 7
2. 7
3.3
1,104
IM
446
504
1,010
1,050
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.8
2. 7
3.9
0.4
4.4
7.1
9.0
14. l
11. 2
11. 7
6.8
15.8
17. 2
21.4
17.0
15. 5
12. 1
17.8
19. 3
17.9
16, 7
15.3
14.3
16. 7
H. 3
18.2
17.1
12.3
13.9
13.0
14.8
13.5
10.6
!LIi
10.6
12.9
14. 3
13.0
12.3
8.1
9.9
8.8
9. 2
7.8
II. 2
7.9
8.3
6.3
5. 7
7.2
6.6
9.9
5. 2
4. 0
2.9
4.0
6.fl
fl.6
6. 7
2. 2
3.0
fl.O
6. 7
fl.6
9.4
4.4
5.1
1. 9
1,320
100.0
46.1
30. 7
10. 3
11.0
3.6
2. 0
1.6
I. 1
0.6
0.3
Alricultun •••• _••••••
operator ••••
0,rner .•.•••••
Tenant. •.•••.
Cro~•·····
la rer ..•••
Nonagrlcultwe •..•.•.
No usual occupation
or non worker.·-·· •.
Farm
Farm
68,4M
100.0
----100. 0
M,9711
18, 128
6. 418
9,684
2,024
5.6
fl.6
6.3
3.6
2.11
3.1
SUTSRlf .ufD W1Ul'f• a If COTTON
ua.-WlllTJI
Acrlcaltun •..•.•• --··
Farm operator •••.
Owner ..... __
Tenant .••••••
F~'f.~er:::::
N onagnculture •••..•.
No usual occupation
or nonworker _..••••
----6,502
100. 0
S.f.STllRlf AND W1Ul'fSR N COTTOM
• ilS.f.&-NJ:ORO
Total_ ••••••••••
Alricultun •••••••••••
Farm operator ••••
Owner ••••••••
Tenant .••••••
Cro"ftJ:r .•••••
Farm la rer .••••
Nooagrtculture .. ···-·
No usual occupation
or nonworker .......
--2, 114
rn. a
4. 4
I Eltclusln of New England town•hlp11.
I Eltcluslve of families whose •ize was unknown.
• In tbe 2 Cotton Areas.
Oig1 ,zed by
Google
132 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Tol>le 17.-Age of Penons in Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Rnidence
and Area, June 1935
(138 oountlel and 1UI N- Bqland towmhl111)
Aplnyears
Total I
Reaid- and -
TOTAL
Number
Per-
cent
Under
10
10-111
16-3'
~
36-44
45-6'
- - - - - - --
5&-e4 eaand
over
•VJIAL
All anu..........
270, l!OII
100.0
2111.2
Ul.7
us.a
11.11
11.8
8.2
11.11
u
But«n Cotton.••••••..
White.. ••.•••••••••••
Nepo ...............
Watem Cotton•••••••.•
31,870
21, 11811
11,IIM
30,IIM
28,848
7,208
79,508
14,MII
87,004
a1,1ao
111,472
11,388
7,822
UI, 8'/0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO. 0
100.0
211. 8
211.11
2111.11
2111.4
2111.8
•1
21.a
23. 7
27.2
211.1
IO.ll
Ul.7
17.1
111.8
18.4
Ui.11
17.11
17.4
111.a
18.8
111.4
18.11
111.4
111. 7
18. 7
Ill.II
)11.8
111.4
18. 7
17.11
14.1
17.2
17.8
14.11
Ill.II
111. a
1s. a
111. l
111.a
11.11
12.11
II.II
12.11
13. 2
10.0
11.8
12.2
10. II
12.11
13.11
14.1
12. 0
11.7
11.4
II. 7
8. 7
11.a
11.4
8. 8
11.2
II.II
10. 7
10.8
11.8
11.0
II.II
11.2
7.11
8.1
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.11
8.11
8.11
11.2
8.11
7.11
7.8
10. 7
11.11
11.8
II.II
11. l
4.8
11.11
11.1
8.1
II.II
8.11
4.2
4.11
8.4
7. 7
8.8
11. l
10. a
e. 2
11.0
10.0
4.4
11.11
II. a
11.4
2.11
3.11
8.0
8. 7
White.. ••...•.••.....
Nepo ...............
Appalachlan•Ozark . ....
Lue States Cot-Over.••
=
Bay and Dairy ••••••••••
Oom Belt...............
Wheat. ••••••••••
ter Wheat ..........
Ranchfn& •••••••••••••••
NewED&land ...........
...
27.11
21.0
---
OPD 00UJlftY
ADanu•.........
1114,8114
100.0
28. l
17.0
1a. a
12. 0
11.4
7.11
4.11
4.8
Eutern Cotton •••••••••
White. ••••••••••••••
Nepo.. .............
Watem Cotton. ••••••••
White••.••••••••••••
Nesro...............
Appalachlan•Ourk •••••
Lake States Cut•Over•..
Bay and Dairy •••••••••
Corn Belt••••••••••••••.
Wheat .••• ·-•••••
Inter Wheat ••••••••••
21,40l
14,874
11, ll30
12,274
8,0'lO
2, ll20
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
27.2
27.2
27.2
27.8
28. l
2111.11
28.8
'4.2
27.11
211.8
81.11
2111.11
17.0
17. l
18. 8
111. a
111.8
17.11
17.11
18.11
17.11
18.0
18.11
111. l
18.0
111.2
111. I
111.a
18. 7
17.11
14. 2
17. I
18. 8
14. 8
111.0
18. 4
18. 7
13.8
11. 7
13.1
8.11
12.11
13. 7
10.2
11.11
11. 7
10.11
12.8
14.0
14.11
11.2
8. 7
8.11
8.1
8. 7
8.8
8. 7
11. l
II.II
10.11
10.11
11.0
10.11
II.II
7.1
7.5
e. 4
8.11
e. 8
7.0
8.11
11.2
8. II
11.0
8.8
8.2
8.4
II. 7
II. 7
11.7
4.8
.. 5
II.II
4.11
e.o
11.1
11.4
a. 7
a. 7
8.8
7.4
11.4
11 •.11
II.II
4.8
II.II
4.0
II.II
4.11
4.4
2.0
3.11
II.II
AD anu 1•••••••••
88,783
100.0
'4.2
18.0
111.ll
11.1
10.1
0.0
8.11
8.0
Eut«n Cotton ••.••••••
Wlllte••.•••.••.•.•••
Negro .•..••.•••••.••
W•tern Cotton ••••.•••.
White••••••••.••••.•
Negro•.•••.•••••••..
Appalachlan•Ozark •••..
Lake States Cut-Over...
Bay and Dairy .•••..•..
Oom Belt•.•••••.•••....
~ring Wheat ••.•.......
Inter Wheat •••.......
10,21111
11,812
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
23. I
21.8
2111.0
23.11
23. 7
23. 7
22. 8
22. 7
211.8
24.11
27.0
22. 7
27.2
18.0
18.11
14. l
Ill.II
18. 2
17.11
Ill.II
II.II
111. 7
11.1
111.8
11.7
11.11
Ul.7
17.2
Ill. 7
111. 7
17.11
14.0
17.2
18. 4
111.0
111. 4
111.0
17.8
18.1
12. 2
12. 7
11.3
11.7
12. 8
- ll. 7
11.7
ta.a
10.8
12. 8
11.11
13.0
12.11
10.11
11.4
11.8
10.4
10. 7
II. I
ll.11
11.0
10.11
10.1
10.1
11.1
II.II
11.4
11.4
11.3
s.a
8.11
7. 7
ll. 7
8.1
ll.4
11.3
7.2
11.1
e. 7
8.2
8.1
11.4
11.8
II.II
8. II
e. 7
II.II
4.11
7.4
8.11
LIi
n.a
II.II
a.a
II.II
8.1
II.II
4.8
8.2
Wiring
Ranchlnl •••............
2),830
111,.,
4,1134
tlO, UIS
11,7711
22, 1112
12, 4aO
211.a
TILL.I.OS
Ranchfn& •••••••••......
1
I
3,4114
II, 112G
7,1162
2,274
111,340
4,810
14, 8112
18, (18()
4, 1118
2,3118
4,802
a.a
11.3
7.2
II.II
11.8
e. 2
Exclosive of peniona whoee qe wu unknown.
Exclosive ol New Encland.
Oig lized bv
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 133
Tcrtlle 18.-S.x of Persons In Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence and
Area, June 1935
(138 ooant!M and 1111 New England townships)
Total
I
Bcldmoe and.,.
Male
___ ___
TOTAL •UUL
Female
Percent
Number
100. o
r,o, 9
49. I
Com Belt ... ·-····-····-·-··-······-··-·······----·----·-·--·
31,692
30,566
79,518
14,682
37,030
31, 134
100. O
100. o
100. 0
100. o
100. 0
100. 0
Ranching.········--········-·······-····--···-·····-·--·-···
New England •••.•• ··-·-· ••••..•••. ·-·-···------------------·
16, 1138
100. 0
100. 0
47.6
4Q.8
61.0
M.6
61.4
61.6
61.3
r,o, 7
61. 1
62. 2
52. 6
60.2
40.0
44.6
48.11
48.6
48. 7
49.3
48.Q
47.8
All-------------------------------------------- ,_ 270,762
Eastern Cotton_____________________________________
Western Cotton •... --·--····--·--·--------·---------··--··--·
Appalachlan•Ozark ..• ····-··--····-·-··----·----··----·-·-··
Lake States Cut-Over.•.•••••••• -····-··-·---·-·-------·-·--·
Hay and Dairy.-······-·--···-···-···-·---------·---·----·-·
~fo~r i11.:t·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
It~
7,322
,,
i:: g
OPSII COIJIITRY
All areu •·-···-·--····--·-·-··-··-····-------·-·----··
164,970
100.0
61.3
48. 7
Eastern Cotton.·--···-····-··--·-··--············--·-·-·····
21,410
Appalachian-Ozark.·-··--·-·-·-·······--····--··--·--·-·-···
60, 176
9,860
100. o
JOO. O
100. 0
100. O
61. e
49. 7
JOO. 0
JOO. 0
48. 4
ro. 3
61. 3
M. 7
62. 0
62. 9
100. 0
62. 2
1-----~----+---•1----
Western Cotton •. ·-····-·····-···-············-·---····-·-·-·
Lake States Cut•Over •••• ·--·--·-·-··········-······-·-····-·
Bay and Dairy .• _•• ··-·-· ••. ·-·· ••••• ·--· .•••• ··-··-·--.....
Com Belt .• ···--···-·--·-·--···----····-····-------·-····-·-·
U>~:rwi::t::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ranching.-···-·--------··---······-·-·-··-····-------------·
20,636
22, 620
12,452
~: ~
2,520
:::g iu
48. 7
44. 3
48. 0
47. I
:u
47. 8
VILL.t.OS
All
areaa •·---·--·--------··--···-·····-·-·-·--·······-· 1------1----1----+---88,844
100.0
49.8
ro.2
Eastern Cotton_.·-···- •••••••••••••••.• ·-·-··-··--·····-·-·.
W estem Cotton ....• ·-···.··-· .•.••.•••..•.••••.•.•.... ··-··.
Appalachian-Ozark •..••••••••..••.•.•...•.•. ······-········.
Lake States Cut•Over•..••••••••.•.••....•••••..••• ·-········
Bay and DBlrY--············-·······························
Com Belt....................................................
~~Ir~11.i:.tt·.·:.·:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ranching ..... ··-···-·-···...................................
1
10, 282
9, 930
19,342
4,822
14,410
18, f,82
gg:
4, 802
100. 0
100. o
100. O
JOO. 0
45. 8
JOO. 0
r,o, 4
ro. 7
100. 0
48. g
r,o. 1
M.O
:::
g l::g
JOO. 0
r,o, 6
M. 2
51. 1
49. g
45. 0
4g_ 11
4Q. 3
iu
49. 6
Exclualve or peraona whose sex was unknown.
• Exclusive or New England.
Oig,•ized by
G oog Ie
..
• RURAL
134
, ,.
FAMILIES ON RELIEF
79.-Ruial Families Receiving Geneial Relief With Penons in Dependent A,e
Groups, by Residence and Area, June 1935
(138 oounilel and lUI New Encland towmhlpe)
Total
Belldence and Number
Children
Children AaedM under JG
yean
under
yeenand
JG yeara and over
apdM
only
Percent
only
yeenand
onr
I
No~n
11D
JG
yean nr
:I:
TOTAL aUBAL
AD-----------------------
EutemCotton _____________________
White __________________________
Negro ___________________________
Watern Cotton. ____ ---------- ----- White ________ -----------------Negro_______________ -----------t!i:'lachfan-Ourk __ • _____________
e Btatee Cut-Over. _____________
Bay
Coroand
BeltDlllrY--------------------___________________________
=Wb(,at_______________________
Inter Wheat______________________
Rancbln!r•• _________________________
New E111Jand _______ ----------------
02, ROIi
100.0
II0.4
13.1
6.8
21.2
7,782
6, 1114
67.1
82.G
411.6
00.0
03. 7
411.1
00.0
61.8
GO.II
68.0
08. 7
112. 3
68.2
61. 1
14. 2
10.8
20. 7
14.8
12. 0
22.11
10.1
16. 7
14.3
18.8
8. 7
11.2
111.4
17.2
8. 1
7,:JG8
6,432
1,830
17, 0111
3, 7112
8,020
7,612
8.374
1,288
1,880
4,316
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.8
20.G
20.3
21.2
UI.O
lll.l
18. 7
17.G
28.11
21.1
23. 8
111.8
211.G
22.1
27.4
86,782
100.0
114. 7
11.4
11.2
17. 7
6,002
870
060
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
68. II
114. 7
40.0
03.0
00.7
62. 0
70. 2
62.2
03.11
112. 0
71.8
86.7
118. 1
16. 2
11. 2
23. 6
13. 7
11.3
20. 7
11.0
lft.0
12. 4
10. 8
6.11
7.4
16.4
II.ff
7.0
14. 7
11.8
6. 6
10. II
7.0
a. 8
4.2
6. 3
2.11
8.11
8.4
111. 7
17.1
15.8
111.6
111.6
Ul.7
18.8
211. 0
111. 6
21.11
111. 7
23.0
22. l
22, 712
100.0
66.G
16.0
4.2
26. 2
2,730
I, 718
1,012
2,682
I, 1122
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
64. 4
68. II
47.3
64.8
68. 3
43.11
65.8
61.3
66.11
65. 8
61.3
68.8
67. 8
12. 2
11.9
JG. 2
Ill. 8
13. 4
211. 7
12. 9
111.9
16.9
16.G
16.4
11. 0
17.0
6.8
6.0
11.6
6. 8
4. 7
7.0
4.6
8.2
8. 7
3. 9
3. 2
1.9
3.1
27.8
211.11
2.048
a.a
11.G
II. 2
6. 2
11.3
a.a
3.11
4.0
4.4
:u
2.9
8.2
OPU t'Ol7RTll1'
Alliuaa '--------------------Eutern Cotton _________________ ·--·
White.----------------------·-·
Negro
___________________________
Western Cotton ____________________
White. - ---- ---- -· -------- -- ---·
Negro_ - -• ---------------------Appelacblan•Ozark
_________________
Lu:e Btatee Cut-Over ___ • __________
Bay and Dairy _____________________
Com Belt___________________________
WhMt_______________________
Inter Wheat-- ___ ---- -- ----- ---- -·
Ranchlnc----- ----------- --- -- ---- -~
a.aoo
1,113(1
4,11811
3,610
1, 1711
12, OGG
2,492
6. 0'18
2,802
2,380
VILLAOa
All areu •----------·---------
Eutem Cotton. ____________________
White._-----·-----------------Negro_
- - ----------------------Western
Cotton
_____________________
White __________________________
Negro ___________________________
~ - O z a r k _________________
e Btatee Cut-Over .. ____________
~~-::it~-~-~:::::::::::::::::::::
~ngWheat ______________________
Inter Wheat
_____ ----------------Ranchfnir
___________________________
Cl60
4,1100
1,300
3, 6118
4,710
988
618
1,238
• E:1c!W1lve or famllles for which ace of members waa unknown.
• E:1cluslve of New Enllland.
IJ1gi11zed by
Google
ao.o
23.8
23.G
22. 4
211.8
28.G
23. 6
24.11
20.1
28.6
22.1
Tat.le JO.-Strvctural Type of Rural Familia Receiving General Relief, by Usual Occupation of Head, June 1935
(138 OOUD1111111)
Total t
Usual occupation
Num• Percent Total
ber
Husband and
wife
Husband, wtre,
and children
With•
out
o\hlks
With
others
With•
out
othen
With
others
Father and
children
Total
With•
out
others
With
othen
r.,
~
With•
out
otben
With
othen
With•
out
others
With
othen
, - --- --- ---
73. 0
11. 6
2. I
53.8
6.6
10. 11
1. 11
0. 7
6. 7
1. 6
16.1
6. 4
4.8
3.1
1. 8
Agriculture •. •• ..•.••• ..........• 24,W6
Fa.rm operator .• ..... ........ 18,126
Owner . •• •• .•.. ... ....... 6,418
T rnant. .. , ...........••. 9,684
100. 0
1to. o
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
82. 2
8. 3
7. I
6.0
7. 2
9.6
11.5
10.4
12.4
10. 3
10. 5
10. 2
5. 8
24. 5
2.1
2.1
2. 1
1.8
3. 5
2.1
1. 9
I. 5
1. 7
2.6
1. 9
0. 7
3.1
64.5
66. 9
69.0
72.8
63. 2
68. 5
59. 7
61. 7
70. 3
64.4
57. 2
12. 6
14. l
7. 3
7. 9
7. 11
8. 1
7.2
6. 7
6. 4
6.9
6. 7
6. 3
6. 2
1.8
1. D
8. 7
7.11
11. 6
6.0
10. 6
10.6
8. 7
10. 2
3. 2
8. 0
9. 9
50. 9
16. 8
2. 0
1.8
2. 0
1. 6
2. 8
2. 3
2.0
1. 6
2. 6
I. 5
2. 1
0. 4
I. 7
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.6
I. 3
0.6
0. 7
o. 3
0.6
0.8
o. 7
0.3
0.5
4.3
3. 11
6.3
2. 1
4.8
6.6
6.0
7.0
0.1
4. 6
6.9
42. 3
12. 0
1.6
1. 4
2. 2
0.8
1. 6
2. 0
1.0
1.3
9. 1
8.1
13. 6
6.1
6.1
11. 7
13. II
18. 3
8.8
9. 2
15. 6
28. 2
39.6
2.3
1. 7
2.11
1. 1
1.0
8. 7
6.0
3.8
4. 2
3. 3
7.4
3.8
19. 4
6. 6
6.3
8. 3
3.6
4.1
6.1
6.0
4.6
4. 6
3.6
6.6
8.9
I. 7
0.4
0. 3
o. 7
0.1
0.2
0. 7
I. 4
4.3
0.9
0.8
1. 6
0. 3
0. 8
1. 2
1. 6
6. 7
0. 1
1.1
1.8
6.4
4. 4
F~~~~~~~--:::::::::::::::
a.
Total
With
others
Female head
100. 0
2,024
6.850
Nonagriculture .••••............. 23,136
White collat. •..... .......... 2. 0~'2
Skilled . ..•..•.•••.•.....•..•. 3. 2f,()
Semiskilled ••••..•.........•• 3, 3f,()
Unskilled . .............•..•.. 14,494
No usual occupation ...•..••..••. I, 414
N onworker •• • •.•••••.•. .. ...•... 8,928
"
Male bead
Total ••••••• ••••.• . •.•. .••• ~454
---
c;
Mother and
children
With•
out
others
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
<g
Nonfamlly types
Broten ramllles
Normal ramlllea
• Exclusive or New En!-'land townships.
• Exclusive of families whooe type was unknown.
1 ln the 2 Cotton Areas.
64. 0
75. 0
89.9
83. 4
77.8
77. 4
71. 6
88.0
82. 8
74. 5
3:>. 9
43. 6
-
1.1
I. 2
7. 9
2. 6
-
1.2
I.3
9.1
14.1
~
:sr
~
m
~
,cl
-<
0
0
>
~
c::
~
....w•
lllD
r
UI
....w
Ta&le 27.-Strudural Type of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence and Area, June 1935
c,.
(138 countfm and_ lUI New E111Jand &ownahlpe)
•
-
,0
T otal
H usban d a nd
wife
Hesidenr u ti.IH I area
l\"uru - PcrC'tmt
tx•r
1
K t gr, ,... .. . . . .. . _. ___. ____
..\ p pi1!ru.:.tdan-0 1i\rk . ... . . . . ___ .
Lake ~ ta les Cut-Ovn .. . . . . . . . .
!Jar nn• I l> airr .. . . . . . . .
0
cii
;::i
(1)
a.
-!l
0
0
&
n
_icxi_<1__
I .~.7, UM
,n
\\"f11 tu. . ... . . .. ... . . . . ___.
<' 11rn H1.·lt
M other an d
children
W it h ou t
ot hers
- - -
W it h
o th ers
Wit hout
ot he rs
--- ---
Female h ead
T oto!
Witho ut
others
Wit h
ot h ers
M ale head
,0
Wi th
ot hers
Wi t h ou t
others
W it hou t
ot hers
Wit h
ot h ers
W ith
others
Wi thout
others
W ith
others
- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
,--- ---
All an·n.., .. . . . . . ..... ... •• _r.~. ~II_
E a.s l<•rn ('01ton .... . · - . .. . . - -W hite . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . .. .
~·et? ro ____ __ _____ ____ ___ ___
" · e$ t.nn C ott CJ II .. .. ... . . . . .
F athe r and
childre n
T ot a l
To ta l
--T<JT.\L k t:ll AL
Ilu.;band , w ile,
a nd children
C:
Nonlamlly t ypes
B roken fam ilies
K or mal fam ilies
1
. .. ·· ··· · · - -- · - - · ·
f.: pr i11 ~ \ \" hi·at ..
\ \" inrer \ \'lwnL . . : : : :: : ::~: ~. - H(md1i 11~
NewEuglar~d-.~~-· ::::~:::
100 0
II Ml 0
:l, lt"t'-'
100 0
o
7,Y~~
100
5, 43~
I, ::,.J(i
100. o
100. 0
IOU. 0
17, Olf,
3, iU'.?
IIIO fl
71 .~
II 6
2 2
5.1. 2
5. 5
10 9
I 9
0. 8
6 6
I 6
16. 0
6. 6
5. 0
3. 2
I. 8
11 2 6
II 0
10. 5
12 I
12 9
12. 8
12. 6
JO. I
II. I
12. 5
13. 3
8. 7
17. 7
12, 0
12. 3
3 I
2. 2
4 7
41. 4
49. 2
26. 5
49 0
54.9
31. 7
s; . 4
48. 2
57. 3
56. 0
!lli. 4
55. 3
7 I
6. 9
7 4
6. 1
6. 4
5. 4
6. 6
3. 4
4. 5
5. 3
3. 7
4. 0
10. 0
17 7
21. 4
13. 5
I I. g
18. 3
JO. 7
8. 5
i.7
8. 0
6. 6
8. 4
9. 3
9. 6
2 0
2. 2
I 7
I 9
1. 9
1. 9
2. 0
2. 3
1.6
1. 9
1. 8
2. 0
I. 5
2.3
0. 7
0 8
0 5
1.0
0. 8
1.6
0. 8
0. 4
0. 5
0. 6
0. 6
0.6
0.1
0. 4
II 8
I I. 3
12. 6
8. 6
7. i
II. 4
6. 3
5. 4
5. 0
4. 7
3. 5
4. I
6. 9
5. 9
4 5
3 4
6. 6
2 0
1. 5
3. 4
1. 6
0. 4
0. 6
0. 8
0. 7
3 8
3. 9
3.8
5. 1
4. 8
5. 9
5. 1
5. 0
4. 7
5. 2
4. 5
5. 3
4. I
7. 0
5. 7
3. 3
JO. 5
4. 1
2.1
10. 0
I. 7
2. 5
3. 2
3. 0
1. 8
I. 7
5. 4
4. I
4. 3
3. 0
6. 7
2. 3
I. 7
4. 2
1. 6
0. 8
1. 2
I. 3
0. 8
o. 3
I. 8
1.6
--3. g
f)Q
8
50 7
70 4
i fi . 1
.'~J. 6
7ti. 5
6:1 9
rn. o
N, li:!fi
7, .) 12
11'-l. 0
JO()_I)
7A. 6
3. 3;4
I. 28.~
11.Ml.O
7!). ij
J()() (J
79. 2
1, 8.St.i
I()(). 0
tli. 2
4, 315
100. 0
66. 7
2 4
2. 0
3. 0
2. 4
I. 2
J. 7
2. 0
1. 0
2. 2
1. 6
2. 5
50. 8
2. 8
47. 4
4. 5
1.7
18. 4
13 5
Tl 9
16. I
12. 0
28. I
12. 8
Tl. 6
16. 3
15. 4
)3. 6
12. 4
0. 8
1.0
23. 5
23. i
4 6
3. 3
6. 9
4. 6
3. 4
8. 0
4. 4
19. 3
7. 2
5. 9
6. 5
5. I
12. 2
11.0
OP E S CO t." ~ TRY
All art>n.s ' ·. __. __ __________
3.), 782
En..;.fern Cott on . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. ..
S, 01.12
W l,Ho . ... . . ..... • . . •• . • .
l\"e~r o .... . . •. .. . . . .••••
W estern Cot t on ... . .... • ...
White ... . .. . . . . . . ..... . . .. : .
K egro •• ••• • • • • • • •• •••• • • •• • • .
◄ . lj.~f,
:i. :i,;1;
I. 63G
3, 510
), 176
100. 0
7ti. 2
llkl O
114. 1
70. 8
50. 2
74. 6
l'.!().5
57. 0
--- --- -
I
100. 0
IUI I I)
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
JO. 5
-10. 510. 3
10. 9
12. I
12. 6
JO. 4
2. 2
57. 0
6. 5
JO. I
1. 9
0. 7
5. 8
1.7
13. i
5. 3
4. 6
2. 2
:J. I
2. 0
42. 5
51. I
24. 7
53. 2
8. 0
i.4
9 2
6. 8
7. 0
6. 3
18. 7
17. 2
21. 9
11.8
9. 7
17. 8
1. 8
2. I
I. 2
2. I
2. 0
2. 6
0. 7
0. 9
0. 4
I.I
0. 9
I. 7
II. 3
10. 5
12. 8
6. 5
5. 5
4. 9
3. 7
17. 2
12. 0
27. 9
13. 6
9. 8
4. 3
3. 4
6. I
4. 0
3. I
6. 8
3. 7
3. 7
3. 9
4. 9
5.3
2. 4
II.I
3.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5. 4
2. 5
I. 9
4. 4
!1Y. 0
35. 9
9. 3
7. 5
2. I
1.3
4. 2
25.2
4. 5
I. I
6. 0
8. 8
I. 6
2. 5
6. 8
1. 7
I.I
3. 6
r>
►~
j=
ffi
0
z
~
r
iii
...,
.Appalachian-Ozark •••••••••••• • . 12,0M
Lake 8tale3 Cut.-Over ••••••••••.• 2, 4112
Hay and Dairy.............. . . .. 6,028
Corn B~lt •.••••• • ••• •••••• ••. •• •• 2. li02
Spring Wheat ••••••••••••••••••• 2,386
670
Winter Wheat ••••••• • •• ••• •• • . • •
Ranching •••••••••••••••••••••••.
G50
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
81).6
84.3
78. 3
83. I
83. 6
83. 6
6i. 4
8. 9
11 . 2
2. 4
I. I
II. 7
1.9
2. 5
o. 8
3. 3
1 6
81.11
47. 8
69. 3
62. 2
70. 8
68. 2
61. 4
2. 0
48. 6
45. 3
29. 3
41. 3
47. 3
24. 0
46. 7
49. 2
54. 4
62. 3
55. 9
52. I
60. 6
12. 3
8. I
16. 1
11.1
L8
7. 4
I. II
0. II
0. 5
0. 5
0. 8
0. 4
0. 3
0.3
4. 2
12. 2
2. 0
0. 6
5. 4
6. 9
4. 6
6. 0
6. 3
3. 9
4. 6
2. 0
3. 4
4. 8
3. 1
1.9
2. 6
19. 6
18. 8
20. 8
16. 7
15. 9
19. 1
12. 9
8. 6
8. 7
9. 3
11. 3
11.0
10. 4
2. 4
2. 3
2. 4
I. 4
I. 7
0. 6
2. 5
2. 5
I. 4
1. 9
1.8
2. 3
1. 3
0. 7
0. 6
0.8
0. 9
0. 7
1. 6
0.5
0. I
0. 5
0. 5
1.0
1.0
7.3
f. 0
6. 4
G. I
3. 11
8. 0
8. 4
9. 8
8.4
7. 0
6.8
f. 6
6. 0
2. 2
l. 7
1. 9
I. 8
1.8
6. 8
6. 2
4. 3
2. 7
). g
2. 4
4. 11
1. 6
o. 6
0. 5
0. 6
0.6
I. 5
0. 3
v. 7
27. 3
14. 7
II. I
11. 8
10. 4
25. 2
2. 2
19. 0
6. 8
4. 8
e. 1
4. 6
16. 1
1. 8
19. 9
4. 0
1.1
2. 2
2. 2
I. a
0.
I.
o. 8
0. 6
o. 3
1.
6. 4
4.8
f. 2
4.0
6. 3
4. 8
1.3
0.6
0.3
8. I
6. I
f. 6
2.
6. 1
3. 3
8. 3
6. 6
4. 1
10. 0
9. 7
19. 8
7. 7
G. 6
6. I
5. 8
10. 7
4. 0
4. 3
3. 6
6.'
6. 2
6. 8
6. 6
4. 5
4. 8
6. 8
6. 7
6. 2
3.9
8. 6
4. 9
9.6
6.0
3.11
12.1
3. 2
3. I
,.4
f. 0
4. 6
3. 3
6. 0
6.
4.
G.
3.
4.3
V11.LAOa
AJl &re&S • •••••• ••••••• ••• • •
22, 712
100. 0
67. V
13. 2
Ea.stern Cotton •••••••••• •• •••• •.
White • ••• •••••. • •••• ••• ••• ••
Negro .• . •••••••••• ••••••• ••.•
Westero Cotton •••••••• •• • •• ••• •.
White •••• •• •••• •• •••• •• •••• .
Nejtro ..... . .. . . .......... . . . .
.Appe.lnchian•Otarlt ..• ••••••.••• .
Le.ke States C ut•Over. •••••• ••• •.
Hay and Dairy •••.••••••..• • •• • .
Corn ll~lt ......... ......... . .... .
Spring Wheat •••••••••••••••• • •..
W inter Wheat ••••••••••• •• •••• • .
Ranching •••••••••• . •• •. • ••••••. •
2, 730
I, 718
1, 012
2,582
1,922
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
541. 8
&4. 7
51.4
62. 9
68. 2
47. 6
66. 7
63.1
72. 9
72. 8
70. 7
74. 4
67.1
12. 0
10. 8
14. 0
14. 3
13. 5
16. 7
13. I
10. 9
13. 6
14. 0
10. 1
19. 4
12. 4
600
4, llro
1, 300
3,598
4, 710
llc'!8
618
1,235
----3'9. 4
3. 0
2. 7
3. 6
2. 3
2. 1
3. 0
2. 3
1. 0
I. 5
1. 7
1. 6
I. 0
1.6
8. 1
I -
-
12. 7
13. I
12. 3
12.5
11.5
15.2
8. 2
6. 5
G. I
5. 9
7. 3
6.8
7. 9
--7
- 20.
- -3. 7
2. 8
5. 3
1.9
2. 0
1. 8
I. 7
0. 6
0. 7
1.0
I. 2
I. 9
I. 2
16. 6
27. 8
20. 4
15. 9
33. 3
20. 4
28. 3
18. 4
17. 9
18. 0
14. 6
22. 6
2.
6.
I.
0.
).
I.
I.
0.
).
• Exclusive or ramllle,, whose type wu UDknowu.
• Ei:cluslve or New England.
~
:a
0
co·
;cc.
;::;·
~
~
0
0
~...--..
(v
iz
>
-<
>
;ii:,
m
rn
....•
w
.....
Table 22.-Structural Type of Rural tamilies Receiving General Relief in the Eastem and Westem Cotton Areas, by Color and Usual Occupation of
Head, June 1935
00
•
"'
(44 counties]
Normal families
C
Broken families
~
Nonfamily types
r-
Total 1
Color and usual occupation
or head
Total
Num• Percent
tier
WHITII
;::;·
<11
a.
~
0
0
o2,.....
rv
Husband and
w!le
Husband, wlle,
and children
Without
others
With•
out
others
With
others
Father and
children
Total
With
others
With•
out
others
Mother and
children
With
others
Without
others
0.8
1.1
1. 2
1. 7
1.3
1. 1
o. 7
0.4
9. 6
6.2
4.8
11. 9
2.8
4.1
8.8
9.3
11. 6
Male head
Total
With
others
Without
others
With
others
Female head
Without
others
With
others
>
~
C
~
--- --- --- --- --- - - - - - - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - --- 0
Total .•••..•..•••••••.•.... 10,512
Agriculture ............•••..•. _.. 5,502
1,'arm operator_ .............. 3,562
Owner ...••.......•......
604
Tenant ...........•....•. 1,438
Cropper ..•....•.....•..• 1,520
Farm laborer •.•..........•.. 1,940
Nonagriculture ..••.....••....... 3, 16-1
White collar .•...............
504
Skilled .....•••..........••..•
472
Semiskilled ..... _••......•. _.
762
Unskilled ....•.......••..•.•. 1,420
No usual occupation ......•.....•
348
Nonworker .••••....•.•.••.••.... 1,408
a
<c"
;.
..,.
w
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
72. 6
83. 5
64. 2
88. 6
86. 4
76. 4
74. 5
68. 3
89.9
77.0
74.0
6.3
62.6
2.1
11. 8
62.0
8.8 ~ ~
7.8
2.0
64.8
6.6
0. 7
43. 7
7. 1
1.5
70.2
8.9
2.9
67.8
10. 7
1.8
56.4
10. 7
2.2
55.3
11. 5
1.2
38.9
10.6
3.4
67.8
8. 7
3.Y
67.8
11. 5
1.4
55.8
1. 7
4.6
27.1
2. 8
20. 7
6.6
14. 8
2.0
8.5 ~ ~
9.1
10. 1
2.2
20.9
13.2
1.0
9. 7
6.6
1.6
8.8
9.4
3.4
7.5
14.4
2.8
13.3
6.3
1.6
16.1
6. 7
0.8
1. 2
8.1
0.4
15. 7
2.1
6.6
16.3
6.3
2.1
70. 2
2.0
16.3
2.0
11.6
10.5
13.6
11. 7
20. 7
7.9
7.1
4.4
so.D
-
-
-
-
0.8
-
0.6
1.1
0. 7
-
10.5
10. 9
67.6
10.5
2.6
12. 7
2.0 ~
1.9
8.4
6.3
14. 9
1.1
4. 9
0.8
4.2
9.2
2. 3
2.0
12. 2
2.8
26.8
8.9
3.1
7. 3
1. 7
10. 7
11. 5
23.6
3.1
31. 1
-
3.4
4.3
1.1 ~
0.8
4.4
1. 3
7.3
0. 7
3.8
0.1
3.8
2.0
6.8
6.1
2.0
11.0
3. 2
3.0
6.6
0.8
4. 2
2.0
6.0
1. 7
1. 7
15.2
1.5
2. 7
2.3
0.3 --1.-1
1.1
0.3
1.3
6.0
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.2
2. 3
2. 8
8.3
9. 1
0.4
1.0
1.3
1. 6
2. 2
14.4
6. 7
9.6
4.8
-
-
NIIGRO
Total ••••...•.••......••••.
Agriculture ...... _......••.......
Farm operator ..•..•.•.......
Owner............•..•...
Tenant. ••.... _•.........
Cropper....••...........
Farm laborer .•..•... ____ ... _
Nonagriculture ..•..•..•.•.......
White rollar ...•..••••••.....
Skilled ........•.•..•••••.•...
Semiskilled..•.••••..•.•.••..
Unskilled ....... ··---·--··-··
No usual occupation .•..........•
Non worker ..•••...••..••.....•.•
4,484
2,114
1,104
154
446
504
1,0IO
1,050
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
61. 9
63.1
76.2
67. 5
80. 9
74. 5
49.0
64.6
12.3
7. 7
7.6
9.1
2. 7
11. 5
7. 7
12.8
4.4
4. 7
6.2
9.1
6.3
5. 2
3.2
4.2
30
60
f
100.0
912
100.0
f
83.4
f
26. 7
61.0
12. 3
100.0
31.6
19. 4
- 40.0f
6. 7
4.4
30.8
4. 0
6.2
48
30
1,200
t
t
t
-
28.6
4o.2
48.8
37.6
51.2
49.9
31.0
33.2
t Percent not computed on a base or fewer than 60 cases
-
t
20.1
11. 7
10.4
9.8
13.9
33. 7
25,5
1.3
2. 6
1. 3
0.8
3.4
1.0
t aJo.
13. 3
10.0
3.5
27.4
2.0
11.7
t
I. 7
222 ~
t
7
-
1.6
1.0
12. 1
1.1 ~
1.6
5. 4
2.6
3.9
0.9
4.0
2.0
7.1
0.6
20.4
1.1
17.3
-67
6.3
6.2
3.4
1. 3
3.8
4.0
9.3
II.I
-t
0.9
6.4
- 19.4
0.6
a. I
3.3
-t
3.3
28.0
7.4
14. 7 ~
12.1
2. 0
22. l
1.3
9.3
0.4
11.11
3.6
17.3
3.0
19.9
4.4
f
3.3
21.6
t
66. 7
-t
4.4
18. 0
• Exclusive or families whose type was unknown.
4.6
10.3
6.0 ~
7.2
0. 7
14.3
2. 6
7.11
4. 8
0.8
4.6
4. 2
4.8
4.6
-2.6
8.3
6.3
--6.3
t
ZT.6
6.7
--a:s
2.2
3.9
1.3
2.4
6.6
8.1
t
-6.8-
-
8. 7
z
"'Cm
...,m
Ta&/e 23.-Rural 1-Person Families Receiving General Relief in the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas, by Residence, Color, Age, and Sex, June 1935
(44 counties)
I-perso n fnmilit.•s 6..'i yrars
.\ II l-pllrsc.,1.1 families
---1--1 '
Ht•~i,;~,·•~;~~;'''"· 1
Ip::rc:i1
T ,,.itaJ
11
t ~·111.n ol nil I bo.•r "r I
I1-'l'r<·en
~~~.~
rarn ilws rnrnihcs fturufir=- j r}:;~
"· m nlwr ur
- -•----1-__I --- --
I
,I
over
Female
l'sl a le
Total
Fl'Illale
:\lalo
or ogr an d
~ I]
I" I
I
I
I
I
1
1t
Percc
l'nct>at
or a 1n
v um o r a ll
•N um- Percent
or" 11
or all PerC<'
or all II PerC<'n l .,u m - Pcn'<'nt
I cn·en t Kum - Perct•nt
o r oi l
Per~• nt ·'
bcr. ~ ~ I-person 1:cmalc
ber_c!~. I-person -male
of all
or ~~)I. . bcr (,f l·I)llrson
uf :'l.l~. ,ht:r_~~ . 1-r>t'rson
n
pe.~s.o
families
llu:s
am
C
pcrS;(Hl
1
fnmth t:.s r.un1lh.s fan ilil"'.s fstul, h:!S ramilit.•'" rantilic·· f" rnilles fanultls famiiic•
raru ,ltes
' ramtlres
I
~
'
·,
' ' · ·
I
I'
°
T(JT .,L Ht RAL
Eo..'--tt'lrn \ o tt nr1- . ___
\\'hitc ___- - - --~- -
?\ C'g rn . • . . • ...
\\·e~teru C1 ,tto11 _
White ___
KcE;ro ______ :_ : :: _
or~s
\\'es t('rll Cott o lL _ . - ~
Wh ite ___ __ _ __ __
0
4r,o
n:~,
3
fi. ti
17. 4
8 -
ll).
5
300
:130
I ~. 0
.a;n
IVG
~.,o
17. I
116
7. 0
4. 2
_i;_
J.;4
4-t
1,U
lfl4
5u. 6
:i,1 ~
52. ;
l "'fi
J4i)
112. (J
-t l. 2
114
IH
IUO
I;lS
3.'>. 7
57. 0
1r,s
7-t.
.=-.
4. 0
3. 3
H:?
55. 5
;~ 7
:1;s
166
411 4
WO
4i. 3
3::1.0
3. 3
10. 5
4. I
:?.1
10. 0
110
2f,~
3-Hl
4:". :-,
3:!. 7
!,.S. :l
M. 0
198
4U. 3
f,O. 0
266
78
3V. S
fi. u
4. (i
'.!76
3 4
11 4
·' · 0
1,4
,,;:.._ s
~):!
5.'>. 0
5. 2
82
1,0
142
41. S
64. 3
4:1.0
:?. 4
11.0
1'8
OU
3.1)
178
ti
I. 3
3. 4
fl. I
4. n
:!. I
I.I
70
43..5
Ii S
111-1
53 9
4i. 9
,'ill. 7
·Ul. tl
~~,~
14_,
4 9
•.,
•J
JO. 1
4. 8
2. 7
lll.S
~t'gro . ... . __ _ • ..
3:1()
1,4
H. ri
,\,';
1,-,. 6
45. O
~" - 2
,u
:~~
:.'fi. n
.':'ifi. 5
l!. s
Ill<!
!\5. 9
5. 3
~- J
II.~
3. 8
:!. ll
H. 2
a.
CT
C")
0
0
-n
OCt
21. 4
48. 0
6f,
I IH
176
19. f.
22. 6
27. 9
J:l. 3
23. 0
3R. 8
1(1(1
7fi
5G. 5
53. I)
53. x
52. I
208
H
1114
170
48
122
26. 1
13. 1
35. 7
27. 0
16. 0
37. 0
47. 1
2fl. 5
59. 4
57. 0
42. 1
66.3
lZ~
;,4
74
94
,'>4
40
:.?tJ. 9
77. 6
2ft. 4
59. 8
47. 4
13/l
i 4. 0
28. 5
50. 0
50. 0
50. 0
114
84
16
68
37. 0
21. 7
2t
29. 0
12. 2
40. 7
25. 4
10. 9
37. 0
52. 7
2'J. 3
63. 3
59. 2
42. I
0.'>. 4
Ea.stern C' otlnn . ---- ·
\\"liitc• --- _. . . ___ '-'eg ru
\V fish •r n
C"(1tioi;_~:: ~:
\\' hire . .
X, •µ ro __ __:-~-:: :
:L~I
140
1;;o
140
11. 7
~- I
17. ~
11.fi
]4--1
1,14
S. 11
7~
1-16
Z'2. I
3110
43. S
-IO. 0
5(i
b4
r.6
I
4fi. i'
•IS. ll
50.6
45. 2
,I . I
:i. 3
~- 3
1~0
[..fi. 2
<4
l',O. 0
-I.I
96
15fi
76
10. 0
60
5:l. :l
52. 0
49. 4
5-1. 8
!1. (i
fi. 6
4. 8
9. 5
,;. o
112
32
80
!GS
3. 9
78
12. I
00
~
-c,
-c,
,.,r-
,.,I:
z
\ "JIJ.Ar1 £
rt,
'<
170
COL'S-THY
F.as ti•rn C otton _____
Whit ,•·--·· ··• ..
Kei;?nL . .. _______
~:;::r
;u,,
:~w
35. 0
22. 9
H.4
,Ir.. 0
50. 6
01. 6
42
59. 0
70
20
50
86
32
21. 9
14. 3
Tl. 7
28. 7
20. 7
54. 5
54
36. 9
1.9
12
13. 1
8. R
30.0
21. 4
i.9
16. 7
27. 3
35. 7
6. 5
30
82
56.9
4. 1
13. 6
46
36
29. 9
24. 7
4. I
38. 9
23. 8
52. I
55. 1
42. 1
67. 5
>
-<
X,
....
)>
llCI
,.,r
....•
w
Vl
,0
140 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Tol,le .24.-Employment Status of Worlcen 1 in Rural Families Receiving General Relief
in the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas, by Color and Usual Occupation,June 1935
144 countlell)
Total worlcen t
Color and U8Ual oocupatlon
Num-
Per-
ber
cent
Employed
~ - Nolllllriculture
Unemployed
--
Total employed
Atotber
workers
than
Atwmal wmal
oocupaoocupatlon
NumPertlon
ber
cent
- - - - --- ---
wmu:
TotaL ____________
Asrfculture_
- - - -------Farm operator
_____
Owner _________
Tenant _________
Oro~------Farm
la
_______
Nonmlculture. ________
lte collar •• ______
811:Wed_
-----------Bemlakllled
_. _. ____
UDSll:Wed __________
No usual occupation ___
13, IKl2
100.0
30.1
e.8
413.1
5,130
100.0
88.4
11.e
8,118
3,644
822
1,474
1,548
4.474
4, 2llO
738
532
1,100
1, ll20
1, 4114
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
411. 7
87.4
1111.11
75.11
51. 5
35.3
3.8
1.11
8.4
3.1
3.11
1. 7
2.5
0.6
2.0
3. 7
1. 1
18.8
20.11
17.3
15. 5
111.11
48. 8
30.1
12. 5
22.1
44.8
4,178
2,~
1, 113()
1154
1118
126
204
45G
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
111. 7
811.11
117. 8
112. 2
82.0
114. 4
74.2
78.8
411. 0
8.3
10. 1
2.2
7.8
18.0
5.8
25.8
21.4
54.0
26. 5
111. 3
-
naao
Total ____________
Asrloulture_
• - - - --__
---• __
-Farm
operator
Owner _________
Tenant _________
~-----Farm
-------
No~culture _________
bite collar________
811:Wed _____________
Bemlakllled ________
Unsll:Wed __________
No U8Ual oocupatlon •..
-
mi.e
77.8
77.2
711. 3
81.4
711.2
100.0
544
1,148
854
-
-
73.5
80. 7
-
-
5,48«1
100.0
34.1
10.4
55.6
2,444
100.0
115. 6
4.6
3,616
1,130
166
452
622
2,48«1
1,542
34
54
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
51.3
74.2
88.4
86.4
IIO. 2
40.11
1.0
0.8
o. 7
2.8
0.11
47.11
25.1
11.0
13. 7
311. 8
68.2
63.11
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
115.8
114.1
4.4
6.11
5.8
6.8
tl.4
3.1
4. 7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3. 7
3.0
0. 7
0.8
1,884
84G
142
3110
314
1,038
668
14
10
18
618
2
66
1,388
328
t
t
0.11
35.1
t
14.8
21.2
86.8
-
t
81.6
76.8
82. 7
119.4
f
100.0
t
114. 4
114.4
113.8
IHI.II
115.8
117.1
t
t Percent not computed on a hue of fewer than 50 CMeS.
I Penona 18 throudl M years of age worklog o r ~ work.
t Exclualve of workers whose usual oocupatlon or employment atatm was anknown.
Oig,•ized by
G oog Ie
f
2. 7
t
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 141
To&le 25.-Reason for Accession of Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Resi•
dence and Area, June 1935
(138 counties and 116 New England townahipeJ
Total
Reeldenoe and aree
I
or
Loss or Loss
depleemploy- tlon
or
N11D1ber Percent ment•
assets
Crop
failure
or Jou
of Jive•tock
Insur- B-me Other
ftclent
unemIncome ployahle reaaona
--- --- --- --- --- --- --TOT.A.I. BUB.A.L
All ______________
Eutern Cotton.. ___ • ________
White __________ ----- --Nesro------------- -- .
Wmtem
Cotton
____________
White _____ ----.---- •• -Nesro- ---------_________
-- ---· -~Ian-Ozark
e Statee Out-Over ______
Hay and Dairy _____________
Corn Belt_ _________________
ffi1ng Wheat ______________
Inter Wheat______________
Ranching ___________________
New England ______________
82, 8211
100.0
24.6
33.6
13.6
12.4
6,2
10.6
7,732
6,084
2,648
7,288
6,432
1,836
17,016
3,814
8,626
7,612
3,374
1,288
1,886
4,313
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
27.3
27.3
27.4
28.6
28,9
27.6
14.1
27.2
86.6
80.2
13.&
18. 0
34.8
211.2
22.1
28.1
14.4
21.2
23.2
15.6
48.6
34.2
29.1
80.1
14.8
83.3
28. 7
48. 9
8.4
8.6
8.0
19,3
19.9
17.4
10. 7
8.9
8.4
13.2
69.4
22.4
16.6
0.2
14. 7
11.4
20.9
11.9
11.3
13.6
11.6
10.9
14.2
14.3
6.0
12.0
10.1
8.1
14.0
2.7
2.6
3.3
6.6
6.1
6.6
1.8
4.8
2.6
2. 9
6. 0
17.4
18.6
16.8
111.4
14.2
22.8
35,802
100.0
17. 7
31. 7
22.1
13.1
4.7
10.7
6,002
3,366
1,636
4,686
3,610
1,176
12, 06G
2,612
6,028
2,802
2,386
670
23.6
24.2
22.4
22.4
22.4
22.3
9. 7
20.4
80.6
21.8
9.3
20.3
20.9
24.8
13.1
20.9
22. I
17.2
48.3
37.4
27.8
21.1
8.4
23.6
26.8
12.1
11.9
12.8
28.3
29. I
211.0
13.8
12. 7
13.9
31.9
81.4
39. 7
33.2
16.0
12.2
20.8
10.3
10.1
10.9
13.8
12.9
16. 9
16.8
2.4
12. 6
7.4
10.3
8.1
14. 7
2.0
I. 7
3.2
6.0
3.9
6.9
1.0
1.6
I. 6
2.8
18.1
18.8
16. 7
16.1
6liO
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
12. 7
6.0
7.9
1.9
13.4
10.6
22, 714
100.0
3'1. 0
33.9
10.9
6.8
11.7
2,730
I, 718
1,012
2,682
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
34.2
24.2
33.2
28.9
lft.4
2.1
1.0
14.1
10.0
21.1
9. 7
2.1
3.2
18. 2
8.9
14.6
9.11
13.7
6.2
10.,
:u
11.8
10.2
4.2
OPIIN COUNTRY
All areas•-----------Eastern Cotton.. ____________
White __________________
Nesro_
--- ---------.
- . -Western
Cotton
____________
White __________ ••• ----Necro- , _____________ --Appalachian-Ozark .• _______
Lell:e States Cut-Over ______
Hay and Dairy _____________
Corn Belt __________________
ffllng Wheat ______________
nter Wheat______________
BanchiDI-------------------
4.4
14.11
20.4
9.4
VJLLAOII
AU areas•-----------Eastern Cotton.. ____________
White __________________
Negro ______________ ---Western Cotton ____________
White. _____________ ....
Negro_-----------------
t=Jacbian-Ozark .........
=
e States Cut-Over •. _. _.
Hay and Dairy_____________
Corn Belt __________________
Wheat ______________
Inter Wheat ______________
Ranching _____ --- - • - • -- •. -- .
1,922
660
4,960
1,302
3,698
4,710
1188
618
1,2:le
36. 7
39.8
40. 7
37.0
24.9
39.9
42.11
36.6
3'1. 8
27.6
42.2
21. 9
26.2
12.4
49.2
27.6
30.8
86.6
30.2
44.0
27.2
2. 7
--I. 7
2.9
3.2
1.4
0. 7
2. 0
11.6
3.6
7.8
14.6
13.4
6.9
6.9
11.9
12.8
11.1
11.3
9. 7
7.9
12.8
8.8
4.0
3.3
6.8
7.4
7.11
2.3
7.9
3.11
2.9
16.1
17.9
13.0
17.0
13.6
27.0
10.0
16. 9
6.4
11.8
8.6
10.0
10.2
1 Bxclll81ve or caaes for which reason for opening or reopening was unknown.
• Within 4 months prior to .-Ion. For cases In which the worker Jost his Joh more than 4 months prior
to .-Ion to relief, a more Immediate reason for openlnc the case was elven.
• Bxclualve or New Encland.
IJigmedbyGoogle
142 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
To&le 26.-Relief History of Rural Families Receiving Relief, by Residence and Area,
June 1935
[138 counties and 116 New England townships]
Total
t
Residence and area
Number
Percent
Contlnuously on
reliel February
through
June
Opened
MarchJune
Reopened
MarchJune
---------------- - - - - - TOTAL RURAL
All areas _________________________
. ______ _
Eastern Cotton ___ . ____________________ . ____ . __
White ____________________________________ _
Negro _______________ ---------------------Western Cotton ______________________________ _
White ____________________________________ _
Negro ____________________________________ _
Appalachian-Ozark .... _______________________ _
Lake States Cut-Over ________________________ _
Hay and Dairy _______________________________ _
Corn Belt. .. _________________________________ _
i[~'t:r
ite.::;t-_-_-::::::::::::
:: ::::::::::::::::_
Ranching
_____________________________________
New England ________________________________ _
100.0
74.3
11.5
14.2
5,080
2,648
7,268
6,432
1,836
17,016
3,812
8,626
7,512
3,3i4
1,288
1,886
4,313
100.0
100.0
JOO. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
66.6
62.5
74. 5
80.3
79.1
83.9
71.8
73.3
7\l.3
77. 5
81.4
76. 7
70.0
68.8
14.4
17.4
8.8
8.3
11.2
5.4
11. 2
11.3
10. 9
II.II
4.9
6.2
12. 3
Ill.I
19.0
20.1
16. 7
35,798
100.0
73. 9
10.5
15.6
5,000
3,364
1,636
4,686
3,510
I, 176
12,066
2,510
5,028
2,802
2,386
6°0
650
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
66. 5
62.1
75.3
83.0
81.9
83.0
70.1
74.0
71l. 7
73. 4
80. 4
72. 8
70.6
12.8
15.4
7. 7
6. 1
7.0
6. I
10.9
11.3
11.2
15. 0
5. 7
7.2
11.8
20. 7
22.5
17.0
10.11
11.1
10.11
19.0
14. 7
II.I
11.6
13.11
20.0
17.6
22, 712
100.0
76.0
11. 5
12.5
2, i28
I, 716
I, 012
2,582
I, 922
660
4,950
I, :102
3,598
4, ilO
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.C
100.0
66.9
6-3. 2
73.3
75. 4
74. 0
71l. 7
76. 2
71. 9
78. 8
71l.9
84.0
80.0
69. 7
17.4
21.4
10.5
12.2
13. 2
II.I
12. 0
11.4
10. 4
10.1
2. 8
5. 2
12. 6
15. 7
15. 4
16. 2
12.4
12.8
11.2
11.8
16. 7
10.8
10.0
13. 2
13.11
17. 7
62,823
---100.0
7,728
11.4
11. 7
10. 7
17.0
15.4
9.8
10.6
13. 7
17.1
17. 7
12.1
OPEN COUNTRY
All areas•-------- ___ ---------------- --- Eastern Cotton. ______________ . ____ . ____ . ____ ..
White ____________________________________ _
Negro ____________________________________ _
Western Cotton _________________ . ____________ .
White ____________________________________ _
Negro ________ . __________ . ________________ _
Appalachian-Ozark ... ________________________ _
Lake States Cut-0\"er ________________________ _
Hay and Dairy _______________________________ _
Corn Belt. ___________________________________ _
Spring Wheat_ _______________________________ _
Winter Wheat ________________________________ _
Ranching _________________ . __________________ ..
VILLAGE
All areas•------------------------------Eastern Cotton _______________________________ _
White ___________________ .. ______________ ._
N~!U"O------------------·
·· ···--·····-----Western
Cotton ____________________
. ________ ..
White ____________________________________ _
Nei:,o ____________________________________ _
Appnlnchian-Ozark .. ______________ .. ____ .. ___ _
Lake States Cut-Over _____ ._ .. ___ . __ . ________ _
Hay and Dairy _______________________________ _
Corn Belt_.--------------------------------Spring
Whe11t. _________________ . ____________ __
..
Winter Wheat ________________________________ _
Ranching ____________________________ . ________ .
988
618
I, 236
1 Exclusive
ol lami1!es whose relier history was unknown.
• Exclusive or New England.
1Jig1-ized by
G oog Ie
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES •
143
To&le 27.-Average 1 Amount of General Relief Received by Rural Families, by Restdence, Area, and Type of Relief, June 1935
(138 coantlel and 83 New England toWDlhlpe t]
Total I
Residence and area
Work relief
Both work and
direct relief
Direct relief
N11Dlber Avel'llll' N11Dlber Avenge N11Dlber Avenge N11D1ber Avenp
of
amount
or
a.moant
or
amount
or
a.mount
famillell or railer famillell or railer famlll• of relief famlllell of relief
---
TOTAL II UllAL
All areas.......... -
67,871
$17
27,117
$18
22,440
$13
8,270
$26
Kaa&ernOotton.-·-·-··-·
White •••• ·-·-···-·-Negro····-········-·
Weatem
Ootton ••..•• ___
White •••• ·-····-·-·Negro·····----·---·tl:'lacblan•Ozark ___ . __
Btatee Out•Over •. _
Ba:,and Dairy ••• -- .. --.
Oorn Belt ••• ·--··-····-Wbeet·-·--·----Inter Wbeet·---·-·-·-Rancblnl--•--··--·····-New EJll]and·--·--·-·--
7,026
4,6611
2, 4118
6,892
6,162
1,740
16,084
3,638
11,108
6,944
3,180
I, 212
1,888
3, 1611
12
14
8
10
11
8
12
23
23
18
22
18
18
37
3,092
2,224
8G8
3,616
2,1142
874
11,348
664
2,UKl
3,344
1,662
782
388
2,201
14
UI
10
11
11
10
12
24
2U
111
111
16
111
41
2,624
1,288
1, 2311
2,408
1,610
898
4,848
2,118
6,0UO
2,774
840
228
1,084
730
7
8
6
7
7
8
10
18
111
14
14
13
16
21
1,410
1,=
888
UIS
1,8UO
768
868
828
1188
224
214
228
16
15
13
14
Ill
12
111
36
36
ao
ao
33,478
16
16, 1160
14
12,838
12
4,888
21
4,630
3,044
1,488
4,480
3,362
I, 128
11,3112
2,318
4,734
2,638
2,264
628
692
10
12
8
10
10
8
12
22
23
17
21
14
18
1,7114
1,372
392
2,340
1,920
420
7,2UO
412
1,288
1,2US
1,028
424
108
12
13
10
1,1118
1,040
878
1,804
1,010
6114
3,004
1,408
2, 1162
11M
848
218
6341
422
114
1,098
498
4114
278
778
118
16
15
13
It
16
13
17
K
IS
211
422
7
8
6
7
7
8
II
17
18
16
13
13
16
82
33
All areas•--····---
21, 1112
18
11, 1188
Ill
8,872
14
3,364
2S
Eastern Cotton __________
White••••..
••••• ·----·---Negro
_. _______
2, 4118
I, 614
982
2,412
1,800
612
4,692
1,220
3,372
4,408
1116
684
1,094
14
18
11
10
11
1,328
862
475
1,276
1,022
2M
2,068
242
872
2,048
624
338
280
17
20
10
11
12
II
13
2S
31
21
23
17
18
808
7
II
6
8
7
6
13
111
111
14
16
13
16
682
414
148
332
278
64
15
17
13
14
16
11
268
302
648
210
128
162
41
87
=
700
M
31
66
OPU COUNTRY
All
areas•---------
Butern Cotton __________
White •••• ___________
NegroCotton
•• ·--··------Western
_________
White •••• ___________
Negro ••• ·-------·- -Appalacblan•Ozark_ --· __
Lake Btatee Cut-Over ___
Ha:,and Dairy----·-·--Oorn Belt.--------·----Wbeet-------··-Inter Wheat--··-·-·-·-
=
Rancblng••••••••• ·--·-·-
11
11
10
12
22
27
18
17
13
21
468
108
er.
ao
111
VILL401i
Weatem Cotton_-·-----White ••••• ·-----·--Nein>----·------·--t==lan•Ozark
______
e Btatee Cut•Over _-·
Ha:, and Dairy ___ •. _____
Oorn Belt •••••••• ---···~ring Wbellt. - ••••• -···
Inter Wat.......... Rancblng••••••••••••• - - -
7
14
26
24
111
24
18
18
:us
368
804
600
31M
1,842
710
2,138
1,810
182
118
682
m
•Mean.
23
ao
33
27
211
• Townships In Connecticut and Massachwietts on!:,.
Exclusive of cum opened or reopened durt.na: the month and or cues for which type or amount of relief
1
wu unknown.
• Exclusive or New EJll]and.
Oig,•ized by
G oog Ie
144 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Jcr•le n.-Amount of General Relief Received by Rural Families, by Residence and
Area, June 1935
(138 countl1111 and 1111 New E1111land townahlps]
Total l
Numher
Per-
cent
St....
~
$1(414 $1~111
BllatiernOotton _____________
Wbtte. ___________ ------
w~6oiti,ii::::::::::::
Wblte __ ----------- -----
7,025
4,658
2,488
6, 8112
6,162
1,740
_____r---- -------~ Negro
Ou
k
_________
111,0M
Out-Over______ 8.688
lOII
Hay
DallT------------0omand
Belt.
__________________ 8,
11,1144
=Wheat_______________ 8. 180
1,212
lnWWbeat-------------___________________ 1,11811
Banchlng
Ne,rEngland. ______________
3,888
100.0
100.0
100.0
1()(1.0
100.0
1()().0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
~
$110or
more
- - - -- -- - --
TOT.U. Rt7UI.
All llrSI-------------- 118,11117
--
Amount of relief
Bellldenoe and area
10.4
ll0.2
13. 6
32.8
111.a
14. 2
18.6
11. 7
8.2
8.11
8.8
6.11
10.4
2. 6
LIi
:N.2
21.9
12. 8
16. 0
13. g
1.8
29.6
27.4
33.3
4L7
40.8
43.11
31.7
18. 8
13.3
17. 7
14.6
24.11
13.2
6. 4
26. 6
1L6
12.11
11.2
11.4
10.1
7.6
12.1
13.11
14.8
14. 0
16. 2
13.0
111.3
8.0
7.6
10. 1
3.0
6.0
7.6
0.4
2.1
2. 7
0.6
4. 4
0.6
0.8
--24. 6
27.8
21.3
22.4
24. 2
17.2
28.8
16.8
14.11
111.4
18. 8
21.3
211. 7
11.1
4.6
6. 4
2.1
10.11
111.7
~-0
21.6
23.11
17. 3
23. 8
17.3
23-11
'5.8
16. 7
111. 2
12. 4
10.11
48.6
-
0.6
0.6
0.1
0.4
4.0
2. 3
0.11
3.1
o. 7
1.1
11.8
ORK COUMHY
AllllrSI •---·-·--·-··· 83,47e
100.0
U.1
27.11
4, l530
8.044
1,488
4,480
3,362
l, 128
23.2
18.4
6112
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
1()(1.Q
17.11
16.8
24. 1
12. 0
7
4.1
12.2
11.4
10.2
2. 4
31.3
30.3
38.6
43.1
4LII
44.11
33.3
111.0
13.11
19. II
16. 7
211.3
13. 8
AllllrSI •-···-··-····- 21, 1112
100.0
II. 4
22. 1
2,41111
1,614
1182
2,412
1,800
1112
4, llU'J
1,DI
3,372
4, 40II
11111
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1()(1.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
14.8
7.6
25.1
22.1
17.0
311.11
IO.II
2. 3
3. II
24. 3
Butlllrn Cotton ____________ .
=:-_::::::::::::::::
Western Cotton_.-------- .•
White- - --·--· ------·- - -
Necro------ -- -• --- -• --. -
==lan-Ourk _________ 11,3112
Stetl!II Out-Over_ • __ ••
Ha., and Dairy _____________ 2,318
Com Belt___________________ 4, 734
=Wheat _______________
Banohlng.
Inter Wheat_.
________________
--· --. -----.
•.
2,638
2, 2114
628
37.2
a.
24.1
12. 6
28.3
16.8
1L2
12.1
11.2
II.II
II.II
2U
24.2
17.0
31.0
18.3
16.8
20.4
111.3
24. 2
26.0
-
13.0
11.6
0.11
----0.2
2. 8
3.11
0.3
0. 6
2.0
o.a
20.s
4.8
8. 7
2.8
4. 7
6.3
3.0
8. 6
21.11
24.8
18. 8
22. 7
16. 0
24. 7
14. l
17.8
14.6
LIi
12.4
14. 4
11.4
11.0
10.3
6. 2
13. 1
13.0
14. 7
17.2
16. 7
13. 7
18.8
11. l
12. 8
a3
4.3
6. 7
0.3
14.8
17.11
23.4
23.0
35.0
111.11
21.11
11.0
14. 7
0.2
2.4
2.11
1.0
7.3
28. 8
28. 8
Ill.II
20. 7
111.4
10.4
L1
8.11
11. 7
14. 0
14.U
13.11
16.0
12. 4
2.11
0.2
a2
2Ll
96. a
14. 3
18. 8
8.11
10.8
0.3
0.2
o.s
as
2.0
0.8
2. 3
0.3
LO
TILLAGII
Baatern Cotton--···--------
Wblte.
----------·-·· ••.
Negrt>________________
W-«em Cotton. _________ --
Wblte. ------ ----------.
~ k _________
Over ______
Bay and Dairy _____________
Oom Belt ___________________
=Wheal..----------·-·
Inter Wheat. _____________
Banohlng ___________________
1184
1,094
II.II
3. 7
10.11
2. 8
21.a
32.11
38.8
38.11
311.0
2!1.2
18. 6
12.11
18.11
1L4
ll0.2
12.8
-ll0.7
27.3
24.11
28.1
22. 6
24.0
17.11
23. 2
14.1
13.8
18. 7
17. 6
18. 2
32.4
1 Excluatve of opened or reopened durlnl ibe month and of unlcnown.
• EKolualve of New Enl)and.
-
LIi
0.11
L2
0.6
6.4
.6.8
LO
6.0
LO
Ll
for which amount of relief wu
Diglized by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 145
TalJle .29.-Len~h of Last Continuous Residence in Count'l_ of Heads of Rural Families
Receiving General Relief, by Residence and Usual Occupation, June 1935
(138 countlell and 110 New England townahlpe)
Y•n of Jut continuous residence In coonty
Total•
Residence and usoa1
oocopatton
Nom- Percent lorlea
her
H
H
H
1CH4
11>-111
20or
more
--
'!O!il 8'1711.L
Total ••••• -- ---- ------ 02,2M
100.0
8.4
6. 7
6.1
10.2
8.1
8. 2
26,:AIO
18, ffl
6, 1146
II, 1133
1, IIU8
'7,0111
25, 72U
2,29G
a, 7'IO
4,272
16, 3111
1,638
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3. 6
8.0
1.0
8.11
6. 6
.. 0
8.11
6. 8
3. 7
4.1
3. 7
2. 2
2. a
6. 0
4.0
2. 8
6. 4
7.2
8.1
G.8
7.(1
8. 6
a. 6
6.0
4.8
3.1
4. '7
G. 8
G. II
0.1
8.1
8.8
G. 2
6.1
3. 0
3. 0
11.2
7.8
6.11
8. 3
1L7
12. II
12.0
11.2
13. 8
12.4
lLII
8. 7
8.4
8.7
8.1
0.0
6.8
8. 2
8. 8
9.4
7.8
11.6
II. II
11.4
11.0
8.1
G. 8
7.0
'7.0
G. 3
7.8
G.4
8. II
8.6
8.4
11. l
11.1
11.11
11.1
Total •••..•.•.•.•.••.. 36,474
100.0
3.0
6. II
6.1
11.1
G.8
G. II
02. 0
Apic:ultnre •••••••••••••...• :io, 312
Farm operator....•..... 16, 1176
Owner .•.•••.••...•. 6,760
Tenant .....•....•.• 8,634
Oro~r •······-···- 1,080
Parm la rer ••.•..••.•. 4,338
No~tnre ..••..•...•.. II, 7118
lte collar •.•.•••.....
M4
Skilled .................. 1,270
Bem.lakilled ............. 1,474
Uoali::llled •••••••..••••.. 6,444
8'1'2
8. 3
2. II
0.7
3.8
6. (I
6.1
4. (I
7.3
6.4
4.4
2. II
6.1
7.7
11.0
8.1
11.3
11.(1
12. 8
6. 2
8. (I
7.4
6. II
7.8
10.4
13.0
11.0
12.11
15.4
10.7
10.0
8. 8
7.8
8.3
6. II
6. (I
6. 0
7.11
8.0
8. 0
8. 3
8. 0
7.3
8.1
G. 6
66. 2
68. 0
74.8
67.4
64. 4
62.0
64.1
4L3
40.6
48. 6
4.11
8.11
4. 8
4. 1
8.0
4.3
G.8
7.3
7.0
12. (I
12.1
7.0
6. 3
8. 3
8.1
6. 4
G. 7
7.6
8.0
7.4
6. 0
7.2
8. 3
8.2
7.3
7.0
4, 8112
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.4
8.3
811.8
67. 7
Total. ••.............. 22,660
100.0
8.11
6.11
6.8
1L7
11.l
11.6
M.O
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
4. 3
4. 7
4.2
4.8
6.1
4.0
3. 8
5. 3
3. 8
3. 7
3. 6
2. 7
1.8
G.8
6. 6
4.11
8.0
4. 6
7.0
8. 6
7.0
7.8
8.8
6.11
4.1
3. 3
6. 6
6. 4
3. 8
7.8
7.7
6. 7
6. 7
8. 7
7.4
6. II
6.1
4. 1
2. II
1L8
10.4
4.2
11. 6
18. 8
12. 8
12. 8
10. 6
13.1
14.8
12. 0
7.11
11. l
7.(1
6.11
4. 6
8. 7
II.Cl
8. (I
II. 7
7.4
10.2
11.8
10. 0
10.11
8. 7
8. 0
8. 8
6. 8
116.2
Acrlcaltnre. ________________
Farm operator ••••..•••.
Owner••••.•.•.•..•.
Tellant .. ---·-·-····
Oro~•-·-···--···
:hrmla rer ..•..••••.•
No~tore ••••••••....•
tecollar •••••••••..
Bldlled.. •••••••••• -- --• -8emlstflled ••••••••• ____
Unskilled .•••••••••••••.
No osual oecopatlon •••••••.
Nonworker ••••••••.•....•..
on•
11,11113
fl.l
6. 6
4.3
1511.3
--83.2
0'7•.2
'13.0
85.0
62.8
62.8
62. II
61. 6
47.3
411.2
M.7
M.8
06.(1
COU111TJIT I
~:r:ot~~~~~~::::::::
4.2
6.0
4. 3
2.1
2. 8
69.2
11.2
VILIJ.OJ: I
Acrlcnltore .•...............
Parm operator ........•.
4,440
2,008
Owner.•••...•......
818
TeD&Dt ...........•. 1,078
812
O~er• ..•........
l'armla m ........... 2,432
No~cultore .•••......... 13,230
lte collar ............ 1,404
BkllJed .••.•••••......... 1,980
Bem.lakllled _••....•..... 1,880
Unskilled .••••.......... 7,980
Noosualoecopatlon ..•.•...
738
Nonworker •••••••...•••••.• 4,144
1
I
I
E:mtuatve of beads of lam11lel whole
In the 2 Cotton Areu.
BmJustve of New EJll)and.
1ensth of lut
11.1
io. a
7.11
II. 7
8.8
8.0
8. 4
10. 8
14.11
11.7
66.11
71.8
62. 3
63. 8
61.8
64. 3
411. 7
411. 0
112. 7
116.4
114.6
continuous residence wu unknown.
D1gtizedb;
44.2
Google
146 •
RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Ta&le 30.-Length of Last Continuous Residence in County of Heads of Rural Families
Receiving General Relief in the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas, by Color and
Usual Occupation, June 1935
Total l
Color and usual occupation
Yean of last continuous residence In county
Num- Percent 1 orless
ber
,-a
H
11H4
&-9
15--111
2lor
more
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --WHITE
100.0
6.2
0,0
6.8
12.0
3,516
602
1,418
1, 4116
1,890
3,142
602
470
760
1,410
346
1,488
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.0
6.6
2.0
5.6
6.8
7.0
8. 0
8. 4
8.11
7.4
7.8
4.0
8.4
0.1
7.3
a. 7
7.8
8.4
12.3
11.8
6.2
13.6
11.8
11.1
7.ll
7. 7
7.1
6.2
4.0
6. I
7.2
8. 7
7.8
11.4
II.II
as
12.8
11.8
11.3
13.3
12.6
14. 7
12.3
10.0
10.6
12.11
13.3
11.6
8. 6
4,466
100.0
1.15
aa
1.4
8.2
2,106
1,098
152
444
602
1,008
1,044
30
48
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
1.3
1.1
a3
2. 6
4. 3
3.8
1.3
2. 7
6.6
4.8
3.3
7.2
11.2
3.11
3.11
11.2
8. 3
11. 6
Total _____ ------- --- -- 10,382
ApicultunL---------------Farm operator __________
Owner ______________
Tenant _____________
F~~~~.!r:::::::::::
Non{tfl;\:1~"\'i:i-::::::::::::
Skllled __________________
Semiskilled _____________
Unskllled. ______________
No usual occupation ________
Nonworker _________________
--6,406
6. 6
8.1
6. 8
8. 1
7.11
l50. 0
7. 7
7.8
6.0
8. 7
7.8
7.11
7.8
11.2
11.4
7.11
11.8
11.11
7.4
63. 7
74.3
60.0
48.6
311. 8
46.2
63.2
37.6
46.8
46.8
62.11
111.8
7.0
7.0
811. II
11.6
6. ti
6.3
6.3
7.2
6.3
10. 2
II.II
-------8.4
7.11
48. 7
a1
8.6
8.6
II.ti
8.1
7.6
8. I
8. 7
8.1
6.11
7.4
NJ:ORO
Total ____ ------------Agriculture ________________ .
Farm operator __________
Owner ______________
Tenant _____________
Cro~-----------·
Farm
la rer ___________
Nonagriculture _____________
White co!Jar ____________
Skilled _________________ .
Semiskilled _____________
Unskilled _______________
No usual occupation ________
Nonworker _________________
eo
908
30
1,286
l
100.0
100.0
t
100.0
0.11
1. II
1.6
1.11
--t
2.0
I. 4
2. 3
3.11
4.2
4.11
--
3.3
6.1
t
2. 0
--t
3.1
2.0
l
l
7.1
6.3
11.8
8.0
6.2
7.1
l
77.4
64.8
68. II
111.4
l
10.0
11. 7
10.0
11.6
3.3
7.1
73.4
IILII
7.2
6.1
7.11
74. 7
-
t
t
t Percent not computed on a base of lower than 60 cases.
1
70.8
72.11
84.2
Exclusive of heads of families whose lenitb or last continuous residence was unknown.
01g111zedbyGoogle
t
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 147
Ta&le 31.-School Attainment of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief,
by Residence and Area, October 1935
(138 aountles and 83 New EDIWld towmhlpe t]
Lest grade or year completed
Total•
OolJeril
Grade and high echool
Relldence and area
Num• Percent None
ber
1-ll
4--7
8
9-11
12
1-ll
- - -- -- ----
4or
more
'fOT.U. lltrlU.L
All areas ............. '41,234
Eutern Cotton •••••.••••..
White ••••••.•.•••••••..
Negro ••••••••..••..••..
Western Cotton •••••••.•...
White ••••••••.••••.•...
Negro ..................
t==•Ozark ........
e States Cot-Over•.•.•.
Hay and Dairy ••••••••••..
Corn Belt •••..•••••••••.•..
~Wheat .•••••••••••••
Inter Wheat ••••••••••..•
Ranching •••••••••••••••.••
New ED&land ..............
4,294
3,190
1,104
4,1110
3,728
882
15,736
2,422
6,158
2,724
I, 11&2
790
936
1,582
100.0
8.8
13.8
42.0
24.6
7.4
2. 6
0.8
0.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
14. 4
9. 2
29.4
20.4
18. 3
32. 3
12.1
10. 7
17. 7
19. 7
12. 1
5. 2
5.4
7.4
8. 3
6.8
43.0
46.4
32.8
51.1
60.6
63.8
0. 7
0.9
0.4
0.1
0.1
4.11
9.1
11.7
1.11
10.8
11.6
7. 7
3.2
10.8
9.8
9.8
7.9
10.9
13. 6
12. 8
u
36. 2
43.0
33.8
31.8
32. 7
23.9
29.3
9.2
11.3
3.1
17. 5
19.11
8.4
18.6
27.1
34.1
41.1
42.2
41. 7
41.0
39.8
11.4
5.4
10.9
12. 5
9.8
2. 9
2.4
5.2
2. 8
3.2
3.8
44.9
4.3
1.8
2. 4
0.2
0. 7
0.11
1.0
0.2
0. 7
0.11
1.0
1.2
8. 8
7.3
2.4
2.4
0.4
1.8
0.2
1.3
1.5
0.5
0.8
3.3
3.9
11.2
4.11
-
0.1
--
0.6
o.a
LO
-
OPD COUJITBT
All llNIU • ............ 23,630
Eutern Cotton ••••••••••••
White ..•••••••••..•••••
Negro ...•••••••••••••••
Western Cotton ••••••••••••
White ...•••••••••••••••
Negro ...•.••••••.••••••
~lan•OIBlk ........
tes Cot-Over.•..•.
Bay and Dairy •••••••••.••
Corn Belt ..•.•••••••••••••.
Wheat ...••••••••••.
Inter Wheat ••••••••••••.
Ranching ......•.•••.•.••..
=g
2,946
2,300
648
3,260
2,1140
1110
9,828
1,684
2,800
958
1,292
472
300
100.0
10. 7
15.1
44. 3
22. 0
6.8
1.6
0.4
0.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
14. 5
10.3
29. 7
6.6
5.6
10.5
14. 9
IO. 3
3. 4
4. 4
4.3
4.2
II. 7
21.2
17.11
34.1
12.4
11.0
18. 3
19.6
13.3
5. 1
11.3
8.4
7.6
11.3
45. 7
49.6
32.2
52.2
51.8
63. 7
45.11
36.6
8.8
10.11
1.9
17.4
19.0
10. 6
17.1
26.2
34. 7
39.11
45.3
38. 7
39.4
7.11
9.3
1.6
9.8
10.8
5.11
2. 3
10.0
8.0
7.1
6.2
11. 4
7.3
0.11
0.8
0.9
1.1
I. 2
0. 7
0.4
2. 9
3.11
4.4
2.11
3.4
3.3
0. 7
0. 7
0.11
0.1
0. 2
100.0
11.6
12.9
39.6
26.11
9.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
14.1
6.6
28.8
6.3
6.0
11.8
8. 4
8. 7
2.4
18. 7
13.0
29. 7
11. 6
10.1
16.9
19.9
9.5
5.3
6.0
6. 6
36.6
38.0
34.2
48.11
47.3
63.6
43.9
35.3
41.4
31. 7
30. 7
30.8
20.4
13.3
4.8
17.11
21.1
3. 7
21. 2
29.0
33.6
41.8
36.3
46.6
41.8
12. 5
18. 0
I. 7
13.2
13.4
12. 6
4.11
12. 7
11. 9
11. 2
11.0
10.1
16. 4
44.4
37.8
32. 4
33.9
31.3
1.1
0.5
0.6
0. 7
0.1
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.4
-
-o.-7
3. 7
1.2
0.3
3.0
4.3
0.4
1.8
2. 2
3.9
6.11
0.4
1.0
0. 9
1. 5
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
2. 0
1. 3
3.5
0.9
1.3
-
0.1
TILIJ.011:
All llNIIII 1•••••••••••• 16, 122
Eutem Cotton •••••••••.•.
White .••••.•••••••••.••
Negro ..•••.••••••••••••
Western Cotton. •••••••••••
White .•••••••••••••••••
Negro ..••••....••••••••
~ • O z a r k ••••••••
e States Cot-Over ••••••
Hay and Dairy ••••••••••••
Corn Belt ..••••••.•••••••••
=Wheat •••••••.••••••
terWheat ••••••.•••••.
Ranching ••••••••••••••••••
1,348
890
458
1,360
1,088
272
6,008
738
2,358
1,766
690
318
636
1.4
7.0
0.11
1.6
4.4
4. 7
-10.4
-
-
1.6
4. 3
4.2
7.2
7.5
11.3
11.3
-
---
-
0.1
0.6
0.6
1 Towmhlps In Connecticut and Massachusetts only.
• E:rclnslve of heads of families whose school attainment was Wlknowu.
• Exclnslve of New EDIWld.
D,g,t,zed by
--
0.3
Google
148 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
Tal,le 32.-School Attainment of Heads of Rural Families Receiving General Relief,
16 Through 24 Years of Age, by Residence and Area, October 1935
[138 counties and 83 New England townships •]
Lest grade or year completed
Total
Grade and high school
Reeldence and aree
Num• Percent None
her
---
1-3
4--7
8
College
!Hl
12
1-3
---- -- -- -- ----
4 or
more
--
TOTAL lltJBAL
All
areas _____________
E11&tern Cotton ____________
Western Cotton ____________
Appalachian-Or.ark ________
Lake States Cut-Over ______
Hay and Dalry_____________
Corn Belt __________________
~ring Wheat ______________
Inter Wheat _____________
Ranching __________________
New England ______________
4,806
100.0
3.1
448
434
1, 736
184
350
196
138
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
11.4
1.8
5.2
114
88
1,168
--
--
--o. 7
7.6
33.0
28. 7
111.1
7. 7
0.11
0.2
12. 5
3. 7
14. 2
4- 3
3.4
1.0
2. 9
6. 3
2.3
L4
48.4
39. 7
44. 7
31. 5
17.1
15.3
34.8
18.8
7.6
26. 7
23.3
38. l
411. 8
49. 1
42.1
37.4
15.11
3"3. 2
16. 1
20. 7
10. 4
18. 6
:al. 6
17. 3
7.2
21.11
a1
0.11
32. 7
4.0
7. 4
2.0
7.11
11. l
16. 3
11.11
12. 6
20.6
14- 2
11. 7
43.1
1.2. 1
3.1
25.0
17.0
36.3
--
0.2
1.0
1.4
a1
-
0. 6
----
-
0.3
OPlilf COUNTRY
-----10.8
- -47.-7.6
- -18.-5 ----100. 0
314
10.8
8
1.11
1.3
1.3
Western Cotton____________
100.0
324
2. 6
4.3
39. 5
28. 4
20.4
4. II
Appalachian-Ozark ________ 1,022
100.0
13. 1
6.8
62. 7
111.11
~.8
0.6
0.4
Lake States Cut-Over______
144
110. 0
5.6
29.
2
37. 5
20.8
6. 9
Hay and Dairy_____________
100.0
10.3
194
611.7
6.2
Com Belt __________________
100.0
12. 1
II.I
116
69. 7
II. 1
--- 6.2
- 33.20.6
-- --100.0
6.1
78
3
46. 2
7. 7
5. 1
2.11
~~:. ~i:.ic::::::::::: 30111
J J J t J -J -All llNlllS '------------
2,188
100.0
5.1
211. 2
0.5
0.2
Eastern Cotton ____________
-
Ranchln&------------------
-
VIIUGJ:
All llNlllS '------------
1,460
Eastern Cotton ____________ - -134
Western Cotton____________
llO
Appalachian-Ozark ________
714
Lake States Cut-Over ______
40
Hay and Dairy_____________
156
Com Belt __________________
130
~ng Wheat ______________
60
Inter Wheat ____________ .
31
Rancbllli- _____ ----------- _
;2
---11.0
- ----10. 4
7.5
21.8
14. 6
3.9
15. 4
11.4
100.0
1. 9
11.5
30.~
28. 7
100.0
JOO.O
100. 0
6.0
16. 4
1.8
16. 7
43. 2
40.1
33.6
7. 5
21.8
28. 6
I. 6
12.8
16. 9
36. 7
41.1
38.6
38. 7
33. 3
21.6
6. 7
12. 8
:al.0
111.11
22.2
13. 9
44. 5
111.4
--t
100.0
100. 0
100.0
t
100.0
-
2.8
----
--
--
t
t
t
t
18.11
t
t
t
t
1.0
-
--
I. 6
-
-t
t Pereent not computed on a base or fewer than 50 cases.
•Townships In Connecticut and Massachuaetts onl)·.
•Exclusive of New England.
Oig1 ,zed by
Google
----
Ta&le 33.-School Attendance of Children 7 Through 15 Yean of Age in Rural Families Receiving General Relief, by Residence and Area, Odober
1935
(13,11 counties and 83 New England townships 1)
l(>-13 years
7- 0 year s
T otul
R00hlence an cl a rea
To tal
In
sch ool
:-S-uml"•r I P ercen t
Not in 1---....,..---- sc ht~,l
In
::chool
N umb r rl Pereeut
T ot al
~ ot I n ! - - - - - -school
~ umbe r! Percen t
TOTAL ltURAL
All area,; __ __ .. . .... .. .
E as tern Cotton . ... ... . . .. . . • . .•
, vtbte rn Cuttou .. ___. ____ _. _. . .
A pp11lr.d1ian-Oiark ...... . .• • . ••
Lake States C' ut -lh<'r. . . . • . •
g~:;,an~l.'_irr_·:: : : : : : : . :: : : :: :::
Spring \\"boat. . . .. _. . ....... .
Winter \\'h,,at . . . . . ... ...
H.unchi nz ____ ______ -·- · -- . .••. .
N ew E a glanJ ___ _____
. .. • _.
-17.
o.·,i
I
,oo. o VJ.~
~ -- -- - --
4. Oc<I
!\XI. 0
,\U l:!
14""
:.!. I i 4
1()0 ()
tn.
t} , :tlH
3, l lfi
Jr~ ) 0
HXJ. 0
JOO ll
JOO U
2, Al~
I()() 0
0;1,1
1. l 10
2. 8H:.!
!IJO,l)
H~l 0
100 0
27, 698
ll)il. 0
St). I
(l;\. 2
'JI. ~
v,.()
ti~. ~
!17. :,!
94 . 0
97. 9
~l(i_ 0
H9.
n
fi. 2
13,426
100. 0
94 9
5. l
2:J, 02"2
1:1. :1
t
11. 9
t\ t)
'J., :24:!
2. (',I~ ,
,.2
~. /~ti
li . fi
D, 15"i
3 0
l :!
2."
6. 0
2. l
•I tJ
1.0
~7~
I.I
J. 4
l . ~1
31'2
100.(1
100. 0
100. o
IUO 0
Ji)() 0
IW.U
JOO. 0
Jl)(J.I)
BS.
Ii, b
l. -;; -..
2, 102
3'.l l
100 0
2, zan
I. OJ-I
1,01 0
oo,
9 1. 4
!IJ l
9,;
fj
r,s. 6
U. b
2. G
I. 9
JOO. 0
~ l. "2
U7. 4
98. I
93. 4
11)(1. U
100.()
03. 0
2. i7 l
l. 404
I. 25~
__1~1
lllO. 0
100 0
100. 0
lfkl. 0
!00. 0
-
-l:!11
4~:!
1, 3 14
100. 0
JO() 0
LOI). IJ
Jl)(J.O
100. 0
7. 0
14. 385
100.0
12. 7
l.7;l0
lf~L 0
ll~J.O
li .fi
la
school
11 - 15 y e ..r s
To t'11
IKo
t i n!- - - -- - , ehoo l
:,..r umberl Percent
In
schoo l
IN ot
in
school
9tl. 2_
3, 8
10, 602
100. 0
rs;. a
12. 7
S9 . 4
9ft -t
JO, 6
9:10
I. 172
4, 2lll
600
77. 4
8U. I
SJ'. 8
23 4
640
100. 0
100. U
100.0
JOO. o
100.0
JOO. 0
100. 0
100.0
JOO. 0
100. 0
95.6
22. 6
JO. 9
16. 2
JU.0
2. 4
9. I
22. l
.~. I
4. 3
4.4
o,4n
100. 0
83. 6
16. 4
67~
JOO. 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
100. Ll
11)(), 0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
72. 0
87. 3
81. 2
80.3
28. 0
12. 7
18. 8
3. ti
!15. 0
5.
9'\. 7
OS. 7
!!9. I
O.'i',
o. 4
1- 3
I. 3
IJ. 9
1. 7
o. :.!
n2
!19.·ij
u,. 3
9\). 8
I)
I, 31)0
fJ78
5~0
19~
90.0
V7. 6
00. 9
77.0
94. 9
95. 7
()l'ES <'Ol"NTH Y
A II are:1:,
0
,6'
~-
"'O'
Q.
•c::;
0
0
0
-
00
ro
1. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
En..<itern Cotton ___ ____ ______ ____ _
W e.stnn Cotton .. ... . . ....• •.• • .
A ppahc.hian -Ozark_. __ . _.• . _. _. .
L ake .:; rates Cut-0\Tcr _. _. ______ . .
Il ayan, t Dairy __ __ ___ ____ ______ ,
Corn Belt ................ .. . ... .
Spri m~ \V hea t_ _______ . ______ . .... .
\Vint cr \\" twa t_ ____ ____ ____ _____ __
Houchin~ . .... . ....... . .... . .. . ...
Bee footnotes at end of table.
--- ---
a. so"
4,3 2 1
9, 86'-i
llJO.O
llJO. 0
I. 0-12
100.0
IIJO. 0
3, 'iO'"i
100 0
I. 2'.JI
l. 9-lfi
l(Xl. 0
l ()(LO
l~N
100. 0
-1()()
JOO. 0
7, Ul~
- - - - -- - - -15. :\
l. 4f~I
8 1.7
1 . ,l
112. 5
1. 5i 4
89. ~
6:l2
HI. i
Ht). 6
:u
6H
9!-1. i
J. :J
1, 32G
a. ;
91\. :l
410
IJ2. 2
7. 8
70'J
gq_ 7
2(1.';
J. :l
90. 5
Y. 5
HS
91.~
8. 2
- - -- - -- - -- - - -- - - 10() 0
HX) O
87. 3
91. 0
bl . 0
9~. 0
98. !i
9!J. O
00. \I
!l'J, 0
IOU. 0
82. ·I
100. 0
100. 1)
100. 0
100.0
JOO. 0
JOO 0
9. U
13. 0
2. 0
I. 5
LO
3. l
LO
17. 6
1. 9(12
6, 3.5f.
91 t1
I , 592
6()(1
862
2f, !
166
! <Kl o
100.0
II
1()(). 0
JOO. fl
100. 0
100.0
JI)().
5.1
-- - - - sr. 5
12. a
9(1. 0
4.0
6. 1
93. 9
9S. Y
1.1
w.~
0. !l
98. 7
I. 3
U~. I
1. 9
100. 0
96. 4
3. 6
9 1. 9
--- --- --- --818
2, !lSO
4 12
700
2S !
378
136
86
97. :.
87. :l
69. H
95. 6
93. 0
.IO. 7
2.5
12. 7
30. 2
4. 4
7.0
(I)
C
=8
r
m
~
....z)>
"'-<
....)>
CICI
r
m
(I)
....•
'°
~
Table 33.-School Attendance of Children 7 Throu9h 15 Yean of A9e in Rural Families Receivin9 General Relief, by Residence and Area, Odober
....
1935-Continued
0
•
:0
14-15 years
10-13 years
7--9 years
Total
V1
C:
:0
)>
Residence and area
In
::--Tumber Percent school
Not in
school
Total
Total
Total
In
school
Not in
school
::--Tumber Percent
Not In
In
school school
::--Tumber Percent
In
school
Not In
school
Number Percent
r
>
---, _, _ --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - --- --- ---, _ --- --- F~
VILLAGE
3,470
100.0
92.6
7. 4
202
62
148
100.0
100.0
100.0
93. l
93.5
9_7. 3
6.9
6. 5
2. 7
m
9S. 2
100. 0
7,320
1.8
---- --- --- --- --- - - - --- 0
----------3 ---93.
---·
----7. 9
92. I
100.0
252
95. 7
100.0
512
4. 3
100. 0
91 . 0
100.0
378
9. 0
1, U2
6. 7
z
E astern Cotton .••.•••••••.•......
6. 2
100.0
93. 8
97. 4
100.0
766
324
2. 6
92. 8
100.0
52~
7. 2
95. 2
100.0
I, t\lM
4. 8
W e,stcrn Cotton .. ••.••.•.........
:0
10. 5
100.0
811.5
1,330
97. 3
100.0
2,802
2. 7
91. 3
100.0
6,2'1)
2, HS
4. 7
100. 0
5. 1
9t. 9
Appalachinn·Omrk .....•.........
m
8. 6
100.0
91.5
188
100.0
100.0
380
100.0
100. 0
261
100. 0
1.9
98. 1
832
Lake States Ct1t•Over .•... . .•....
- 1,182
-- 570
r
2. 1
97.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1. 3
98. 7
100.0
2, 6S6
99.1
0. 9
Hay and Dairy •••••...•.•...•....
~H
m
...,
6
6.
100.0
98.8
93.4
0
100.
804
391
2
1.
100.0
624
0.6
99.4
0
100.
2.2
97.il
1,822
Corn Belt. .. .••••••••...•........
All areas• ..................
16,290
100. 0
96. 4
3. 6
6,600
100. 0
9tl. 4
3. 6
Spring Wheat ••••••.•.•.•.••..•..
Winter Wheat •.•••.•..........•..
Ranching .••.••• ••••• .•....•...•..
902
328
710
100.9
100.0
100.0
98.0
96. 3
99. 2
2.0
3.J
0.8
301
101
246
100.0
100.0
100.0
98. 7
96. 2
100. 0
1.3
3. 8
In Connectic-ut and :O.lassachusetts only.
• Exclusive or New England.
1 Townships
c;
<g
"
r.,
a.
~
0
0
~
~
-
396
162
316
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
97.5
99.4
-
2. 5
0. 6
Appendix C
LIST OF TABLES
TEXT TABLES
Table
Page
I. Rural families in the United States receiving general relief, July 1933
through December 1935 (estimated)__________ _____ _______ __ ____
9
2. Usual occupation of beads of rural families receiving general relief,
by area, June 1935 _________________ - _________________________
14
3. Usual occupation of heads of open country families receiving general
relief, by area, June 1935_____________________________________
18
4. Usual occupation of beads of village families receiving general relief,
by area, June 1935___________________________________________
19
5. Average age of heads of rural families receiving general relief, by area
and residence, June 1935_ ____________ ______ ___________________
23
6. Average age of heads of rural families receiving general relief, by
usual occupation and area, June 1935___________________________
25
7. Marital condition of beads of rural families receiving general relief,
by sex and age, October 1935__ _______________________________ _
29
8. Average size of families in the United States, by division and residence,
1930________________________________________________________
36
9. Average size of rural families receiving general relief, by area and resi39
dence, June 1935______ ___ ______________________ _____________ _
10. Average size of rural families receiving general relief, by usual occupation of bead and area, June 1935______________ ___ _______ ______ _
39
11. Age of persons in rural families receiving general relief, June 1935, and
age of all rural persons, 1930, by area__________________________
41
12. Sex ratio of the rural relief population, June 1935, and of the general
rural population, 1930, by age and residence_____________ ________
43
13. Rural families receiving general relief with persons both under 16 and
over 64 years of age, by number of such persons, residence, and area,
June 1935___________________________________________________
48
14. Rural families receiving general relief with children under 16 years of
age, by number of children, residence, and area, June 1935________
49
15. Rural families receiving general relief with aged persons, by number
of aged, residence, and area, June 1935_________________________
50
16. Structural type of rural families receiving general relief, by residence,
June 1935___________________________________________________
55
17. Children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20 through 44 years
of age in the general rural population, by area and residence, 1930_ _
60
18. Children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20 through 44 years of
age in rural families receiving general relief, by area and residence,
October 1935________________________________________________
62
151
D1gtizedb;
Google
152 • RURAL FAMILIES ON RELIEF
19. Children under 5 years of age per 1,000 women 20 through 44 years of
age in the general rural population, 1930, and in the rural relief
population, October 1935, of 2 New England States______________
20. Employability composition of rural families receiving general relief,
by residence and area, June 1935_ __________ ____________ _______
21. Employment status of workers in rural families receiving general
relief, by usual occupation, June 1935 ____ .. _. __________________
22. Length of time between end of last job of the head at usual occupation and accession to relief of rural families in their first relief
period, by residence and usual occupation of head, June 1935_ _____
23. Relief history of rural families receiving relief, by usual occupation of
head, June 1935. ______ . _- - - - - __________ . _. ___ . _____________ .
24. Mobility of heads of rural families receiving general relief, by residence
and area, June 1935 _____ . ___ . _______________ . _____ ___________
25. Mobility of migrant heads of rural families receiving general relief, by
residence and area, June 1935_________________________________
26. Length of last continuous residence in county of heads of rural families
receiving general relief, by residence and area, June 1935_ __ _______
27. Mobility of heads of rural familif"S receiving general relief, by residence
and usual occupation, June 1935 _______ . ___ __ _________________ _
28. Mobility of heads of rural families receiving general relief in the
Eastern and Western Cotton Areas, by color and usual occupation,
June 1935___________________________________________________
29. Average school grade completed by heads of rural families receiving
general relief, by residence, area, and age, October 1935.__________
30. School attainment of heads of rural families receiving general relief,
by usual occupation, October 1935_____________________________
31. Average school grade completed by persons 16 years of age and over,
other than beads, in rural families receiving general relief, by residence, area, and age, October 1935_____________________________
32. School attendance of youth 16 through 24 years of age, other than
heads, in rural families receiving general relief, by residence and
area, October 1935 ________________________ . ______ ____________
67
70
73
76
79
85
87
88
89
90
97
99
101
102
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
1. Intensity of general relief in the United States, by residence, July 1933
through December 1935 (estimated) ___________________ .________
2. Incidence of general relief in rural areas, October 1933 through October
1935________________________________________________________
3. Age of heads of rural families receiving general relief, by residence and
area, June 1935 _________ . ____ __________________ __ ___ ____ __ ___
4. Age of heads of rural families receiving general relief, by usual occupation, June 1935 _______ _____________________________________
5. Age of heads of rural families receiving general relief in the Eastern
and Western Cotton Areas, by color and usual occupation, June
1935________________________________________________________
6. Sex of heads of rural families receiving general relief, by residence and
area,June 1935______________________________________________
7. Male heads of rural families receiving general relief, by residence, area,
and age, June 1935 ___________________________ . ___________ ---8. Female heads of rural families receiving general relief, by residence,
area, and age, June 1935 __________________________ . ___________
9. Marital condition of heads of rural families 16 through 24 years of age
receiving general relief, by residence, area, and sex, October 1935___
113
113
114
114
116
116
117
118
119
LIST OF TABLES • 153
Page
10. Marital condition of heads of rural families 25 through 34 years of age
receiving general relief, by residence, area, and sex, October 1935__
11. Marital condition of heads of rural families 35 through 44 years of age
receiving general relief, by residence, area, and sex, October 1935_ _
12. Marital condition of heads of rural families 45 through 64 years of age
receiving general relief, by residence, area, and sex, October 1935_ _
13. Marital condition of heads of rural families 65 years of age and over
receiving general relief, by residence, area, and sex, October 1935__
14. Marital condition of heads of rural families receiving general relief in
the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas, by residence, age, sex, and
color, October 1935 ______________ . ___ ___ __ ______ ______ ___ ___ __
15. Size of rural families receiving general relief, by residence and area,
June 1935______________ __ ___________________________________
16. Size of rural families receiving general relief, by usual occupation of
head, area, and color, June 1935_______________________________
17. Age of persons in rural families receiving general relief, by residence
and area, June 1935 __ •.• _______________________ . ___ .. __ __ ___ _
18. Sex of persons in rural families receiving general relief, by residence
and area, June 1935 ___ • __ . __________ . ________ . ___ . __ . ___ . ____
19. Rural families receiving general relief with persons in dependent age
groups, by residence and area, June 1935________________________
20. Structural type of rural families receiving general relief, by usual
occupation of head, June 1935 _________________ . ________ . ______
21. Structural type of rural families receiving general relief, by residence
and area, June 1935. __ ____ . __ .. _. _. _. _.. ______ ... ___ . _ _______
22. Structural type of rural families receiving general relief in the Eastern
and Western Cotton Areas, by color and usual occupation of head,
June 1935___________________________________________________
23. Rural I-person families receiving general relief in the Eastern and
Western Cotton Areas, by residence, color, age, and sex, June 1935__
24. Employment statue of workers in rural families receiving general relief
in the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas, by color and usual occupation, June 1935. __ • __________________________________ .. __ __
25. Reason for accession of rural families receiving general relief, by
residence and area, June 1935. _____________________________ . __
26. Relief history of rural families receiving relief, by residence and area,
June 1935_______ __ _______ ___ _________________________ _______
27. Average amount of general relief received by rural families, by residence, area, and type of relief, June 1935_______________________
28. Amount of general relief received by rural families, by residence and
area, June 1935 ____ .. ______________ . __________ . ____ • ____ . ____
29. Length of last continuous residence in county of heads of rural families
receiving general relief, by residence and usual occupation, June
1935________________________________________________________
30. Length of last continuous residence in county of heads of rural families
receiving general relief in the Eastern and Western Cotton Areas,
by color and usual occupation, J ur.e 1935 ___________ . _. . ___ .. ___
31. School attainment of heads of rural families receiving general relief,
by residence and area, October 1935. _____ . _____ .• _____ ... ______
32. School attainment of heads of rural families receiving general relief,
16 through 24 years of age, by residence and area, October 1935_ __
33. School attendance of children 7 through 15 years of age in rural families
receiving general relief, by residence and area, October 1935_______
Dig •1ze-d by
120
122
124
126
128
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Google
DtgTtZedbyGoogle
Index
155
Oig1 ,zed by
Google
DtgTtZedbyGoogle
INDEX
Age, rural relief heads (see also Sex, rural relief heads):
Page
By area and residence ______________________________________ 23-26, 114
By area and usual occupation ___________________________ 25-26, 114, 115
White and Negro compared _________________________________ 23, 26, 115
Agricultural Adjustment Administration:
Objectives of___________________ -------------__________________
13
Relief rates affected by ________________________________ 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12
Agricultural regions __________ - _______ ---------- ------ ____ ___ ___ ____
1, 2
Areas surveyed________________________________________________ JCI-XII, 112
Asch, Berta________________________________________________ Sn, 15n, 110n
Baker, 0. E _____________________________________________________ 41n, 84n
Bash, Wendell_____________________________________________________
38n
Birth rate, factor in relief situation (see also Fertility) _______________ 59, 67-68
Census, Bureau of the:
Fifteenth Census of the United States, abstract of _________ xm, 35n, 11 ln
Population___________________________________ 36n, 41n, 43n, 67n, 113n
Civil Works Administration_________________________________________
109
Composition, rural relief families (see also Structural types, rural relief
families):
Age, by area and residence _______________________________ 40, 41-42, 132
Relief and nonrelief compared ________________________ xx-XXI, 40, 41
White and Negro compared ________________________________ 42,132
Agricultural production control affecting__________________________
42
Sex, by area and residence __________________________________ 42-43, 133
Ratio, by age and residence, relief and nonrelief compared _________ 43
Counties, sample ______________________________________________ XI-XII, 112
Darling, H. D______ __ ____ __ ___ _____ ______ __ __ __ __ _________ __ ____ _ _ 68n
Dependents, rural relief families:
By age, area, and residence _________________________ xx-xxx, 45-47, 134
Definition_____________________________________________________
45
Factors affecting number of _____________________________________ 51-52
Types of, by age, area, number, and residence _________________ 47-51, 134
White and Negro compared _______________________________ 47, 48, 49-50
Devereux, E. C _____________ .. __ __ __ ____ __ _____ _ _____ ___ ____ __ ______ 93n
Dorn, Harold _____________________________________________ --------60n
Drought:
Migration caused by ____________________________________ XXIV, 5, 84, 85
5, 6
Regions delimited______________________________________________
Relief:
Amount related to____________________________________ ___ __
82
Needs related to ______________________________ XIV, 8, 10, 12, 15, 24
157
Oig1 ,zed by
Google
158 • INDEX
Education, rural relief heads:
Page
By age, area, and residence ________________________ xxIV, 95-98, 147, 148
By usual occupation __________________________________________ 98-100
Index of socio-economic position_________________________________
95
White and Negro compared ________________________________ xxiv, ~98
~4ucation, rural relief members (see also School attendance):
, , By age, area, and residence _ _____________ __________ _____ xx1v, · 100-102
'· .White and Negro compared ___________________________________ 101-102
103
:E!Juca.tional attainment, significance oL ___________________ ___ ________
E!mployability composition, rural relief families:
By area and residence ________________________ ·_____________ xxn, 69-72
. , White and Negro compared __________________________________ 70, 71-72
·Employment:
Current. See Workers, rural relief.
Definition---------------------------------------------------~72n
Family (see also Family, rural relief; Farm families):
· · Definition ___________________________________________________ xm, 107
Number in United States, 1930, by residence______________________
XI
. Size:
Average, 1930, by division and residence ______________________ 35-36
.,,
Limitation of_ _____________________________________________ 40, 41
· . : Solidarity, effects of depression on _______ ~ ____________________ 35, 37-38
: ; ' ' Systems, fertility and relief need related to ________________________ 67-68
Family, rural relief (see also Composition, rural relief families; Dependents,
rural relief families; Size, rural relief families; Structural types, rural
relief families; Workers, rural relieO:
Description of, by area _______________________ ~ _______________ xv-xvn
· Number and trend, 1933-1935. _______________________________ x1, 8-10
Fann:
Population, number and distribution of, January 1, 1935 ______ ~ ___ _
1, 3
Production, types of, by region ___________________________ 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10
Products, sold and used, value per farm, 1929_ _____ __________ _____
1, 4
Farm Credit Administration, objectives of____________________________
13
Farm, definition __________________________________________ .________
111
Farm families (see also Farm, population):
Factors related to relief needs ________________________ xiv-xv, 1, 4-5, 7-8
... Part-time _______________________________________________ x,v, 4-5, 7, 8
· Types of __________________________________________ xiv-xv, 1, 4-5, 7-8
Farm Security Administration, establishment of_ __________ --- - - - - - - - - - 110
Federal Emergency Relief Administration:
Establishment oL ______________________ - - - - - - _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8
... : Final grants _______________________ - __ - - ___ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8
1
Monthly reports:
August 1 through August 31, 1935 __________________________ _ 110n
June 1 through June 30, 1936 ______________________________ _ 110n
May 1 through May 31, 1934 _______________________________ _ 110n
Rehabilitation program, rural (see also Rehabilitation, rural) _______ _
110
Fertility:
Index, defined ________________________________________________ _ 60n
Rural:
By area, color, and re!iidcnce __________________________ 59-61, 64, 65
White and Negro compared ______________________________ 59-60, 66
01g111zedbyGoogle
INDEX• 159
Fertility-Continued.
Rural relief:
Page
By area and residence _____________________________________ . 61-63
Cultural background and __ . ___ . ___ . ________ . ____ .. _. _.. _.. _ 63, 66
Relief and nonrelief compared ____________ xxr-xxn, 59, 61-63, 66-67
White and Negro compared ________ . ___ .. _... _. _________ ... _ 62, 66
Field, R. F __ _____________________________________________________ 68n
Frampton, M. E ___________________________________________ 67n, 92n, 107n
Gini, Corrado ____ .. ________ . __ . __ . ___________ . _________________ . __
Governmental programs (see also 8pecific agencies) ____ . _________ ... ____
59n
13
Head, family, definition ___ . _...... _. _ . __ . ___ . ___ . ___ . _____ .... _ 23, 26, 108
Hogg, Margaret H ___ . _________ . ___ . ____ . ___ . __ .. ______ .. __ __ __ __ _ _ 72n
Household, definition _____ . ___ ... _. __ . ____________________ ... _. ___ .
107
Hulett, J. E., Jr ________ . ____ . __ ._. ______ . ______ . ________ .... ___ .__
70n
McCormick, T. C------------------------------------------- 36n, 37n, 95n
McKain, W. C., Jr _________________ . ___ . _____ . ____ . _____ .. _.... __ 59n, 68n
Mangus, A. R __________________ .. __ . ____ . _________ . ____ . _________ xun,
Sn, 9n, 10n, lln, 15n, 21n, 42n, 6211, 66n, 99n, 107n, 110n, 113n
Marital condition, rural relief heads:
By age, area, residence, and sex_________________________________ xix,
29-34, 119, 120-121, 122-123, 124-125, 126-127, 128-129
White and Negro compared ________________________________ 33, 128-129
Methodology:
Areas surveyed. See Areas surveyed.
Data, sources of ______________________________________________ xr-xu
Sample counties. See Counties, sample.
Terminology (see also specific terms) ______ . __ . _______ . _ __ __ __ _ _ 107-111
Townships. See Townships, New England.
Migrants, types of ____________________________ .____________ XXIII-XXIV, 84
Migratory laborers, problems of_. __________ .. __ . ________ .___________
5, 7
Mobility:
Causes of_ ___ . ___ . __ ._._._._ .. ___ . ___________________________ . 84, 85
Family, type of, related to __ . __ . ____ .. _______________ . _. ___ . __ . _ 92-94
Frequent, effects of ______________ . ________ . _________________ . __ 83-84
Heads, rural relief:
By area and residence _____________________________________ . 84-86
By area, residence, and time and distance of migration _____ . ___ 86-87
By area, residence, and usual occupation _______________ .. _. __ 89-91
White and Negro compared ____________________________ 90, 91
Residence, continuous, length of, by area, residence, and usual
occupation ____________ ._ ... ___________________ 88-89, 90-92, 145
White and Negro compared ___________________ 86--89, 91, 92, 146
National Resources Committee______________________________________
Negroes. See specific subjects, white aud Negro compared.
Nonworker, definition __________ ._ _____ • _. ____ ___ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __
0
N otestein, Frank W _______________________________________ . __ . __ __
13n
59n
Occupation, usual (see also Age, rural relief heads; Education, rural relief
heads; l\lobility, rural relief heads; Relief, rural, history; Size, rural
relief families; Structural types, rural relief fa mi lies; Workers, rural relief):
Agriculturalists, definition________________________________________
Definition__________ ________________________________ . _. _ ___ __
1.'in
13n
D1gtizedb;
60n
Google
160 • INDEX
Occupation, usual-Continued.
Heads, rural relief:
Page
By area and residence------------------------------ __ xvxn, 13-20
White and Negro compared ________________________ 14, 18, 19, 20-21
Population:
Farm. See Farm, population.
Open country nonfann, definition________________________________
Rural:
Definition________________________________________________
Residence distribution _____ - - _ _ __ __ ________ _ _ _____ __ _ __ _ _ ___
111
111
x:r, 1
Rehabilitation, rural:
Definition____________________________________________________
Program:
Objectives of_____ - - - - -- _- --- _- - ______ - _ _ _ ___ ___ _ ___ ____ ___
Relief cases transferred to__________________________________
110
13
8
Relief:
Case:
Definition ________________________________________________ 107n
109
Types of_________________________________________________
Definition __________________________________________________ 109--110
Expenditures, per capita, 1933-1936 _____________________________ 11-12
Grant, types of________________________________________________
109
Rural:
Accession, reasons for, by area and residence______________ 77-78, 141
White and Negro compared ____________________________ 78,141
Amount, average per family:
By area, residence, and type _______________ xxm, 79-82, 143, 144
White and Negro compared _____________________ 80-81, 143, 144
Factors in ___________________________________________ xm-xIV, 12
History:
By area and residence ________________________ xxm, 78-79, 142
By usual occupation of head_____________________________
79
White and Negro compared _________ ---------- _________ 79, 142
Incidence 1933-1935 ____________________________________ 8-10, 113
By area ___________________________________________ 9-10, 113
Urban incidence ____________________________________________ 9, 10, 113
Turnover _____________________________________________________ 10-12
Resettlement Administration, rural rehabilitation cases transferred to____
110
Richards, Henry I_________________________________________________
42n
Rural, definition __________________________________________________ xv, 111
School attendance _______________________________________ 102-103, 149-150
Sex, rural relief heads, by age, area, and residence _________ 26-29, 116, 117, 118
Size, rural relief families:
By area and residence ________________________________ 36-37, 38-39, 130
By area and usual occupation of head ________________________ 39-40, 131
Depression, economic, affecting__________________________________
37n
Relief and nonrelief compared ___________________________ xix-xx, 36-38
White and Negro compared ____________________________________ 40, 131
Smith, Mapheus _________________________________________________ 9n, 113n
Smith, T. Lynn___________________________________________________
62n
Spencer, Lyle M _________________________________________________ 27n, 62n
01g111zedbyGoogle
INDEX• 161
Page
Spengler, Joseph J ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __ ___ _ __ __ __ _ 41n
Statue, definition__________________________________________ __ _ __ _ __
110
Stouffer, Samuel A ___________________________________________ 27n, 59n, 62n
Structural types, rural relief families:
By areaandresidenoe ________ _______ __ ____ ___ ______ xx1, 54-55, 136-137
By usual occupation of head _________ _______________________ 55---57, 13/i
53
Claaaification of_ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ ___ __ _ _ ___ __ _ ___ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _
One-person hoUBeholde ____________ ____________________ 58, 136-137, 139
White and Negro compared, by UBual occupation of head__ _ _ _ _ __ __ 57-58,
138,139
Taeuber, Conrad__________________________________________________
5n
Taylor, Carl C ___________________ . _________ ----------- _______ . _ __ _
5n
Townships, New England _____________________ ____________ XI-XII, 111-112
Unemployment (aee auo Workers, rural relief):
Definition_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ ___ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ 72n
Length of, of rural relief heads prior to relief, by residence and UBual
occupation __________________________________________________ 75---77
Relief Ceneue, October 1933 _________________________________ 53n, 113n
Ueeem, J. H_ ________ __ __ ______ _______ ___ __ __ _ ____ ____ _ __ ____ _ ___ _
38n
Village, definition__________________________________________________
111
Webb, John N____________________________________________________
94n
L--------------------------------------------------
Whetten, N.
68n,93n
Winston, Ellen__ __ ________________________________________________
12n
Woofter, T. J ., Jr _______ ________ -------------------- 12n, 21n, 42n, 80n, 86n
Workers, rural relief:
Employmentetatus, current, by usual occupation _____________ . xxn, 72, 73
Occupational shifts, by usual occupation _______________________ 72, 73, 74
White and Negro compared _________________________________ 74, 75, 140
Works Program:
Relief cases transferred to_. ______________________________ . __ .__
Work relief provided by _________________ --------------.________
Zimmerman, Carle
c __________________ _________
8-9
109
37n, 38n, 67n, 83n, 92n, 107n
0
Digitized by
Google
DtgTtZedbyGoogle
Dg
edb
Google
OigmedbyGoog[c
@FedFRASER