The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Digitized by
Goo~le
Digitized by
Google
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF RESEARCM, STATISTICS AND FINANCE
RESEARCM SECTION
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
RELIEF - RESOURCES - REHABILITATION
An Analysis of the Muman and Material Resources in
Six Rural Areas with Migh Relief Rates
BY
P. G. BECK
ANO
M. C. FORSTER
OF TME RUSU.L RESEARCM UNIT
RESEARCH MONOGRAPH
I
YASMIN6TON
1935
Digitized by
Google
FEDERAL EN,ERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION
I-IARRY L I-IOPKINS, AdministTator
Division of Research, Statistics and Finance
Research Section
CORRINGTON 61ll
MOYARD 8. MYERS
Digitized by
Google
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION
Washi~ton, D. C., Septeaber 20, 1935.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a report dealing
with relief, resources, and rehabilitation in six rural high
relief rate areRs. Tl,e nature of the problems involved in these
areas indicates the necessity for a fund111ental readjusb,ent of
people and natural resources if U,e. factors responsible for the
relief situation are to be ■ itigatea.
The survey was ■ ade during the SUMier of 1934 under the direction of Dwight Sanderson, Coordinator of Rural Research,
June 1934-December 1931; E. D. Tetreau, Research .Analyst;
J. 0. Babcock, Associate Research Analyst; and P. G. Beck,
Associate Research Analyst.
The field work was carried out by the following area directoE~; I. L. ltrkpatrtck, Professor of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin-~ake States Cut-Over
Area.
Dr. Paul H. Landts, Assistant Professor of Sociology, South
Dakota State College, Brookings, South Dakota-Spring Wheat
Area.
Professor B. ,. Coen, Professor of Sociology, Colorado State
College, Fort Collins, Colorado--Winter Wheat Area.
Dr. r. G. Standtnf, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, lowa--Appalachian-Ozark Area.
Dr. Harold C. Ro(fsoaer, Associate Professor of Sociology,
Alab&11a Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Alab•a--Eastern Cotton
Belt.
Dr. z. 8. llall tn, Professor of Econo■ ics, Oklahoma State College, Stillwater, Oklahoaa--Western Cotton Area.
This report was prepared by P, G. Beck and H. C. Forster.
Both the survey and the preparation of the report were under
the general direction of Howard B. Myers, Assist.ant Director in
charie of research. Aclmowleci£eaent is due J. H. Kolb, Coordinator of Rural Research, March 1935 to Septeaber 1935, for
constructive cri ticiS11 durine the preparation of this report.
Acknowledieaent is also aade of the ■any other departments and
individuals contributine to the survey.
CORRINGTON GILL,
Asststant AdAltntstrator
Dtutston of Research, Stattsttcs and ftnance.
Ron. HARRY L. HOPKINS,
1ederal larfencu Rel tef AdAltntstrator.
043517
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
CONTENTS
Page_.
~~ ••••.•.............................................. '.
1
Introduction. • • . • • . • • • • • . • • • • . • • • • . • • • . • . . • • • • . • • • • • • . • • • . . . . 4
Olapter
I. The Probla Areas Defined...................... 9
A. The Appalachian-Ozark Area................. 9
B. The Lake States Cut-Over Area ..•.••••..•••• 11
C. The Short Grass Wheat A11eas: General Observations.................................. 15
1. The Spring Wheat Area..... .. • .. .. • • .. • • 16
1. The Winter Wheat Area ••••••••••.••.•.• : 17
D. The Eastern Cotton Belt •••••••••••••.••••.. 20
E. The Western Cotton Area ••••.•••••••••.••.•• 23
f. The Proble■s Co..on to All Areas and How the
Data on The■ Were Asse■bled .•...•.•••.••. 24
Chapter II. The Relief ~ituation~ General Consideratio~s •• 27
A. Relief Rates in the Areas .................. 27
B. Obligations Incurred for Une ■ployment Relief
in the Areas.. • • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • . • • . . • • • • . • 28
C. Trends in Relief Rates ••••.•••.••••••.•••.• 29
D. Relief Rates of Rural and Town Fuilies ..•• 31
E. The Type and Value of Relief Received •••••• 32
Chapter III. The Faailies Receiving Relief .•••.••••••.•.•••. :,S,
A. Types of faaili~s.......................... 38
B. Size of Fuilies............ .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . 41
C. Age Co111position............................ 44
D. Incidence of Relief by Age .••.•••.••••••••• 46
E. Gainful Workers. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
F. Usual Occupation of Heads of F&11ilies ••••. 50
1. Relief Rates........................... 50
2. Occupations Represented •••••••••••.•••• 52
3. Sex of F•ily Heads in Each Usual Occu-
pation............................... 59
Aee of Heads of Fuilies in Each Usual
Occupation...........................
G. Occupational Shifts and Current Eaploy■ent
Status of Male Heads of Fuilies .........
B. Relation of Occupational Changes to Shifts
in Residence •••.•••................•.•...
I. Residence of fuiilies with Fe■ale Heads .•••
Socio-Econoaic Resources of the Fuilies Receiving Relief...................................
A. The Appalachian-Ozark Area ..•.•.•.•.•.•••..
B. The Lake States Cut-Over Area .......•......
C. 'l'he Wheat Areas • ••.••.•••.•.•••••.•.•...•••
D. The Western Cotton Area ••...•...•..•.......
E. The Eastern Cotton Belt .................. ..
Plans and Prospects for Rehabilitation of the
f•ilies Receiving Relief ••••••••••••••••••••
A. .Capacity of Fuilies Receiving Relief to Beco■e Self-Supporting.....................
4.
Chapter IV.
Chapter
V.
"
Digitized by
Google
60
63
66
73
76
77
80
81
83
83
86
87
CON TINTS
VI
Page.
B.
C.
D.
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
IndicesofStandardsofLiving, and Education
Occupational Experience and Rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation Prospects in Each Area ..... .
1. The Appalachian-Ozark Area ........•....
2. The Lake States Cut-Over Area ......... .
j. The Spring Wheat Area ••••••••••••••••••
4. The Winter Wbeat Area ••••••••••••••••••
5. The Western Cotton Area ••••••••••••••••
6. The Eastern Cotton Belt .•••••••••••••••
Tables ......................................... .
Figures •••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••
Sample Counties, etc •••••••••••••••••••••••.••••
Methodological Note •••••••••••••••.••••••••.••••
Household Scheliule ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
J,ist of References •••••••••••••••••••••.••.•.•••
89
93
94
94
97
10~
10,
105
106
111
13,
143
151
157
163
TEXT TABLES
Table
1. -Percentage of Families ReceiviDQ; Relief in June
Table
2.
Table
Table
Table
34.
Table
6.
Table
7.
THhle
8.
Table
9.
5.
Table 10.
T11ble 11.
1934 ..................•.........................
Percentage Distribution of Types of Families Receiving Relief in the Counties Surveyed •.••.••••
Size of Families Receiving Relief ••.•••.•••••••.••
Age Composition of Families Receiving Relief ••••••
Percentage Distribution by Age and Sex of Persons
Receiving Relief •••••••.•.••••••.•••..••••••.•••
Percentage Distribution by NU11ber and Sex of Gainful
~orkers in Families Receiving Relief .•.•••••..•.
Percentage of F811ilies Receiving Relief in the Counties Surveyed, by Status of Heads of Families •••
Residence of Families Receiving Relief by Sex of
Head •••••....•.•••••.•.••••.••.••••...••••.•••.•
Capacity for Self-Support of Families Receiving Relief by Sex of Head of Family ..•••••••.••••••.••
Percentage of Farms in the Counties Surveyed with
Specif.i.ed Facilities, 19j0 ..................... .
Grade in School Finished by Heads of Families Receiving Relief ••••••.•.•••.•••.•••••••••••••••••
27
40
42
45
47
49
51
74
88
90
9~
FIGURES
Figure
1.
Figure
Pigure
Figure
2.
4,
Figure
5.
Figure
6.
Figure
7.
Figure
8.
3.
Maxi1111111 Monthly Relief Load by Counties, October
1933 through April 1934........................
Rural Areas Surveyed.............................
Distribution of Rural and Urban Population, 19~0.
Co■bines and Wbeat Acreage in the Kansas Counties
in the Winter Wheat Area •...••••••••.••••••••••
Co11parison of Trends in Relief Rates between the
Counties Surveyed and the United States........
Percent of Families Receiving Direct, Work, or Both
Fonns of Relief, June 19j4.....................
Average Direct, Work, or Both llon1s of Relief
Benefit per F&11ily in June 19j4, by Areas......
Usual Occupation of Heads of Fllllilies Receiving
Relief, by Race................................
Digitized by
5
6
8
19
30
j3
35
53
Google
CONTENTS
VII
P~e.
Hgure
9.
figure 10.
f'igure 11.
Figure 12.
figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Usual Occupation of Beads of Familif's Receiving
Relief in Cotton Areas, by Race................
Effects of Migration on Open Country Relief Load.
Employment Status and Residence..................
Percentage Increase or Decrease in Xu11her of Farms
by Counties........ . . • • • . • • . • • • • • • • . • • • . • . • • • • •
FRnis Having ~oriern Facilities...................
Areas in khich It Appears. Desirable to Encour~e
the Use of a Substantial Part of the Arable Land
for Purposes Other Than Far111ing................
Areas Chara<'terized by Far111 Units too Small to
Provide Adequate Living •.•.•....•••••••••••••••.
57
68
70
72
91
99
101
s1rrrLP.1ENT ARY TABLES
(Appendix A)
Table
[.
Table
II.
Table
III.
Table
IV.
Table
V.
Table
VI.
Table
VII.
Table
VIII.
Table
IX.
T!ible
X.
Table
XI.
Table
XII.
Table XIII-A.
Table XlII-B.
Table XIII-C.
Proportion of the Rural, Town ond City Population of the United States in the Six Proble111
Areas •.•••••.•.•••••••..•.••••.•••.•...•••.•
Proportion of All Far111ers of the United States
1n the Six Rural Problea Areas ••••••••••••••
Percentage of the Negro Far11ers of the llni ted
States in the Cotton Areas ...•....•..•.•...•
Agricultural and Cli111atic Dat,1:1 fro111 the Kansas
Counties in the Winter wheat Area ..••...••..
Residence of Rural and Town Families in the
Areas and the Counties Surveyed: Also Proportion of the F1111ilies in Each Area in the Counties Surveyed •.•.••••••••..•.•••..•.•.......
Percentage of Fara Operator FMilies in F.ach
Tenure Group in Six Rural Areas: Comparison
of All Rural 1md Town Families in the Are11
11nd in Counties Surveyed, 1930, and Families
Receiving Relief in June 1934 ............. ..
Percentage of Families in Counties Surveyed
Receiving Direct, work, or Roth Direct and
Work Relief, by Sex of Head ................ .
Average Value Per Family of Relief Received
during June 19Jl in Counties Surveyed, by Type
of Relief ••..•••.•.......••••...•.........••
Average Value Per Family of Relief Received
during ,lune 19'.{-1 in Selected Groups of States
Co■perison of Average Size of Family Receiving
Relief and of Rural Fal"II and ~on-Farm Families, 1930 ....•.....•••..•.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Nor■ ally Dependent Persons in Families Receiving Relief .••.••.•...••...•....•..••...•..•.
Average N1JJ11ber of Normal Dependents per Ff!lllily
Receiving Relief. •.•••.••..••...•.•....•....
Usual Occupations of Hearis of Families R~ceiving Relief in t.he Counties Surveyed", Number.
Usual Occupations of Heads of Families Receiving Relief in Counties Surveyed, Percent ....
Usual Occupations of Heads of ~hite and ~egro
Fa■ ilies Receiving Relief in the Counties Surveyed in the Cotton Areas •••••••..••.•••••..
Digitized by
Google
llj
113
lH
114
115
l Vi
116
116
117
117
118
118
119
121
CONTENTS
VI II
Page.
Table
XIV-A.
Table
XIV-B.
Table
XIV-C.
Table
.XV.
Table
XVI.
Table
XVII.
Table
XVIII.
Table
XIX.
Table
XX-A.
Table
XX-B.
Table
XX-C.
Table
XXI-A.
Table
XXI-B.
Table
XXI-C.
Table
XXI-D.
Table
XXII.
Table
XXIII.
Present Occupation of Heads of Families lleceiving llel ie f •••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••
Present Occupation of Male Heads of Families
lleceiving llelief •••• , ...................... .
Present Occupation of Female Heads of Families
lleceiving Relief .•••••.•.••••••••.••••••••••
Percentage of Females among He1:1ds of Families
Receiving llelief, by Usual Occupation •••••.•
Average Age of Heads of Families Receiving Relief by Usual Occupation of Male Heads in
Specified Occupations ...................... .
Age Distribution of Heads of Families Receiving
Relief ••.••.••.••••••••••••••••••.•.••••..••
Shifts in Occupation or Employment Status Made
by Male Family Heads Usually Employed in Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Occupations.
Years of Continuous llesidence in the County of
Families Receiving llelief. ................. .
Families Classified by Present Occupation of
Head of Household and Ownership of House or
Fam; Also Owners lleporting ~ortgages and Families lleporting Garden or Truck Patch (All
Occupations) ••••••••••••.•••.••.•.•..••.••••
Families Classified by Present Occupation of
Head of Household and Ownership of House or
Farm; Also Owners Reporting Mortgages and Families Reporting Garden or Truck Patch ( Farm
Operators) ••••..•••••.••.•••••••.•.•.•••••••
Families Classified by Present Occupation of
Head of Household and Ownership of House or
Fann; Also Owners lleporting Mortgages and Families Reporting Garden or Truck Patch (Non~ricul tural Workers) ••••••••••••.•••.••••••
Families Reporting Ownership of Specified Classes of Livestock and Families Reporting Chattel Mortgages, by Present Occupation of Head
of Family (All Occupations) ............... ..
Families Reporting Ownership of Specified Classes of Livestock and Families Reporting Chattel Mortgages, by Present Occupation of Head
of Family (Farm Operators) .•..•.•...••••...•
Families Reporting Ownership of Specified Classes of Livestock and Families Reporting Chattel Mortgages, by Present Occupation of Head
of Family ( Non-,~ricul tural Workers) .••...•.
'Families Reporting Ownership of Specified Classes of Livestock and Families Reporting Chattel Mortgages, by Present Occupation of Head
of Family (Unemployed) .................... ..
Comparison of Size of Farms Operated by Families
lleceiving llelief Who Were Farming in June 193'1
and of All Farms in Same Counties, 1930 ..•••
Capacity for Self-Support of Families lleceiving
Relief, by Residence in Open Cou.oiry, Village.
or Town . ...................•.............•..
Digitized by
122
122
123
12'1
125'
125
126
127
127
128
128
129
129
130
130
131
131
Google
CONTENTS
IX
Tabla
XXI'Y.
Sex, biployaent Status and Usual Occupation of
Uneaployed Heads, of faailies Receiving Relief and Considered Capable of Self-Support.
132
Table
XXV.
Kind of Work for Which F&11ilies Receiviog Relief 'Were Qualified, by Sex of Head •• ,......
132
SUPPlDtlliT.ARY PIGURF.S
(Appendix B)
figure
I.
Average Annual Precipitation and Native Veeeta-
tioa..........................................
135
Jipre
II.
136
figure
Ill.
IiFe
IV.
DroUfFht frequency - Percentaee of Years with
Raintall less than ho-Thirds of NoMlal durine the four Months, M~ - August ••••••••••.•
Areas with Major Wind Erosion Problea..........
Percent.aee of all Janas Operated b1 Tenants, -
figure
V.
Land in Harvested Crops - Increase in Acreaee,
fipre
YI.
Tipre
Yll.
farm Reporting Total Value of Products under
Sl ,000 - Percentaee of all Fara Reporti!li,
1929.. ....... ...... •.... .. . . .. . . . .. .. ... .•. •.
Potential Recreational Areu...................
19,0.........................................
1919 - 1929-.................................
Digitized by
Google
137
1~
1!9
140
141
Digitized by
Google
SUNN.ARY
1. The 65 counties surveyed are representative of six areas
which include approx:iaately one-half of the rural faailies receiving relief in the United States. These areas included
percent of the rural population and
percent of the fu-.ers
(about one-third of the fan owners, alaost one-half of the fan
tenants and aore than four-fifths of the fan croppers) of the
lhlited States in 19,0. Nore than three-fourths of all Neuo
faraers were in the two Cotton Areas.
!. Within each of these Probln .Areas there are laree aoants
of poor fan land vhich fOl'II one of the chief factors responsible
for the aore or leH peraanent natare of the relief proble■,
although this is less true of the Western Cotton Area than ot'the
other areas.
,. Although two-thirds of the f•ilies receivinc relief in the
counties surveyed lived in the open country, ud 55 percent of
the heads of fa■ilies were usually e111eged in acricultare, the
proble■ of assisti111 these faailies to beco.e self-supporti111
is by no ■eans vholly an aericoltaral one. Except in the Spring
Wheat .Area where droueht was the chief factor,
to 70 percen~
of the heads of fa■ilies were usully engaced in nm-.-icaltaral
occapations and ■any of the fu-.ers were receivi111 relief becaase
of the loss of suppleaentary mployaent.
4. The causes aderlyin& the necessity for relief and consequently the ■ethods necessary for per■anent rehabilitation are
essentially different tor the various areas.
a. In the Appalachian-Ozark Area the relief households have
lar,ely depended upon subsistence far■ing with supple•ntary e■ploy■ent for cash incoae. Better ■et.hods of
far■iag on better land with new sources of supple■eatary
aplo,aent will be necessary. The reasons aasi,ned for
fa■ilies receivinc relief in this area were in the •in
reasons which indicated loss of sapple11entary e11plo,aent.
This area is also sufferinc fro■ over-population which
will be alleviated only through e■ i,ration, education,
and the developaent of a hi,her standard of livinc.
b. In the I.eke States Cat-Over Area the proble■ is ■ainly one
of loss of aploy■ent in ■ini111 and lu■bering, co■bined
,6
4,
,i
1
Digitized by
Google
2
Sil RURAL PROBLEM ARIAS
with a too rapid developaent of small farming on marginal
land. The most promising solution for the latter condition is wide adoption of the zoning regulations now being
set up by counties in Wisconsin, and the reforestation
of large areas. Stranded mining populations will have
to be moved or new kinds of industrial employment developed. Further development of recreational resources will
also provide seasonal employment for a small proportion
of the population.
c. In the Short-Grass 'Wheat Areas tbs major cause of relief
has been the unusual drought, but it 1111st be recognized
that periodically recurring dry years are the rule in the
short-grass territory and that much land has been put
11Dder the plow which should have remained in grass. Here,
again, soae ■ethod of land classification and zoning which
will li■ it the atteapt to cultivate land where nor■ al
rainfall is so Dall as to ■ alee far■ing too hazardous a
gable will be necessary, and sme of the present surplus
populatiora on this type of land will be forced to e■ igrate.
d. In the Cotton Areas, particularly in the Eastern Cotton
Belt, the relief problem is complicated by the 1radual
breaking down of the share-cropper and "furnishiD£" syste■
which has do■inated the South since the period of reconstruction after the Civil War, and the consequent need for
public relief by aged Negroes and female Ne,roes -widowed,
divorced or separated - with young children. The agricultural system of the South is slowly shifting frc:a the
patriarchal systea inherited fr011 the days of slavery to
/- -one of independent tenancy and cash wages, a transition
which has been hastened by the present depression. The
pri■ ary econo■ic proble■ is a readjust■ent of the systea
of far■ ■anage■ ent whereby greater security will be afforded far■ tenants and laborers. 'l'he primary social
problem is one of education looking toward an improved
standard of living. Huch of the relief problea in the
South is a result of the inability of an unschooled, al■ost illiterate group to adjust itself to changing econo■ ic conditions.
5. The lack of schooling of a large proportion of the heads
of relief fuilies appears to be one reason for their being on
relief, inas■uch as the least trained tend to be the first to
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
be dropped and the last to be eaployed whether for wages in in-
dustry or u fan teD&Dts or laborers. In all but the two Wheat
Areu over
percent of the heads of faailies had less than 5
years schooline, ud in the Eastern Cotton Belt 51 percent of
the .Negro heads and 20 percent of the white beads of faailies
had had no for.al schooline. As lone as so large a proportion
of the poorer classes lack sufficient education to manage intellia9ntly their own affairs there will be need of public relief
and social cue work. It would seea a eood iavestaent of funds
to aaintain adequate school facilities, with federal aid if
necessary, as partial insurance qainst feder&l relief in the
future.
6. About one-foarth of the heads of households were persons
65 years of ace or owr and fn&les - widowed, divorced or separated - with children. Not. all of these - , be qualified for
old-919 or aot.hers' pensions, but these two foru of social insuruace would •doubtedly can for at least a fifth of the cases
now receivq relief in the coantiea studied.
7. The depression in aericultare hu andoubtedly uncovered
an;y cases now reckoned peraaaently incapable of self-support
who in years put had achieved a ••er li ~elihood or had been
111pported frm local funds. fllus but 2 percent of the cases
studied had ewr receiwd relief prior to 19,0, these presaably
being those least able to support theuelves, while about 20
percent of the cues were judeed (in Jane 19,4) to require contin'IIDUS financial aid ad supervision and t.o be incapable of rehabili t.ation. (Allone the .Nqroes in the Eastern and Western Cot ton
Areas this rose to
and
percent, respectively.) It seems
fairly clear that the cues involwd in this difference had not,
for the aost part, receiwd relief heretofore but that aost of
thea will haw to be cared for fr011 public funits in the future.
,o
,9
2,
Digitized by
Google
INTRODUCTION
As records of the number of families receiving unemployment
relief became available on a nation-wide scale in 1933, it was
evident that most of the areas with exceptionally high relief
rates were rural regions in which the majority of the people
lived in the open country, or villages and towns of fewer than
5,000 inhabitants. Study of county relief rates for several
consecutive months revealed well-defined rural areas in which
many counties reported 20 to 30 percent or ■ore of their faailies receiving relief (Fig. 1) .1 It was tentatively concluded
that the causes of such a condition were to be found in certain
fundamental maladjustments between human and material resources
and that the economic depression had simply brought many fuilies on re lief who were hardly able to maintain their independence under normal conditions. Further study made it possible
to outline six -homogeneous areas for special study (Fig. 2).
They were the Appalachian-Ozark, the Lake States Cut-Over, the
Short-Grass Spring Wheat, the Short-Grass Winter Wheat, the
Western Cotton and the Eastern Cotton Areas. In each one a specific combination of factors appeared to be associated with high
relief rates.
Although one-fifth of the population of the United States
lived in the six areas in 1930, they included less than onefourteenth of the population living in cities of 5,000 or 110re
inhabitants. However, the areas contained over one-fourth of
_the population living in towns of 2,500 to 5,000 inhabitants.
'(Appendix Table I) On the other hand, m<'re than two-fifths of
the farmers of the United States lived in them in 1930. The two
Cotton Areas alone included 77 percent of the farm croppers and
36 percent of all other fann tenants. (Appendix Table II) Moreover, two-thirds of the Negro farmers of the United States were
in the Eastern Cotton Belt in 1930 (Appendix Table III); the two
Cotton Areas taken together included 77 percent of all Negro
farmers ( 52 percent of the owners, 87 percent of the croppers
and 80 percent of other tenants) in the United States in 1930,
The predominance of rural and of farm populations in most of
1Tables and figures 1n the text have .Arable n1111era1s.
Roman numerals denote tables and figures 1n Appendices.
4
Digitized by
Google
C/)
..
IITRODUCTION
z
..,
0
,qC)
a::
I
tC"')
~
..J
w
C"')
...J
~
((
w a.
j::
z <
::, :::>
u
0
to
0
a::
w
u
CD
.....
g<
g
::::::i
w
w 0
..; a::
z
~
I
I-
~
~
~
:::>
x
~
<
Digitized by
■
. 'i
[[]
Google
FIGURE
2
,:,-..
RURAL AREAS SURVEYED
U)
H
><
::0
c::
::0
>
t""
"i:I
::0
0
0,
t"'"'
M
:J::
►
::0
t"1
►
U)
0
cci"
""
i'j"
~
~
0
0
-
~
( i)
COUNTIES SURVEYED INDICATED IN BLACK
7
UfTIIODUCTIOI
t.he counties of these areas is indicated graphically in Ji«ure ,.
Note the li1ht area extending southward throqh the Great Plains
and eastward throueh the Appalachiau and the Cotton Belt.
Although crop failure, speculative expauion, absent.ee ownership, and depressed price levels were IIIIODC the factors which
precipitated the l"elief situation in the six rural problea areas,
the roots of the trouble ubviously lay deeper. 1'e frontier
philosophy which assaed t.hat the individual, tf 1iven ccaplete
freed011, would pursue an econOllic course that vu to the best
interests of society, led to the present dileaa of stranded
co.uni ties, bankrupt faraers and widespread unaployaent. 'flle
rapid and heedless exploitation of t.he huaan aad natural resources in these areas bears tracic witness to the fruits of such
a philoso'()hy. In the Lake States Cut-Owr and Appalachian-Ozark
Areas the destruction of the forests ia a priae exuple of the
social consequences of oar lack of national policy with respect
to the utilization of natural resources. In both areas coaercial ccapanies cut the ..-ketable t iaber, destroyine saall growth
as they went, thus delaying the day when the area might again
yield a tiaber crop. When the ti■ber was exhausted, the c011■u
nities created during the period of exploitation were left
stranded. let under a planned system of t.i■ber utilization
ihese c01m1nities could have supported their populations over a
loni period of years witllout the ■isery and suffering entailed
by the exploitation of tlleir resources for iaediate p~ofit.s.
The philosophy whicb condoned the destruction of the forests
for private gain is not confined to any one area as the relief
situation in the Short Grus region aptly illustrates. In the
period of hfeb wheat prices following the World War, large acreaces of virgin sod were broken and planted to wheat. Because of
the chances for quick profits f ar■ers rushed into wheat production on a lqe scale with little thouaht of whether t.he far■
econo■y which they were settine up could weather the vicissitudes of a series of dry years 511Ch as had occurred with disturbing regularity in the put. :Neither did they consider the effects of reaovinc all of the veaetation fr011 large areas in which
erosion by wind was coaon. 'flle present relief situation is
patently a result of the philosophy of ■akinc a "killiai• and
letting the future take care of itself. Not only the far■ers,
but the state govenments pursued a policy which could only lead
to ecoD011ic disaster, Specific discussions of each area will
clarify these 1eneralizations.
Digitized by
Google
8
...,J
0
r,r)
0-
z
0
~
=
.....
0=-
:::z
<l
-.....
::z
c:::,.
I"') =
<!
_,
o/. <l
::::,
0
- ="""
.....
~
.cc
0
:::z
i==
0
"""
ex
=
c:::,.
t-.....,..
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
z
0
w
w
C>
...J
Digitized by
Google
I.
TB! PROBLEM AREAS DEPIN!D
Because the centr&l. interest of this study was in the nature
and situation of the groups receiving relief in the several
areas, and the prospects of rehabilitating the■, it was necessary
to asse■ble and analyze data on the areas as wholes. The fuilies receiving relief were obviously casualties of the econo■ ic
systea under which they lived. As a necessary preli ■ inary to
the extensive discussion of the types of fuilies receiving
relief, these data ■ay profitably be presented in very suannary
fashion at this point. Froa such a review it should be possible
to conclude what points about the fa■ilies and their situation
will have validity in all areas. These established, the ■ethod
followed io a.c.se11bling the data about the■ wi 11 be presented
and the stage set for a detailed discussion of the populations
which were actually receiving relief in June 1931. These groups
may reasonably be taken as characteristic of the casualties in
t~e several areas at any .ti111e before the necessary corrective
■easures have been taken or some important change in the general
econo■ ic situation has c011e about. No such change occurred between the Hking of the survey and the c011position of this final
report. Rather the unfavorable conditions were intensified in
several of the areas and the fuilies on relief increased in
nt111ber.
A.
The Appalachian-Ozark Area
As the nue implies, this area consists of the Appalachian
Highlands, its ridges, valleys and plateaus, extending from
Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia, south and west through
West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee and also
the Ozark Mountain country of Arkansas, Missouri, and eastern
Oklahoaa. The early westward ■ igrations fro■ the Shenandoah
Valley and the Virginia coast&l. plain flowed through this area,
and the pioneers first oocupied the ■ore fertile valley and
bottoa lands, but later t.he less productive hiihlands were taken
up. With the extension of the western frontier in the 1830's
and after, particularly following the. building of the western
railroads, ■igration into the area practically ceased and in its
isolation it developed a distinctive 110untaineer, agrarian cul-
9
Digitized by
Google
10
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
turP.. Increases in population led to the clearing of more and
more land on the hillsides since the arable bottom land was of
limited area, and erosion early became an acute problem. In fact
the highland plains and the hilly regions are submarginal for
intensive farming. Rainfall throughout the area is quite adequate, ranging between 40 and 50 inches per year.1 Even today
but 17 percent of the area is in crop 1and with 60 percent in
forest land, largely second growth (15, p. 16) .2 The area as
outlined in Figure 2 includes all the counties in the region in
which 15 percent or 11ore of all farms were, in 1929, classified
as self-sufficing., The population, almost wholly native white,
and primarily of English and Scotch-Irish stock, has a rate of
natural increase in excess of that of any group of white people
of comparable size in the United States. The population definitely presses on the means of subsistence and is an important
influence in keeping the standard of living low.
The period of isolation lasted until about 1880 when commercial lumbering was first attempted in the region, followed later
by mining. With 'in increase in the demand for lumber, the virgin
timber lands were stripped in utter disregard for the needs of
the resident population. Moreover, the introduction of a higher
wage rate than was customary in these backwoods areas disrupted
the old self-sufficient culture and introduced a way of life
for whiC'h the inhabitants were entirely unprepared. Today it is
apparent that even had they been prepared, insufficient time
was allowed for the process, for the resources on which the new
economic system was based disappeared with great rapidity. The
result was that many thousands of the inhabitants were suspended
mid-way between two disparate systems and their insecurity was
intensified by this fact when the depression came.
The cycle of exploitation followed a fairly uni form pattern.
With the beginning of operations, the high wages of the mining
or mill colllDlunit ies attracted workers from the hi 11s and employed
them in exploiting the area's natural resources. Employment
was very unstable and when the profitable timber was depleted
or when the mining operations became unprofitahle, the mill opera.tors moved on and the mines closed leaving the communities
which they had created without their usual means of support.
1 For ra1nra11 and nat1n VP.getat1on maps showL'lg all areas surveyed, see flguN I,
, Appenc11x B.
'Rerers to 11st or rererences on page 165.
3Farms ror 'lllb1ch the value or the !arJD products used cy the raa111 was so percent
or more or the 1.0tal value ot all prooucts.
. ..
D1g1l1zed by
Google
TB! PROBLEM AREAS DEFINED
11
In Jackson County, Kentucky, for exllltple, the timber industry
was centered in two companies. They existed between 1914 and
1929. When the first company closed in 1924 most of the employees found work with the second, but when it closed io 1929
approxi111ately 300 fa■ ilies were left stranded. lo a survey of
nine counties in northern West Virginia, 91 stranderl communities
were uncovered; 62 of these hac! been dependent upon coal 11ining
and 23 upon lumbering (20, p. 84). ~hile the families of these
co111111nities comprised only 11 percent of the families in these
nine counties, they represented over 50 percent of the relief
load and although many of the■ attefflpted far■ ing, their inexperience, the poor soil and the adverse crop conditions in 1930
and 1931 resulted in oo improvement of their economic position.
Bank failures and tax delinquency had only an indirect effect
upon the relief families as the farmers receiving relief were
on the smaller and poorer farms. They had influence, however,
through the contraction of supple111entary private and public employment.
B.
The Lake States Cut-Over Area
The northern limits of this area are the Great Lakes and the
Canadian border, and the southern boundary is set by the length
of the growing season anrl soil type. Because of the short growing season (90 to 120 days) and the prevalence of poor, stony
soil, the plow has not been successful in following the ax as
in states to the south where many of the settlers originated.
The area there fore presents the spectacle of decarlent lumber,
woodworking anrl mining industries in a region where recourse to
agricultural pursuits is unprofitable because of climatic and
soil conditions. The population is predominantly native white,
a considerable proportion of the people are of Scandinavian origin, and the area includes important American Indian populations. The area is dotted with lakes and most of the lanrl is
covered with stumps, reminders of the days when the entire reg ion was covered with virgin forest. Today the timber reso,1r,•s•,:;
are almost entirely exl1austed except in thP Upper Peninsula of
'' ichigan. Subsurface resources are iron and copper ore.
Long latent social and economic maladjustments are at the
roots of the relief problem. They have been a malignant growth
res 11lting from the three waves of economic exploitation which
~ave swept through the area since it was opened t.q occuppncy.
Digitized
byGoog1e
12
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
The first phase occurred with the development of copper ■ ining
and later, of iron ■ ining, the second during the ■ushroo■ growth
and rapid decline of the lU11ber industry which left, in its wake,
unused railroads, depleted ti■ ber resources and stranded towns.
This decline led to a third, an over-e■phasis on agriculture
brought about by the colonization 5che11es of states and large
land-holders who induced fa■ ilies to settle on unfavorable soils
and under poor cli ■atic conditions.
The topography varies fro■ level to very rough. Over ■ost
of the area gravelly and stony loams predominate. lo particular
areas ■arsh and swa■p lands and sandy soils, low in moisture
holding capacity, are pro■ inent. The soils are characteristic
of timber lands and are deficient in humus though nor■ al in content of potential ■ineral plant food.
Rainfall varies fro■ 20 to 40 inches. Such light rainfall
on light soils is a serious handicap to sucoessful crop production. For ■ost of the Cut-Over region, the frost-free season
is between 100 and 1,0 days, though in certain inland regions
this period drops to less than 60 days. Soil erosion-wind or
rainfall, sheet or gully-is not a particularly i■portant factor.
Copper ■ ining began in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in
1847 and this area led in copper production until 1887 when it
vas displaced by the opening of the ■ioes in Montana. A sharp
decrease in the de■and and the opening of rich deposits in Africa
where cheap labor ■ade it possible to deliver the product in
London for less than five cents per pound depressed the doaestic
price below the cost of producing Michigan copper (12,5 cents
per pound in 19,0). The present prospect of the ■ ines reopening is not particularly hopeful. Iron ore ■ ining has been a
principal industry since 1854 when production began in ~ichigan.
Hinne·sota definitely displaced Michigan as the leading producer
of iron ore about 1900 with the opening of the Mesabi Range
followed in 1905-1906 by the Cuyuna Range. The depression affected both ranges equally and operations have been contracted.
Although the data indicate an apparent recovery and show an increase in the tonnage of ore shipped, it is not an accurate
baroaeter of e■ployaent conditions as wuch of the co1Teot increase represents a reduction of ■ined surpluses.
Logging and lu■bering enterprises developed rapidly soon after the area was opened. Luaber ■ills, shipping centers and
wood-working industries opened, grew and were prosperous, and
Digitized by
Google
TB! PROBLEM AREAS DEFINED
along with their growth, villages and towns were incorporated
and flourished, only to decline after the lumbering industry had
exhausted the virgin tiaber and left a wake of cut-over land
covered with debris, brush and UDllarketable second growth tiaber.
The present situation is su•arized by Zon (12, p. 5):
"Two sigoi ficant facts with regard to forests and
forest lands in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota
stand out clearly. Jirst, that the area of the reaaining old ■erchantable ti ■beriss■all (17.7 percent of the total forest land) as c011pared with the
large areaofoncoaing second growth (46.4 percent)
and the vast area of non-restocking and unproductive
cut-over land (35.9 percent); second, that ■ost of
the forest land ( 95 percent) is owned by private
individuals and corporations."
The history of agriculture is that of the speculative lR.nd
booa. 'ftle developaent described by the co.ittee on Land Utilization in Minnesota (4, p. 56) is characteristic of the whole
area:
•In the set.tleant of both southern and northern
Minnesota, public policies encouraged the transfer
of all kinds of public lands to private ownership
and pel'llitted the uncontrolled exploitation of the
natural resources. These policies, which were so
successful in the develo:i;aent of tbe acricultural
lands of the southern part of the state, had entirely
different results when applied in the north. In a
large •asure the unfortunate situation now prevailing in the cut-owr counties can be attributed to
the pablic policies of the past.
"The great forests of pine and spruce which were
once the pride of northern Minnesota are now pracearly lu■beraan assuaed that the
tically gone.
forests were practically inexhaustible, and it was
the ca-on belief that substantially all the cutover lan~ was suitable and would ul ti•te.cy be needed for agricultural settleaent.
The
"'ftte cuttinc of the ti■ber was followed by an atte11pt, fostered by land proaoters, to settle the
cut-over lands. Tbe state, the railroad and logging
coapanies, and other lqe landholders for years
e8'aged in extensive advertisiq aad sellina c~
paigns to dispose of their lands. In one way or
another all asserted that for the ■an of •all 11eans
who "ished to beco■e independent, the cut-over lands
offered excellent acricultwal opportunities. far.
ers and city dwellers, both native aad foreign-born,
heard the call of the land salesaen and bought land
in the cut-over region. Today the evidence of their
heroic efforts to clear and till the luad is everyDigitized by
Google
14
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
where to be seen. Some of them found good land, of
course, but many others located upon sandy, swampy,
and stony land unsuitable for cultiv11tion."
The economic rlepression, there fore, precipitated from the
social economy of the Lake States Cut-Over Area a series of immediate problems which forced families of this area on the relief rolls. The depressed price level increased tax rlelinquency, 111ade the farm debt structure top heavy, brought on bank
failures, contr11cterl p::irt-time employment, and made farming unprofitable. From 1920 to 1930 tax rates increased unt i 1 some
farmers were paying ahout one-third of their net income to the
county treasurer. Cata from a preliminary and scattered survey
on debt structures of farmers in this are11 "show that the indebtedness of individual farmers ranged from 85 to 150 percent
of their total assessed value of all property. In some instances
the indebtedness was as high as 600 percent" (7, p. ~6). This
probably is a biased sample as only 53 percent of the fa.rm owners on relief reported real estate mortgages, but it rloes indicate the presence of this prob] em arnollS! the factors wli ich forcerl
families onto relief rolls.
Part-time farmers, lumbermen, and mine workers and the more
frugal fami Lies who had laid aside fonds for old age were forced
onto the relief rolls by the failure of the hanks. Commercial
and public funds of the locality were frozen, throwing out of
employment those men who were dependent upon such funds for
part-time work to supplement earnings at their usual occupation.
T11e conditions surroundinr, the families usually dependent on
mine operations for employment. can be illustrated by the situation in Crow Wing County, '.-linnesota. Two movements, technological improvements in mining methods and the consolidation of
mines, are particular Ly relevant. For example, by electri f icat ion and other technological developments one mine which formerly employed 325 men now produces twice as much ore with 125
men. On the other hand, consolidations in the last few years
have resulted in five operati~ companies instead of fifteen,
and two of the five are small. One social disadvantage of the
larger companies is that they opera le the 111ore profitable mines,
leaving the others and U.eir dependent communities idle until
needed.
The lumbering, wood-working and paper industries have never
been interested in developing a stable population and those companies owned by outside agencies have, on lhe contrary, encourDigitized by
Google
THE PROBLEM AREAS DEJINED
15
aged migratory 1 abor Anri caused great une■ployinent, the expense
of which has now b11d to he shoulderP.d by the local coaunities
and industries. Technological chani!es in the wood products industry have also increaseri unemployment. The introduction of a
process of tanning that rtoes not require he■ lock bark threv 200
111en out of employment in one county. Decreased ■ ine operations
had a concomitant effect upon the forest lands of the ■ ining
companies, for ■en usually engaged in cutting ■ ine props were
laid off. Low 11rices caused shut-downs by timber operators as
well as by lUJ1ber jobbers who not only employed a large number
of men in the wooris, but bought logs, tie anrt pulpwood cuttings
fro111 the small farmers to whom this type of lumbering was a
supplementi\ry occupation.
'!any of the fan; families settl i.ng in this area rlepended upon
supplementary employment for income to keep going while clearing their fields. With the rlecline in wage levels 11ore and more
time was required off the far111 to insure a living income, a:1rl
when employment utterly failed, many farmers found that their
cleared ground hart gone to brush. Families living in the open
country were discover~d having farms of 40, 60, and 80 acres
with but 2 to 10 acres cleared, certainly not enough land to
insure the11 se I f-support.
Other farm fa■ ilies specializerl in co111111ercial agriculture but
failed to clear enough lanrt to make profitable operations possible except under extraordinarily favorable conditions. In
the case of overstocked dairy and stock fanns they resorted to
the purchasing of feerl es long as this was a profitable procedure-as long as dairy and stock prices were high. However,
when farm prices were depressed, it was imposs il,le for thea to
keep out of debt as they had insuffi.ciP.nt cleared lanit available
for crop production and hny.
C. The Short 6r111 Wheat Areas:
General Ob1erv1tlon1
The short grass country is found between the 100th ■eridian
on the East and the Rocky Mountains on the West. The eastern
boun,iary marks the 1 ine where the tall grass of the Eastern
Great Plains gives way to the wiry short grass because of type
of soil and scanty moisture; it follows the 18-inch precipitation line from northwestern North Dakota southward to the 2-1inch line in Texas where, because the r&te of evaporation is
higher, the growing conditions are c0tnparable in
ite o the
Digitized by
008 e
16
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
higher average rainfall. The Short Grass Area is conventionally
divided into two parts, the Spring Wheat and the Winter Wheat
Areas. In both, the available moisture is so low that dry land
faraing methods are followed. Only one crop in two years can
be produced on any given piece of land, since it must, in alternate years, lie fallow to accumulate sub-soil moisture. The
Black Hills country of South Dakota and other well watered sections are, for the most part, excluded fro■ the area as here
defined.
1. The Sprtnt Wheat .Area. The northern half of the Short Grass
region, known as the Spring Wheat Area, is geologically new and
in ■ any counties the soil is shallow and unsuitable for arable
agriculture. The topography of the region is generally rolling
and, in so■e sections, dotted with buttes. It lies to the west
of the glaciated area and exhibits the usual characteristics of
shales and sandstones which have weathered under dry land conditions. The soils are lighter in color than those to the East
and they are generally called the "Dark Brown Belt" or "Chestnut Earths". This lighter color is largely due to a light rainfall and consequently to a less vigorous plant growth and to a
lower content of organic matter than in soils of deeper color.
Much of the area has been cut up into small holdings occupied
by ho■esteaders; the native sod has been plowed up and planted
to spring wheat, other S11all grains and flax. Small fan1s, thin
soils, and the unreliable ■ oisture conditions in the area, combine to make crop production a precarious business. The aver-.
age annual precipitation ranges fro■ 15 to 20 inches, but marked
annual deviations fro■ nor■ al precipitation result in periodical crop failures. (See Figure II.) Except for gold and other
■inerals in the Black Hills, the ■ost i■portant subsurface resources are stone, clay and lignite coal, the latter being
available in large quantities in the Western Dakotas and Eastern
Montana. This area is sparsely populated, containing only ten
cities of 5,000 or ■ore inhabitants outside the Black Hills region. The population contains a large n1111ber of people of Scandinavian and Ger■an origin.
Previous to the opening of this area by the railroads in 1900,
which marked the beginning of a colonization progr&11 by the
states and the railroads, ranching was the pri■ary industry.
The range was free and plentiful which per■itted 1111ch feed to
be cured while standing and cattle could feed off the open range
Digitized by
Google
17
TB! PROBLEM AREAS DEHMED
the year round. Since 1900 the population of the area has increased rapidly as has the acreage of land in fal'IIS and the
acreage of land sown to small grain (pri■arily wheat). With the
breaking of sod and the beginning of intensive dry land fanni~,
this area was th~own open to wind and sheet erosion which has
continued until at present it constitutes a serious problem
(Fig . Ill). Anol'llal drought frequency dovetailed with low crop
prices and with a change fro■ ranching to a more intensive dry
land type of &Jtriculture ~s basic in the relief proble■ s of
the area.
Tax delinquency in the counties surveyed ranged between $42
and s,90 per fuily and bank failures have been frequent, the
average loss per fuil.y rqing u'p to S140. Since in this area
a ruling existed that a fuily' s resources should either be exhausted or aortgaged before relief was granted, the relief rolls
contained those fuilies whose resources were practically depleted. This ruling when co■bined with the high relief rate of
the area(~ percent) clearly indicates that the ■ortgage load
throughout the area was exceedingly heavy. There is no question but that the loss, potential or real, of assets played a
considerable role in bringing ■any fuilies to the relief rolls.
a. r,u, lltnter 11/uuJt .Area. The southern part of the Short Grass
region is known by its principal crop, winter wheat. Its soils
are generally brown with calcareous subsoils, and are easily pul'lerized. The growing season is longer than in the Spring Wheat
Area and a greater diversity of crops is possible. In addition
to wheat and other s■all grains, cotton, the sorghu■s, and corn
are important crops. The nol'llal precipitation is fro■ 15 to 25
inches. Dry land fal'lling has been greatly extended during the
past 15 years by the introduction of the tractor and the combine. Although the population has also been increasing rapidly
during the present century, the area is still sparsely settled
and contains only four cities of 5,000 or ■ore inhabitants.
Old A■erican stock predo■ inates, with a considerable nu.her of
Spanish-A■ericans, and ■any Mexicans in so■e counties of ~ew
Mexico and Colocado. Extensive oil fields in the vicinity of
Aaarillo, Texas, tap the only i■portant sub-surface resource
other than stone, gravel and clay .
Th.e area, as it was settled in the westward ■igration, was
devoted to cattle grazing, but the level prairies were inviting
to the establish■ent of s■all h011esteads and to the extension
Digitized by
Google
18
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
of dry land farming. With the building of railroads, the development of farm machinery for e.xtensive farming-gang plows,
tractors and combines-and a market price for wheat favorable to
dry land wheat faming, imn1igration increased and the area shifted
from an extensive pastoral economy to a wheat growing economy.
In some of the counties this shift did not occur until 1926 and
1927. In Haca County, Colorado, where the extension of a rai.lroad in 1927 facilitated the shift, about 60 percent of the sod
had been turned for wheat by 1931An example of the comp! ex factors underlying the relief problem in the Winter Wheat Area is furnished by data from Western
Kansas. The Winter i.heat Area includes the western third of
the state. The land is gently rolling in a fashion tyµical of
prairie land. It lies in the 15 to 24 inch rainfall belt and
before the sod was broken the natural cover was buffalo grass.~/
Since 1913 the acreage sown to wheat has increased threefold. This expansion was facilitated by the production of
a wheat suitable to the soil and climatic conditions of the
area, and by thP. introduction and increased use of tractors and
combines which made extensive farming practical. Since 1915
the number of tractors in the area has increased eight-fold and
since 1923 the number of comhinP.s has increased three- fold
(Table IV).
If for a number of years the deviations from normal rainfall
between 'lay and August are distributed, between one-fifth and
one-sixth of the years are found to l1ave less than two-thirds
of the non11al precipitation (Fig. IT). Generalizing, it might
be said that a deficient rainfall during the growing season is
to be expected periodically. -~ deficient rainfall is not the
sole agent responsible for crop failure, however,hutitscorrelation with the seasons, with temperature conditions, wHh prevalence of grasshoppers, rust, etc., produces a rather striking
cycle of crop successes anri failures. Wheat sown in the fal I
•ay not weather the winter or it .. ay have adverse growing conditions during the spring and a proportion of the acreage sown
is not harvested. An examination of the data on crop abandon111eot in this area since 1911 shows quite an unusual picture of
crop successes. In Figure 4 the cycle of crop failure and crop
successes shows a five year period. The regularity of the cycles is si~nificant and emphasizes the need for long time crop
planning and crop control, if a similar fluctuation in farm inDigitized by
Google
ACREAGE
COMBINES
~
~
~
. . . .,
HARVESTED
1923
1925
1927
1929
4l4!•11931
0
cci"
""
i'j"
CD
o_
[ . • • •,
0-
'<
0
EACH SYMBOi. REPRESENTS
5 UNITS PER 10 000 ACRES
-
FIGURE 4
0
~
1932
AIANOONED
0[] □□□
ornrnrn D
[DDJ[I] □□I
□ rnrnrn rn ~
[D[]J[I][I][I][] ~
~rnrnrnl□□
~
1:11
(II
.,
"Cf
0
CZ,
I:""
l"II
:JC
►
Iii'
(II
►
Cl)
~
t.-:1
"'d
1-4
!Z
(II
~
EACH COMPLETE RECTANGLE REPRESENTS 5 PEACENT
Of TOTAL ACREAGE IN COUN TIE S
COMBINES AND WHEAT ACREAGE
IN THE KANSAS COUNTIES IN THE WINTER WHEAT AREA
( i)
I
-
'°
20
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
co■e
is to be eliminated and a stable economy established.
'nte present adverse far■ ing conditions in Kansas vere precipitated by conditions not previously suffered. 'nte current crop
failure has as antecedents successive years of deficient rainfall and an excess of te■perature. The climatic conditions have
dehydrated the top soils and with no cover crops wind erosion
has been ■ore serious than usual. Furthermore, it has been esti11ated that between 10 and 20 percent of the far■ acreage in
Kansas had been destroyed by water erosion before the suaer of
1935 (16, p. 75). With larger proportions of grazing lands devoted to wheat, the existing range lands have been over-grazed
under_ the abnor■ al weather conditions. However, the cattle ■ en
are less severely hit by the present conditions than the dry land
far■ ers.
D.
The Eastern Cotton Belt
As outlined in Figure 2, this area includes almost all counties east of Oklahoma and Texas in which 40 percent or aore of
the land in crops was planted to cotton in 1929, Its northern
li ■it is set by the line of 200 frost-free days of growing season, a line determined by the con figuration of the country.
The Ozark Highlands push the line southward in northeastern Arkansas, and the Appalachian Highlands turn it southward across
eastern Tennessee, from which point it runs eastward Across northern Georgia and then continues in a north-easterly direction
through western North Carolina. The southern limit is set by
precipitation, for ■ore than 10 to 11 inches of autumnal rain
delays cotton picking and damages the lint.
The most common soils of the region are the yellowish sandy
and silt lo811s, the reddish sandy and clay loB11s and the alluvial deposits in the delta regions. The soils of the coastal
plains, the clay hills and the rolling uplands in Mississippi,
Alabama ( the Black Belt), southwestern .4rkansas and Louisiana
are nor11ally very fertile. In the more hilly regions in the
northern portion of the area, particularly the Old Pied■ont region, the soils are stony, less fertile and seriously eroded.
Annual precipitation varies fro■ 40 to 50 inches and water erosion bas been extensive in the rolling uplands which have been
in constant cotton producj.ion and without a cover crop for a
nuaber of years. The original cover was timber. At the iresent ti■e about 60 percent of +he land is in far■s and O perDigitized by
008
I
e
THE PROBLEM AREAS DEfIMED
21
cent under intensive cultivation. Over half of the harveste,1
area is in cotton which contributes a large proportion to the
total products sold (J9, p. 41). Corn is next in importance,
but it. is largely a ■aintenance crop for the work stock and huun population. Jro■ 70 to 80 percent of all 1aintul workers
are employed in agriculture and five percent in closely allied
indatries. Aithoa,h the Cotton Belt naked second to the Corn
Belt iii total value of agricultural products (1929), the average ftlue of fani products per person was about 60 percent lower
(19, p. 41). 'nlus a proble■ closely allied to that of adequate
fana living conditions is one of parit:, in incoae of fara operators. Any ■aladjutaent in the cotton business affects over
three-quarters of the gainful workers in the area. Many cotton
textile ■ ills are located in the saaller cities and villages of
the Pied■ont country of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabaaa.
Four cities of 100,000 or 110re inhr.bitants seM'e as ■ajor asseabling and distributing centers.
'lhe population increased ■ost rapid!:, prior to the Civil war
vhen cotton culture and the plantation syste■, which were later
to be so influential in the area's ■aladjust■ent, beca■e estal>lished. On the plantations that had withstood the reconstruction period following the Civil War, the cropper syste■ displaced the old slave syste■ • Jor a satisfactory share of the
harvest, the landlord would agree to "furnish" the cropper while
he cultivated the crop. 'ftle "furnish" consisted of livi04r quarters, foodstuff and equipaent. '11le cropper and his fuily furnished the labor, and the fa■ily vi th a large nuaber of workers
was always ■ore satisfactory as a tenant . After the harvest
the cropper would be paid for his portion of the crop less the
value of bis "furnish." In the "Black Belt'', as for exuiple in
Dallas County, Alabaa, cotton raising beca■e less profitable
folloviJli the dissolution of the slave syste■ and ■any of the
owners ■oved fro■ the plantations to the towns, and rented their
land. This divorce■ent of the owner froa the i•ediate cultivation of the land was one of the central characteristics of the
econoaic situation in the "Black Belt." In the counties surveyed in the Eastern Cotton Belt, 78 percent of the fara oper- \
ators were either croppers or tenants (23) and 69 percent of .these were Negroes. Under absentee ownership the depletion of .
soil fertility was rapid through constant cotton culture, soil
erosion and inefficient ■anage■ent. While the cropper system
Digitized by
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
II
offered a111ple opportunity for the landlords to be fair, and aoae
/ croppers may have profited under the syste■ (9, Sec. II), iD
.., general, the cropper's independence was only no■inal. Olrrioas, ly, the system was merely a variation of the old slave relationship and kept the cropper on the aargin of economic existence.
This ■arginal existence, Mith its pseudo-economic freedo■ alone
with the owner's spirit of the landed aristocracy, emphasised
whatever deficiencies appeared in the cropper class, fostered
an attitude of dependence and suppressed initiative.
llefore and during the World Wftr the price of cotton was favorable to the develop111ent of a one crop agricultural syste11,
but in the post-war depression two factors appeared which led
inexorably to the present relief situation. The first was a
depressed market price. Under a high price level the marginal
and submarginal lands could be extensively fertilized, thus par--,;.
tial ly restoring the plant food of t.he soil and insuring a profitable crop, but with low prices this undertaking led to bankruptcy. At about the same time the boll weevil spread into the
Eastern Cotton Helt fr011 Mexico. In 1910 it was noticeably present in Mississippi, in 1914 in Alab&111a, and in 1921 in Georgia.
The severity and quickness of its onslaught is indicated in the
following data on the number of bales of cotton ginned in Morgan
County, Georgia, froa 1916 to 193, (21, p. XIV):
Years
Bales
(IN
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
000 1 S)
23
26
35
36
30
7
2
2
5
Years
Bales
(IN
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
000 1 s}
6
10
10
12
13
16
lit
10
11
Although the boll weevil is under partial control, ihis couni,y
has never equaled its foraer proct.ction of cotton. The disutrous effect of the boll wenil.coapled with a depressed ■arket
price, reduced not only the owner's profits but also the tenant's standard of living. Until the owners refused to re-e~
all of their croppers and offered "furnish" to selected families only, or to the able workers within 11 fuily, this low
Digitized by
Google
THE PROBLEM AREAS DEFINED
standard of living was ■asked. When the unemployed ■ embers were
forced onto relief, the conditions came to light as an acute
social proble■. In this ■anner the contraction of credit and
the depletion <Jf owners· reserves precipi lated the social and
racial proble■ of the Eastern Cotton Belt. The cropper problem
has received rather extensive treat■ ent in various places, but
the story is the sa■e for the tenant and the fann laborer, whether white or Negro, as there is little distinction between these
tenure classes.
E. The Western Cotton Area
This area includes those parts of Oklaho■ a and Texas where
cotton far11s pred011inate, the western li■it being the 20 inch
precipitation line. (Cotton growing vi tbout irrigation re qui res
about 20 inches of rainfall.) The eastern portion was originally covered with ti■ber. Average annual precipitation decreases fro■ 50 inches in the east to 15 inches in the west as
the timber lands give way to the short grass of the Great Plains.
In the eastern portion, the soil is a continuation of the
fertile land of the [astern Cotton Uelt, but in the western and
11ore arid sections the brown and less fertile soils of the wheat
areas are prevalent.
In the period following the World War the acreage under cultivation increased at a rapid rate in response to a high market
price and to physiographic conditions of the western part of
this area which were favorable to cotton growing but unfavorable
to the boll weevil. 'Die increase continued up to 1929 and during this develop■ent over nine ■ ill ion acres were opened to cotton cultivation in Texas and Oklaho■a. Although this increase
represented only four percent of the total acreage, it was 17
percent of all land under cultivation in 1930 and over 40 percent of the acreage devoted to cotton in 1930.
Such an expansion of a one crop agricultural syste■ created
its own labor proble ■s as its seasonal work demanded heavy peak
loads of labor. As a consequence there are large tenant, cropper and fara laboring groups with extre■ely low annual incomes.
In some cases the laborers have been described as being under
1
\
'
. , & aore intolerable slave syste■ than that which existed in the
· / Eastern Cotton Belt before the Civil War. Approxi ■ately half
(49 percent) of the heads of fa■ ilies on relief in this area' -~
'
vere either tenants, croppers, or fa!'II laborers.
;,.i
Digitized by
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
24
Tax delinquency, the debt structure, and bank failures had
an effect upon the relief rolls insofar as they operated to contract employment and to reduce wage rates.
The recent drought brought about the present crisis. On the
average, this area has a marked deficiency in precipitation
about every fifth year. 1'hen the cotton crop is destroyed by
drought, the soil is generally so dry that no other crop could
have been produced. noth of these factors indicate the great
need for a long-range agricultural program in the more arid parts
of the area so that the production of the more prosperous years
can tide the farmers over the inevitable lean years. However,
this point of view is not frequently found among pioneer farmers.
F,
The Problems Common to All Areas and
How the Data on Them Were Assemb I ed
Frou-, tl1e foregoing review it is apparent that in each of the
six areas the factors which appear to be associated with high
relief r;ites are such that the problem of helping the families
to become self-supporting and to maintain themselves at a socially desirnble standard of living involves more fundamental
-mrnsurest1ianthe grantingofreli.efovera short period of time.
They are areas in which unemployment re} ief will need to be given continuously or at periodic intervals in the future unless
drastic measures are takea to remove the causes of the economic
insecurity. Yet each of the areas presents a distinctive set
of social and economic problems which must be taken into consideration in planning a progrlllll of rehabilitation. Nevertheless, reduced to its elements, each such set of conditions involves:
1. The types of families receiving relief and the
capacity of each to become self-supporting under specified economic and social conditions.
2.
The social and economic resources of the areas
in which these families live and their availability for the rehabilitation of the families
receiving relief.
3.
The relationships of the types of families receiving relief to the social and econo■ ic resources of the areas in which they live.
4.
The role of relief policies and practices in
each area in determining the number and types of
families receiving relief, i.e., consideration
Digitized by
Google
TII
PIOBLDf ARIAS DlflllD
of t.be "¥alidit7 of t.lle relief rat.ea • a . . AN oft.be~ ad tne• of aocio-ecoaaaic
■alacljataeat u each area.
Each of t.bese point• is apeci fically uaQWCI in nbseqaent
chapters and a tentative solation of t.be pro'bl- iavohed is
suggestu. Data on the f•iliea receiviac relief were secured
throaeh intensive study in 65 coanties, choaen, wit.la Uae •~ice
of State >cricultural Colleces ud St.ate r..eranc, Relief M■inistrat iODS, to represent• nearly• poasi'ble the raace of
social ud econo■ic conditiou foud in each area. TIie 65 counties included (in 19'()) 2'8,52, f•iliea t.bat resided in rural
territory ad ill towns of leas t.bu 5,000 popalatioa, or five
percent of all sar.h f•iliea in t.lle aix areas (Table l).
'!be
proportion sarveyed ftl"ied fro. bat 4 pereeat in the Eastern
Cotton Belt to 15 percnt ia Uae Lab States Cat--Over Area.
While it vu illpoui'ble to ' iaclade all local ¥Uiatiou of the
relid situation ia thll saple, the hollC)Ceaeit7 of each area,
vi th respect to t.be tac1. .ta1 fact.on respoui'ble for t.he relief loads iuuru that the ■-plea choaen rat.Mr ldeqaatel7
portray the area aitutiou.
Jro. the atudpoiat of t.lle relatiw proportiou of t.he fan
failiesofeada taare 11'0Q ud oft.be aoa-faN f•ilies, the
coanties ~ e e l are repn...tatiw oft.be area (Table '1).
Bawner, failiea liriac ia towu of 2,5~5.000 popalat.ioa were
o.er-represeated ia t.lle coatiea nneyed except ia the Appalachia-Oun Area (Table l), bat a this bias-wllicla vu auwida'ble 'becawN of the -U Daber of coanties •111"ff1ed-wa
not acc-,..ied by a correapoDdi• 'bin i■ the proporUoa of f&r11
111d ..-f&r11 fuiliea reprunted, Uae ■-ple coantiea appear
to portray reliably the occupatioaal utecedeat.a of the relief
aitutioa. ID the selection of the coanties, tboH with iaport.at raral. DOJt-8Cricaltural iadustries were incladed roachly in
proportion to their frequ911C1 (in term of the n•'ber of pinful
workers ia each indutry in 19,C,) i■ each area.
Direct c011pVi ■oa of the relief rates of t.he populations mtcler study ia the counties vi th the relief rat.ea of the ca.parable popalations of the areas as a whole vu iapossible, as the
official relief reports give only total county fipres. However, the relief rates in the coanties surveyed in the Appalachian-Ozark and the two Cotton Areas were wry close to those
for all coanties in the respective areas (Table 1); but in the
Sprine and Winter Wheat Areas, the percentaee ofGIJll f Hies
Digitized by
008 e
26
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
rece1vrng relief in the counties surveyed was almost 20 percent
greater than for the areas as a whole. ~lost of this difference
was due to the inclusion of a greater proportion of city families in the total area computation and in these drought areas
rural relief rates were higher than city rates. The wide difference between the area and the sample county relief rates in
the Lake States Cut-Over Area appears to be due to an error in
the number of relief cases reported by the states concerned, for
the investigators of this survey reported a rate almost identical with that for the area as a whole.
In each of the counties selected for study all, or a random
sample of the families living in the open country, or in vi llages and towns of less than 5,000 population and receiving uncmployD1ent relief during June 1934, were studied. The data on
the types of families receiving relief were secured from the
case records and through interviews with local relief workers.1
1 see APP111d1.1 E tor scbedule used.
Digitized by
Google
II.
THE RELIEF SITUATION:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIO~S
It is difficult to evaluate the relief situation of these
areas iu ter11s of the proportion of the total number of families
receiving relief because of the variation from areA to area in
the items included as "relief". In the states affected by the
drought of 1933 and 1934 work relief was granted to farmers in
order that they ■ight procure feed for their livestoc.k as well
as subsistence for the■selves. Parts of the rtrought area are
included in the Spring anrt Winter Wheat anrt Western Cot ton .keas.
(In the other areas ■ost of the relief granted was 11 hU11a.n" relief
<
only, although an occasional 111Ule or ox given to a cropper in
/ the Eastern Cotton Belt was reported as direct relief.
----
A.
Relief Rates in the Areas
The percentage of all f811ilies receiving relief (including
city families) in the six areas in June 1934 was about 15, al11ost identical with the percentage for the United States for
the sye 11100th. ~evertheless, the relief rates in all except
the two Cotton Areas were 27 to 87 per<'ent shove the United
States average (Table 1) and there the relief rates were below
the national average. However, because of the prevalent low
standard of living among the unski lied worker class in these
two areas, relief rates are a poor index of comparison between
the socio-econoaic condition of families in these and other
areas. 'nte A.A.A. crop adjust~ent prugru has undoubtedly been .. _
of so■e assistance in improving general economic conditions in ·
Ta ■u
l. P1 ■ Cl•THI o, FAMIL I l l RtCI
IVINI
Ru
LUf
l!P&
I■
Ju•• 19"'
TOTAL
.,.,.,._
ALL
LACl'IU,N
Cur-
SP• IJICi,
hus
Cz.uie
Cvu
W'1fAT
Fou&.1(5 •• A-.lJI • • . • • •• • • • • • •
I~
19
22
28
19
Su•vtno
1e
22
,2
RvtA&. AND TO•N FAMILl!S, . .. . . . ,,
17
n
2~
25
10
9
RUIAL FAWILllS,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,
16
22
2~
n
9
e
TO.• FANILl!.S,.,, ••••••• ,, , • •
21
16
22
"
''
"
2,
28
17
If
Tou.c.
fOT&l f&lillLHS •• COUNTtl,
suus
S"ou Guss
2e
.... u.
(OHO•
£ u,11.
Cono11
12
12
11
11
•11,u111
."''"'
27
Digitized by
Google
,·
Sil RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
28
the South and thus has indirectly affected relief rates. The
Rural Rehabilitation Progru of the Federal F.aergency Relief
_.Administration had taken a few families off relief by June 19,4,
'In spite of the relatively low relief rate, the Cotton Areas are
definitely "problem" areas because of the precarious economic
position of a large proportion of their fuilies under the onecrop, share cropper syste■ of far■ tenure and the dependence of
those not engaged in agricultural pursuits upon the s&11e crop,
cotton, or upon a decadent lU11bering industry.
Obi igatlona Incurred for Une■ployaent Rel lef in the Areas
B.
About 203 ■illions of dollars were spent for une■ployaent
relief in the six areas, by federal, state and local 1overn■ental agencies during the 19 month period fro■ April 1, 19"
through October 1934, The 8IIOl1nt of the obligations incurred
during this period for relief purposes in all counties, and the_
average per faaily, was as follows:
OILliATION
,VR IL
l, 1533
Ill
Oou.u,s•
l. 195q
TO N0VOHU
PlR FAMILY RlCIIVINC
TOTAL
PU FAMILY
RIL
If' (A,,ROXIMATI)
ALL AR!AS ••••••• , •, •••,, •• •••• ••• ••
.&,l"ALACN I AN-Oza,u( ••••••••••••••
$202,797,000
$220
ij6,CI0,COC
190
L.uct STATES CuT-Cvu ••••• •••••.
26,11e,ooo
1,.112 ,OCO
ie,000
~~,26•,COO
Sp,A I NG fl'H(AT,,,,,,,, •• • • , , , , , , ,
9ttNTfll WN[AT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,
WE.STERN (OT TON,,,••,,.,,••,,,,,
EASTERN COTTON, ••• , , • • , , , , , . , , ,
,~
1, .•
,10
)10
Jl!II)
c._7•, 1u,, coo
211Q
The average obligation incurred for relief durb~ the 19
period per faaily receiving relief varied fro■ about $400
in the Lake States Cut-Over Area to less than $200 in the West1
/ ern Cotton and Appalachian-Ozark Areas. It should be recalled
that the Lake States Cut-Over Area contains a larger proportion
of city failies (about one-third) than any of the other areas
and that the ■ajority of the rural and town fuilies receiving
relief were the faailies of une11ployed non-agricultural workers.
Because of greater budgetary deficiencies or u a result of ■ore
liberal relief policies the average obligations per faaily receiving relief were greater than in the Short-Grus Wheat Areas
where, as stated before, a considerable UIOUnt of the relief
( ■oney went for livestock feed. In contrast, in the Cotton
,' Areas and the Appalachian-Ozark Area, where less than 25 percent of the faailies live in cities, the expenditures per faily
were relatively low.
■onth
Digitized by
Google
TBE RELIEF SITUATION: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
29
C. Trends In Relief Rates
The percentage of f&11ilies receiving relief in the counties
surveyed 1 increased sharply during 1934 in all except the Appalachian-Ozark and Eastern Cotton Areas. In the Spring liheat
Area (which because of drought hlld the highest relief rate of
all the areas by June 1934) the proportion of faailies receiving
relief increased steadily froa 7 percent in July 19,3 to alaost
40 percent in Noveaber 19'4 and reaained at about that level
through Hay 19,5. 1 For the saae reason, the relief rate in the
lrinter Wheat Area increased fro■ about 6 percent in January 1931
to 32 percent in August 1934 after which it declined slightly,
to again increase during the early 110Dths of 1935. The Western ,
Cotton Area relief rate showed a tread si■ilar to that in the , /
-beat Areas but the increase was not as great nor did it reach /
so high a figure, for only part of the area was affected by the
drought. (See lie. 5.)
The percentage of fa■ ilies receiving relief in the Eastern
Cotton Belt counties increased fr011 9 percent in October 1933
to about 18 percent in February 19'4. After February the rates
declined steadily with ■ inor fluctuations to 8 percent in December 19'4 aft.er which they reaained fairly constant with onl~
a slight increase in January and J'ebruary 1935. 'The low relief ,,
rat.es in this area in recent 110nths were a result of two factors: :
.,re stri1119nt rules as to vbo should receive relief and the
transfer of faailies to the rural rehabilitation rolls. The
rural rehabilitation progra■ re■oved 110re faailies fr011 the relief rolls during 19,-4 in this than in other areas.
The proportion of faailies receiving relief in the Lake States
Cut-Over Area increased fro■ about 11 percent in February 1934
to about 25 percent in July, re■ained about constant at that
figure through October, increased sharply through January 1935
and declined sliehtly during the early ■onths of 1935. Due to
lllle■ploy■eat in the industries of this area and the precariousness of faraiog due to poor soil and the short growing season,
little reduction in relief rates in the near future can be exP8cted.
The proportion of fa■ ilies receiving relief in the Appalachi&IH)zark counties has fluctuated around 20 percent for ■ost of
,_.. percaacqn.,. tor &ll faalUU laeladlq CIIDN la CUI•;
_.,.. &ftll&bll
tor
nal"&l tatUH aiou.
~ i>erc111tace1 cl t.ed are tile actual aoaCll.11 data.
-.t111 ac,nnc awrap.
--uau
data
n91N 6 11 lll.lld oa • Ulree
Digitized by
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
30
FIGURE
!>
COMPARISON OF TRENDS IN RELIEF RATES*
BETWEEN Tt-£
,! COLNTIES SURVEYED AND THE UNITED STATES**
.
,
.;1~
•••, ....... f.,t•<i• •·····
~t
.... ... -
1--
I I
'O
C
:iJ
,9;•,
J
,,
•
l
J
~·
I
Tl
l~n • ., •
11
J
J
,.
t
'
,.
~
, ~ ~ •,
•
"
•
Digitized by
Google
THE RELIEF SITUATION: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
,1
the period for which records are available. Although the record
covers only two winters, the relief rate appears to have a distinct seasonal variation, tending to increase in the winter
months. Fro■ October 1934 to January 1935 the proportion of
fBllilies receiving relief increased fro11 19 to 24 percent.; in
1933 and 1934 the increase between these two ■ont.hs was fro■
16 to 22 percent . It apl'ears likely that the relief rate for
this area will continue to increase gradually unless e111ploy■ent
is found for the increasing population. Due to the abando11111ent.
of ■ ines, the cessation of lumbering operations in much of the
area, and the lack of industrial employment elsewhere which
formerly drew off s011e of the excess population, unenployment. of
persons of working age is steadily increasing. About one-sixth
of the fBllilies containing able-bodied workers who were receiving relief in June 1931 in the counties surveyed had been receiving relief for four or ■ore years. ~ost of these fa■ ilies
are trying to far■ but are unable to wrest a living fro111 the
poor soil so prevalent in this area. Living standards are low
and relief giving see■s to have become standardized near the
level of subsistence, the nuaber of fuilies receiving relief
increasing in the winter when clothing, food and fuel ■ust be
bought and decreasing in the suaaer when needs are less pressing.
D.
Rtlltf Rate, of Rural and Town Fa•ill11
In general, high relief rates in the counties surveyed were
the result of the large percentage of rural fuilies receiving
relief; the relief rates for town faailies were lower than those
for open country and village fMlilies in all the high relief
rate areas except the Winter Wheat Area. As will be de110nstrat.ed below, the higher town relief rate in the latter area was
due to the considerable migration of une■ployed agricultural
workers. In the Cotton Areas, where relief rates were ■uch low_:- , 1 ,
1
er than in the other four areas, the rat.es for towns were al-2:~
aost twice those in rural territory (Table t). As indicat~ ).' .
below _ the proportion of tenant. and cropper fuilies on relief
in the Coli.9-P_Areas vas very saall. White far■ fa■ilies were ( '
receiving relief in ■ore instances than were Ne~ro far■ fa■ilies (
but Negro fa■ ilies living in villages and towns appeared to be \
receiving relief at about the sa■e, or possibly a higher, rate 1
than white faailies.
Digitized by
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREA'S
E.
The TJH and Value of Relief Received
The proportion of f•ilies in the 65 counties receivinc only
direct relief was not correlated with the percentaae of such
faailies with gainful workers. The type of relief received depended ■ore upon state and local relief policies thu upon the
presence of persons willing and able to work. Scae count.ies
had work projects adequate to ;he eaployaent to all able-bodied
workers, others had no work projects. Of all the states in the
Appalachian-Ozark Area, Kentucky, with its policy of ;iving
lar;ely direct relief, was having ■ore difficulty with relief
clients than auy other state. The investigators were told aany
tales of favoritis■ and.ca.plaint. So far as could be leaned,
these were without foUDdat.ion, but the enforced idleness of relief clients led to a great deal of discontent which was fostered by local public officials in soae connties, aaking the
job of ad■inisterinc relief extreuly difficult.. Nine of the
t.hirteen counties in the Appalachian-Ozark Area gNDted work
relief to less than 25 percent of the fuilies, two granted it.
to over 75 percent of the f•ilies recei'Ying relief and two
granted no work relief at all. The averages for the area were
67 percent direct relief only, 28 percent work relief only and
5 percent both work and direct relief (Table VII).
The practice of ;iving direct relief was also widespread in
the Lake States Cut-Over Area; 65 percent of the f•ilies received only direct relief, 18 percent both direct and work relief ad only 17 percent work relief alone. Althoqb there were
fewer faailies containing ;ainful workers in this than in the
Appalachian-Osark Area, there were ■ore faailies in which no
Mllber had any eaplo,-ent in June 19'4 (Tables 6 and llV-A).
The use of work relief was ■ore consistent in the Winter
'Nheat than in any other area; each county studied aranted such
relief to 50 percent or 110re of the f•ilies receiYing relief,
six ;ranted it to 50 to 74 percent and seven to 75 percent or
Only 21 percent of all faailies in this area received
■ore.
relief; 62 percent received only vork relief and
direct
only
the re■aini.ng 17 percent both work and direct relief. In the
Spring Wl eat Area also, ■ore of the fuilies were receiving work
relief than in a»y except the Winter Wheat Area.
r---- In the Cotton Areas, whites vere receiving work relief to a
- · nch greater extent than Negroes. In the Western Cotton .4rea,
69 percent of the whites were receiving only direct lief,
008
Digitized by
I
e
Google
:::::::;
w
1/)
w
a::
u
w
?
z
C)
~
a:
0
....~
0
0::
~
THE RELIEF SITUATION: GENERAL CONSIDERATION~
Digitized by
~,
34
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
another 20 percent direct and work relief making a total of 89
percent receiving direct relief. The comparable figure for
Negroes was 99 percent, for they seldom received work relief
f ~xcept as a supplerr.ent to direct relief. In the Eastern Cotton
Belt 56 percent of the white and 75 percent of the ~egro families received only direct relief, 9 and 7 percent both work
and direct relief. Of the white families :35 percent received
work relief only as compared with \Jut 18 percent of the ~egro
families. Some of the difference in tile types of relief received by whites and Negroes was due to the large number of Ne, gro families without gainful workers but this factor does not
account for all the variation. Negro families containing workers were not given work relief to as great an extent as were
\ comparable white families (Table VII).
The average value of the relief received during June 19"H by
· the 10,771 families studied was $13 per family (Table VIII).
Comparison of the average relief benefit with th~lfurth;-lliiited
States as a whole reveals that it was 75 percent less than the
national average, less than one-half that of the principal cities, and about 10 percent less than for the United States ex'~clusive of the principal cities (Table IX). Comparison of the
counties surveyed in e::\ch area with the states in which the
areas lie indicates interesting differences. In practically all
areas the state averages are higher than for the rural counties
surveyed, probably because of the greater cost of relief in urban than in rural territory. The averares for the Cotton Areas,
however, were almost identical. Only in the Winter wheat Area
was the average for the counties surveyed greater than that for
the states as a whole. There is strong suspicion that a good
part of this difference was due to county work relief expenditures not reported to the Federal Emergency Relief Administration but reported in this survey and to the inclusion in some
of the counties surveyed of surplus commodities as a part of
relief benefits. In some counties in this area the local relief
offices had estimated their value and included them as relief
granted.
For those receiving direct relief only, in the counties surveyed, the average was but $8, for those receiving work relief
only, $19, and for those receiving both forms of relief $21.
Families receiving work relief therefore received approximately
twice as much as those receiving direct relief in each of the
Digitized by
Google
'5
Google
I~
~~
~a.;;
LLI -
ex~
~~
- ::>
o,
~~
I- -
I
:lim
a:
0"1:1
Jrt>
• c,,
o►
IX<
ma:
:I:cn
I-<
0 l&J
la.
0
IX
~
Cl)
0
la.
LLI
IX
:J
la.
LLI
m
l&J
z
LLI
~
I-
TBI RILIIP SITU.ATIOII: l ·DIR.AL CONII DER.ATIOlfS
~
."'
I
!
i
Digitized by
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
areas. The largest relief benefits were granted in the Winter
Wheat and Lake States Cut-Over Areas: families receiving direct
relief only averaged $12 apiece in both areas and those receiving work relief only, $25 in the Winter Wheat and $23 in
the Lake States Cut-Over Area. Families receiving both types
of relief averaged $28 and $27, respectively. Relief grants
in the Spring Wheat Area averaged $14 and grants to white fu.
. ...
ilies in the Eastern Cotton Belf, $1_~•--- Work relief benefits
in th~se two areas· -a~eragecfTi7, .the slightly-hignerave·rage
for all faailies in the Spring Wheat Area being due to the
larger direct relief benefits paid.
Larger relief benefits were to be expected in the Wheat Areas
. because of the inclusion of items other than h1111an subsistence
in the families' budgetary allowances. 'The rebtively large
benefits in the Lake States Cut-Over Area are difficult to explain except in tenns of the influence of urbanization on relief standards. The invest4?ators reported a n1111ber of cases
of former residents of Milwaukee living in the area whose relief benefits were still being paid by Milwaukee and at a higher
rate than that of the local relief office for fuilies in si■i
lar circlllllstances.
' Only among Negroes in the Cotton Areas wer~ the average re,,.,lief- benefits lower than in the Appalachian-Ozar~ ~ea wliere
, work relief benefits averaged $12, direct relief onlyJ.6_,_ ~ith
an average of only $8 per fa111ily for all types. Most of the
Appalachian-Ozark fa■ ilies were living on the land and ■ost of
the11 had never known anything other than a very si11ple standard
of living so the average relief benefit of 38 probably represented as much actual cash as many of the families have ever
had to spend in any one month.
/
Negroes not only received work relief in fewer instances
, but also received smaller average benefits than whites in the
_ ., same area regardless of whether they were receiving work relief,
direct relief or both work and direct relief. Since the rural
Negro family group appears to be unable to care for its aged
members under the present economic system in the South, there
has been a definite selection of aged families for the relief
rolls. These older, smaller families are able to subsist on
less than larger families containing children. This factor accounts in part for the smaller direct relief benefits paid to
Negroes. The lower work relief benefits, however, were obviously
---
----
Digitized by
Google
THE RELIEF SITUATION: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
f
'fl
evid~~of_~hu_QW~-~'!_le «?f_li':1ng of t.he Negro accepted by·
r~lief officials as t.he basis for deten1ining budgetary defi- .
. .
/
c1enc1es.
,,
343517
Digitized by
Google
III.
THE FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
In assessing the hU11an resources of the population receiving relief in the 65 counties surveyed-a necessary preli ■ i
nary to any discussion of the 11atertal resources-consideration ■ust be given to a number of points of a statistical nature
difficult to translate into qualitative terms without risking
inaccuracy. Nevertheless, it ■ay clarify the detailed discussion that follows to begin with the statement that the majority
of the f&11ilies receiving relief in five of the six areas (the
exception being the Lake Stat.es Cut-Over as will e■erge later)
were f&11ilies of farmers and far■ laborers and were "nor■al" in
the sense that they usually consisted of husband and wife or
husband, wife and children. About four-fifths of the f&11ilies
included one or more gainful workers and almost 90 percent of
these families included one or more 11ale gainful workers 16
years of age and older. 1 In none of the areas, except among
Negro families in the Cot.ton Areas, was the proportion with at
least one gainful worker, either male or female, less than 86
perc£.cnt and with less than one male gainful worker, less than 77
percent. Refinement. and qualification of these broad findings
is undertaken in the pages which follow. The text contains
information on such matters as family size, composition, age
and sex of the members, occupations of those usually gainfully
employed together with further data of an occupational nature,
and ends with an evaluation of the capacity of the f811ilies to
becOJDe self-supporting in the light of the human resources they
represent. Inter.pretative material appears where it is relevant.
A. Type, of FaMllle, Receiving Relief
The types of fuilies receiving relief are a good indication
of the kind of relief and rehabilitation problems presented in
each area. Nor11al f&11ilies 2 predominated among the fa11ilies
_ receiving relief in the 65 counties. Nearly three-fourths were
faailies of this type and 55 percent of the families were normal
f8llilies with children under 16 years of age (Table 2).
1
A •sa111ru1 worker• as usec:1 tbrougbout thlS rePort, u any person HI 7ears or age
or ol<ler lltlo bad wor1ed prntousl.Y (at other than a work reuer Job) anc:1 Wllo waa
1tork1na or seeltlng 1t0r1 at the tl■e or tbU survey (June 1934). Housewl HS 11110
~ <lone cn17 llousewor11n tbel r 01111 bo■ ss 1tere not classl fl e<I as g&ln tlU 1t0rkers.
Faall7, as used here, includes all persons rece1nng reuer u one reuer case.
Digitized by
Google
THE IAHILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
a,
In the Appalachian-Ozark Area and the Short Grass Areas
and 79 percent of the f•ilies, respectively, were noraal f~
ilies. In the Cotton Areas about three-fourths of the white
f&11ilies were noraal faailies. AaoJli the whites the vari&tion
fl'OII area to area in the percentage of noraal faailies receiving relie"f was due to variation in the proportion of fuilies
with children under 16 years of age: the percentage of •husband-wife" and "husband-wife~hildren 16 years of ege and over
only" fuilies was alllost identical in all areas. In other
words, areas having a.large proportion of nor.al faailies had
a high proportion of relatively yoq fuilies on relief. In
the Appalachian-Ozark Area, where
percent of the fuilies
receiving relief were noraal faailies, alllost two-thirds were
f&11ilies with children under 16 yHrs of age. The proportion
of nor.al fuilies was saallest 11110ng the 'Negro f•ilies in the
r.otton Areas, less than 50 percent of the f•ilies in Eastern
Cotton Belt falling in this class.
Broken fuilits includina children occurred 110st frequently
in the Cotton Areu, particular!::, aouc Negroes (2! percent in
the !astern Cotton Belt) ad least frequently in the Wheat Areas
(9 and 10 percent). Practically all this variation was due to
differences in the proportion of failies consistina of woaen
and children.
Only , percellt of the f•ilies receiYine relief in tlle Appalachian-Ozark Area were one-person faailies, less than one-half
the auaber in &Jl1 other area. In contrast, aonc ~lie Nqro
t•ilies,
percent i.n the West.em CottOD Area and!! percent
in the Eastern Cotton Belt were one-person f•ilies, with lone
woaen pred011inating.
In the Lake States Cut-Over Area, 17 percent of the fuilies
receivine relief were one-person f•ilies, 15 percent being lone
nles, and only 69 percent nor.al fuiliea. The faailies in
this area are, for the aost part, i•igrants frCII other states.
Many of those recei'viuc relief cue into this area to work in
the l•beriae and unine iDduatries. 'l'b91 separated froa their
kinship groups in aovine into the area and•~ of th•, especially those ■ell wbo f oraerly. worked in the luaber caps, when
oable to work or unable to find work, bad no relatives nearby
to support th•.
'l'be types of fuilies receiviq relief.in the two Wheat Areu
were siailar e~ept that the f•ilies in the Spripg Wheatl Area
a,
1,
Digitized by
G oog e
40
Cl>
>
..
.. 0
ii
::
SIX RURAL PROBLE~ AREAS
§~i~~Ot\~~~30~~i~~~
OOf"'-m~N""'-""'mm-o~~~=
0\0\0-
O o,,.-
C\"'m""'
IC"\lt'\
• 'a>
"'O
8i~iR~~~~...;0~0~3~;
oo~o~~"'""'o~No,,."'-"°"''
~i~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
.
0
•o
•
..... -
. frlN,.: ai -" <-~on..;N O...;...; P.-0....; ,n
8 ....
o ~-NNmm"°""'~~-~ m N"° ~
--- -
ai~~~D~N..;~o~~~~~...;
om-~--N_,_O,,.OIC"\""'O-~
§i=~~~~...;...;~o...;~~~~~
o-~~"'o~IC"\mmm-~#o,"°
it-----l----------------1
-~
::..:.,
~► t-+---------------1
~i~~~~i~~~~~:~~~~
o~o,,.~o~~OOOO!t,O:~~~~
Si~i~-0~ 3 ;~...;~...;~~~•
oN~~-m--,"'-OO""'lt,O~#
::---------------.: u
:
..
. ;~ ::
►
.
.
..
.
8
II
.
0
>
.
..
0
~
.-
...
;;
..
:
D191tized by
Google
THE FAMILIES RECEIVIMG RELIEJ
41
were "older• i.e., a larger proportion were faailies which included children 16 years of age and older. P1ost of the f•ilies
in these ttto areas were noraal in type al though 8 percent were
one-person fsailies, the ■aj ority of which were probably ■ igra
tory laborers, stranded because of old ftie or uneaploywent.
The large proportion of one-person fa■ilies uong the Negro
fuilies recefving relief, especially in the Eastern Cotton Belt
where the plantation syste■ of agriculture is ■ore coaon, and
the large nU11bers of persons 65 years of age and older uong
Negroes receiving relief, is illustrative of the types of social
and econoaic organization in the area. As in the AppalachianOzark Area, the Eastern Cotton Belt population is indigenous to
the area. In both areas, the social organization is that of
an agricultural people. In the for.er, nearly all of the pc..ulation is native white, the fa■ily is the iaportant social
group, the independent fa■ily fara the econo■ ic unit, aad the
old People are cared for by their fa■ilies . In the latter,
however, fro■ 40 to 50 percent of the population is Negro, and
the i11portant soci&l. and econ011ic functions, so far as the rural
Negro is concerned, are associated with the plantation or so■e
variation of it. The faaily is the labor unit, but it in turn
is dependent upon the plantation owner or the landlord for its
existence as a group. When econo■ ic conditions in the c~ttougrowing industry bec•e adverse, the landlord in ■any cases decreed that aged croppers and non-productive adults in cropper
~9.llilies should be supported by public relief. As the cropper
15
dependent upon, and often subservient to, his landlord, the
relatively low relief lold in JUDe 19'4 and the large proportion
Of Persons 65 years of age and older receiving relief undoubt,...
~edl;y reflect the relief policies of the landlord group.
I.
Size of Full le, Recelvlnt Relief
Fuilies receiving relief tend to be relatively large.
The
1 •rgest faailies surveyed were in the .Appalachian-Ozark Area
-here one-half included 5 or aore persons, one-fifth 8 or ■ore
l>@rsons; and the saallest white fa■ ilies were in the Lake States
~t-Over Area where ■ore than one-ha! f included fewer than 4
Persons and al■ost one-third f'l!wer than , persons (Table , ) • \,
'!'he average (■edian) size of Negro families was about ,.5 per-~ '
Sons in the Western Cotton Area and
persons in the Eastern
Cotton Belt. 'ftlese c011paratively low averages were a result of
,.1
Digitized
byGoo~le
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
42
the large nu.ber of one and two-person faailies, for one-third
of the Negro faailies in the Western Cotton Area and 41 percent
of those in the Eastern Cotton Belt included fewer than three
persons. In the Eastern Cotton Belt one-person Negro f•ilies 1
occurred ■ore frequently ( 22 percent) than faailies of any other
size while in the Western Cotton Area two-person Negro fa■ ilies
were ■ost ca-on (21 percent) followed by three, four and oneperson faailies in the order naaed. These two to four person
fa■ ilies were largely young fuilies and appeared to be a group
of recent ■ igrants into the area. It does not follow that there
were no large Negro fa■ilies on the relief rolls, however. As
a ■atter of fact, in the Western Cotton Area
percent, and in
the Eastern Cotton Belt 25 percent, of the faailies included 6
or ■ore persons.
,o
TAIi.i
NUMIII OP
l"IIIOfll
.....
TOTAL
Au
3.
Siu
0,
FAMILlla R1c11wu, RILllf
,.,....
Su,ua
OZAi•
Owto
1.ACNIAII
LUI
eu,-
...., •..•..,., ..,.
SNolT GIAU
-•n111
Eaan ■•
Cono,,
Cono■
S,1111•
• •• ltO
"""'
l,3<17
,_,,.r
6 ...................
10,771
1,062
1,,1q
l, 721
1,672
1,q26
l.108
2,167
61
232
318
317
29q
29q
7 ...................
822
228
60cl
'74
17'
112
1'8
ALL fAMILIII••••••••• •••
1•••••••••••••••••••
2 ...................
,...................
.,....................
...................
8...................
9 ...................
JO 00 - . . . . . . . . . . . .
Al.I.
FAMIL'III •••• ••. ••• ••
...................
,,1...................
...................
,'···················
...................
6 ...................
7 ...................
8...................
-
1,7,e
Jll
260
2!19
260
205
151
Ill
72
119
62
l ,11
llO
172
2)2
219
185
141
9'
100.0
IOO.O
8.,
i,.1
15.4
16. 7
10.n
10.8
7.2
110.0
2.8
IO. 7
1,.6
1q.6
15.6
13.6
i,.o
1,.9
15,0
1,.0
7.5
,.6
8.0
,.2
6.4
,.1
2.8
,.6
9 ...................
JO o■ 111101 ...........
5.,
•• 5
W.01A■ S111 •••••••••••••
4,2
,.o
42
,..,.,,..,
100,0
9,9
lq. l
16.0
1,.,
i,.2
I). 5
7.6
11.,
70
11.,
,.a
,. 7
77
,.,
,.2
5,9
,.3
16,
3'7
,78
2,007
800
164
,0
21
a,
29,
98
"'
183
2'3
221
187
126
121
86
•3
,2
3111
191
129
86
65
61
IOO.O
8. l
1,. 7
17.8
18.9
10. 2
9.,
6,q
..,
,. l
3.0
•. o
12'
126
115
I05
72
!lO
27
'12
27
2,
IOO.O
6.2
12.,
1,.6
i,. 7
lQ.4
1', l
9,0
6.,
3,4
,.o
IOO.O
12.e
20. 7
..,
ID
17
9
8
5
10
16.,
1,.0
6. l
,.,
W.4
•• 9
,.o
6.1
,.,
l)n.0
6.,
i,.6
18.8
16.,
13,9
9,'
9,0
6.4
,.2
,.1
,.2
··1,2'7
211
:1110
180
121
llO
105
67
!19
"
'6
IOO.O
21.9
19.,
1,.6
11.,
8.9
8.,
,.,
,.8
2. 7
,. 7
5.1
Further evidence that IK>re aature f•ilies were receiving!
relief in the Spring Wheat than in the Winter Wheat Area is the
difference in fa■ ily size in the two areas. Although fuilies
of four occurred ■ost frequently in both areas, the Spring Wheat
Area had ■ore faailies of each size fro■ six up to ten- or ■ore
persons. In the Western Cotton Area the white faailies receiving relief were si■ ilar in size to those in the Spring Wheat
1.u lndtcated &bon, 1Gae or Ui.8ee ane-perllOII tatlleewr8 not lio!IO/u. talllH,
bat ...d per11011a Unng wtUI ta111H not rece1'f1.D& reuet, mo were repc,rted ~
the rel18f ac•ctu u oae-p81'800 e&ee8.
Digitized by
Google
Tl! JANILIIS 11c11,11e ULllf
Area bat there vu a couiderably lliper perent.• of failiea
of fNII six to eight peraoas ad fewer oae-penoa failiea.
aong white failies in the Eastern Cotton Belt, failiea of
three persons appeared .,.t fre1p1ent.ly (19 percent) followed 'bJ
failies of four, five and two peraoas in the order naaecl. 'lhe
contrut between the types of white ad leero f•iliea recehing relief in this area was strildac and illutrates the difference between the socio-econcaic position of the two IJ"OIIPS·
'ftle white fuilies were larply noral. in type, alaost one-half
of thea consistine of husband ad wife with ou to foar children, 'ftle naber of oae-person failies receinac relief 11110ng
the whites vu less thu oae-third of that for Me,roes and the
Daber of two-person fuilies 6 percent less. ,Aeed WOiien, widows vi th children and extreaely lu,re f uilies aede up the bulk
of the Negro f•ilies receinac relief, vbile aac>ne the whites
the aajority of the fuilies were aoraal fuilies containine
able-bodied workers. Wbetber Neero f•ilies containing •le
workers foancl it easier to pt. -.,loyaent or whether they found
it necessary to take jobs which the vbites retued vu not evident..
'lhe contrast between the size of the failiea receivine relief ii the Lab States Cut,..()yer ad Appalachia--Osark Areu is
indicative of the differences ia their socie>-econcaic orp11ilatioa, '!here were six ti.Ms u may f•ilie• coasistine of
0
-..terson ad 4 percent aore tlfC>-P8HOII f•iliu ia the Lake
Stat.ea Oat-Owr ha. !lie proport.i• of f•iliu of three to
fi-~e persons wu alllost identical, bat there were !O percent
llore f•ilies of six or aore persoas in the Appalachia-Ozark
Area. 'Ibis difference was due to the larser naaber of f•ilies
child-producing ace and the veater tendency to "double up"
111
the Appalachian-Ozark Area vbere 11ed penons usually found
&llllct.uary in the hoaes of relatives ud seldoa appeared on the
l'elief rolls except as M11bers of the household of a son or
.
d~ter.
Although direct coaparisons cannot be aade, coatrast of the
~erege (aedian) size of f•ily receivine relief with that of
"11 rural fara and ra.ral n~fani fuilies of typical states of
el.ch area in 19,0 (Table X) reveals definite differences uone
the areas. The fuilies receivine relief in the Appalachian- '
<¾ark, Sprinc Wheat and Winte-- Wheat Areas and the white fu- -1
ilies in the Western Cotton Area were larger thu the average
?f'
Digitized by
Goo~le
44
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
for the area. It was in these areas that the highest percentages of normal families occurred among those receiving relief
(Table X).
Faailies receiving relief appeared to be of about average
size for the area in the Lake States Cut-Over Area, uong the
Western Cotton Area Negroes and the Eastern Cotton Belt whites.
The Negro faailies receiving relief in the Eastern Cotton Belt
were smaller than average. This was partially due to the fact
that aged persons, receiving relief, while living in fa■ ilies
not on relief, were often reported as one-person faailies. However, the nuaber of bona ftde families on relief which consisted of one woman, or of a 110ther with young children, was large
aaong Negroes in this area.
C.
Age Coaposition of the FMille1
The age composition of the fuilies illustrates in a rough
way the probable nU11ber of dependent persons in thea, dependency
being interpreted as a consequence of ate and vouth. It is of
the first i11portance, therefore, that less than one-fifth of the
faailies receiving relief in the 65 counties surveyed included
persons 65 years of age or older and only 4.4 percent contained
■ore than one person of this age group (Table 4). About threequarters of the persons 65 years of age or older, were the heads
of fa■ ilies, and in the ■ajority of the cases the only person
of this age in the fa11ily i.e., the families consisted of one
person 65 years of age or older, alone or with other persons of
younger age. The percentage of persons 65 years of age or older
who were heads of families was largest a11ong Negroes in the
Cotton Areas (82 and 85 percent), and &11ong the fa11ilies in the
Lake States Cut-Over Area (81 percent). In contrast, uoog the
whites in the Eastern Cotton Belt, about 59 percent of the persons of this age were family heads. For the three re■ainiog
area groups, the percentage was, Appalachian-Ozark Area and
'Western Cotton Area whites 67 percent, Spring Wheat Area 68 percent, and 'Winter Wheat Area 71 percent.
Each ten families receiving relief included an average of two
persons €5 years of age and older, but in the Spring Wheat Area
the average number was about one in ten fa11ilies, in the Lake
States Cut-Over Area three in ten, and 1111ong the Negroes in the
Eastern Cotton Belt, four in each ten fa1111ies. The average
Digitized by
Google
45
THE FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
naber of persons 65 years and older in fuilies containing perin this
group was twelve per each ten f•ilies.
,..... , "·
c.. ,,, ••
Lui
S-Ou Gusa
.....
✓ .,,
., , , ,,,,,,_'••son
eo , ro •
TotM.
Co u o•
. _ , ....... su,u
,.
cw,5'••-,
... ,,,
•
SODS
..... ...
,\4t C.C..os1r10• 0, FM111LIII Q1c:1, v 1 ■, RILIIP
L&e• I A ■
&au.a
°'""
o, ....
o.u
..... •..-··.
1--e.,u
11..L F• r &.tts• ••• •• • •• •••
0 •. ..•. • ••.•. • • •••• •.•
1• . .• . .. •••.•.•••...••
2 .. . . . . . . • •.•••. • ••. .•
, oa 1110t1 • • •••• • • •• • ••
100 . 0
81.•
111. 2
..'
100.0
85.•
11 . 9
• •1
100 . 0
19. •
11 . 1
• .9
100 . 0
100 .0
11,. l
11 . ,
l.l
86. •
0. 1
0. 1
1h11 fl
of,_,,, ••
,.,
0. 1
10. 0
...
.....
100. 0
~ -0
100 . 0
ltt••o
100 . 0
17.8
1¥. 2
100. 0
8 1. 2
12 ...
0 .6
0.2
:19. '
,. I
0. I
100.0
2'. 8
16. J
18. 9
II . I
11 . 1
100 .0
58. 9
100.0
100 .0
14 \ .?
6.,
1• .2
10 . ,
8. 7
, .1
"'·"
18 .~
n .,
• -9
•·l
,.o
.. ..,
,.,
11 .,
,
~,.1
......
P1 ■ S01t1
u... • 16 Yuaa
- - • o,
Ai.L f•ILIII,., , ., •• , • • •
0 ••••••••••.. . •••. • . ••
1. ..• . .•• •• ..• . .. •. •• •
..... . ·········· .....
,,............
·········
2 • •• ••• • • • ••• • • •• •• •• •
100 . 0
"·'
16. 9
16 .0
12.6
100 . 0
20. 8
1,. 0
1, . 2
.,.
.. ,
11. 6
,.1
9.9
,.,
, .e
100.0
.
owl'■ ••
,..........····· .. ....
9. 6
l oa ..oet •• • ••••••••• •
6 •.•..• .• ••. .• •••• • •• •
6. 2
,,.o
100.0
100. 0
1,.2
i, . 1
18. 0
1,. I
12.,
1. 9
•LO
.,...
11.,
6. 8
6. l
0.2
100. 0
:19.9
19. 2
18 . 6
12. I
9 .2
, .8
,.,
1- .a
1".a
12.0
8. '
..,.,.
11. 2
9. 1
~- I
e.,
•.O
2. 6
, .o
100 . 0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
IOO.O
100.0
100.0
100.0
18 . 8
12. !
20.•
21.0
lO . !
11.•
2' - 1
18.l
19. 1
62. 7
71.1
,,. 0
64.'
66. 1
69.6
12 . 1
6,. 1
Ol .6
, .9
8. 1
•.I
, .1
,.o
,.6
8. 6
.;. 2
10. 6
12.6
8. ,
16 . 1
11.0
9. 6
10 . •
11.6
10.6
20 . \
2. 7
•.9
2. 6
1. 9
D11ra 1111110• 06
Dotaor.r Au
"'-••
"-L F•t&.111 •••••••••••••
FMltLIII HY1•~!
Mo PUS.O•S v •H• }6
~
o.... .
.... °"
....
l'usoas ..... 16
aur
IIO•
llt•so••
6' ....
11 . . . •
HS.
16 ..,., _
.,.&, ..., ....... O"•••
Pt•ta.• &, ...... ....
Oft ■ NT IICNll lfNU
16
-._, . . TU.■ 0.0, "IICUT •
•1111 . . . . . . 01 f ' I • - - . . . . .
T•.n 0, H"-- ■t C ■ IL. . . . ■:
16
'flMt
0,
NI IIIQ.Wlill f'l ■ IO. . WtlON IUTH II IIQT
f■ II ACCOll■fl , . , •
.Vf'Ml ■ T •11CHf'A■c't' NfWII ■
f.t.a.u 2 • • •·
As toymmg depaadeats, aboat 69 perceat ot tbe f•iliu Nceiving relief included persons mtder 16 years of 118· TIie nerap maber of children under 16 years of ace per faaily iacluding perSODS in this a,e aroap 1rSS biehut ia the Appalachiu-Ozark Area <,.!) udlowest in the Winter Wheat Area (!.7);
the other area averages rqed froa ! . 9 to , .1 vi th tbe Western
Cotton Negro fuilies averaeina bichest and the Eastern Cott.OIi
vhi tes ud Lake States Cut-Over f•ilies the lowest. About oa►
fourth of all the fuilies included fov or ac,re cbildra UDder
16 years of age, the proportion ~ n g froa about oa►third of
the Appalachiu-Ozark fuilies and over OD► fourth of the Western Cotton white f•ilies to 18 percent of the Lake States CatOver f•ilies (Table 4). Host bf the variation aona the areu
ill the average nuaber of children was due to the vviatioa. ia
the unber of faailiea coataininc children rather tha to the
variation in the nuaber per · f•ily with children.
Digitized by
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM ARIAS
46
Taking the old and the YOIUII t<J1ether, it appears ti.at aboat
65 counties
contained one or 110re persons noraal.ly dependent upon others
for support (persons under 16 years of age and 65 years and
older). Seven-eighths of the Appalachian-Ozark faailies included nol'llally dependent persons, as coapared with about threefourths of the Lake States Cut-Over and Western Cotton Negro
faailies, four-fifths of the 'Wheat Area and Eastern Cotton Negro
failies and approxillately five-sixths of the white fuilies in
the Cotton Areas (Table 4). As in the case of children, the
differences between areas in the average nuaber of noraal. dependents was largely a result of differences in the proportion
of faailies containing nonaally dependent persons.
further light is thrown on the type of faaily receivina relief by an ex•ination of the c011binations of persons under 16
years of age and 65 years of age and over existing in each fuily. Approxiutely 69 percent of the faailies contained children under 16 years, 6, percent of which included no persons 65
years of age and over, and 6 percent, both children under 16
years and persons 65 years and older. Aged persons and children
under 16 years in the sa11e faaily occurred 110st frequently aaona
Negroes in the Western and Eastern Cot ton Areas ( 9-11 percent
of all faailies), the failies of the Appalachian-Ozark Area
(8 percent) and the white faailies of the Eastern Cotton Belt
(6 percent). In the reaaining area groups, less than 5 percent
of the f•ilies were included in this c011bination of age groupa.
failies containina persons 65 years of age and older but no
persons under 16 years were aost coaon aaong the Eastern Cotton
Belt Negro faailies (24 percent), the Lake States Cut-Over Area
faailies ( 17 percent), and the Western Cotton Area Negro fuilies ( 14 percent), and least frequent uong the faailies receivi111 relief in the Appalachian-Ozark Area ( 9 percent) for the
reason given earlier (Tables XI and XII).
81 percent of the failies receiving relief in the
D.
Incidence of Relief by Age
Children, young adults and persons 65 years of ace and older
were receiving relief ■ore frequently than persons 25 to 64
years of age in ■ost of the areas. In all areas, children under
10 years of age appeared in the relief group in greater proportion than in the general population; in all except the two Wheat
Areas and the Western Cotton Area, white persons Miil1HvU .
~ le
TB! fAMILIIS R!CEIYIJG RELIEf
47
and over were receivin, relief oat of proportion to their au.
bers in the pneral population in 19,0. Adolescents and young
adults, 10 to U years of 11e, appeared on the relief rolls in
slightly greater proportion than their nuabers in the total
white population of the saae coanties in 19,0.
The relief population in the Appalachian-Ozark Area coutiea
was ac,re nearly of the saae age ud sex co.position as the general population than in any other area. 1he 1roup receiving
relief was al110st a cross-section of the total population except
for an excess of aged nles. Despite the fact that children
under 10 years of age were not receivine relief in nch ,reater
proportion than their mmbas in the population, about on~third
of all persons receivin, relief were under 10 years of age.
Although only about !'/ percent of the persons receivine relief in the Lake States Cut.--Over counties were 11Dder 10 years,
the proportion of all children of this age on the relief rolls
in the counties surve,ed wu approxi■ately three out of every
10 (Table 5). Persons 65 years of age and older, both ale and
TULi '•
SI• &a AN Gao.•
'1ecallf&el
...
••••
ToT-.
D1ara. ■ 1tT1N IT
Ael ,._ Sl1 01 f'UIOWI ltCIIYlff stiL•t•
Ou• ■
l ..1
s,.,
•• s..o-, ......
c.,- s,,,, ..
.,
.... ..,.....
·•fl
-►
LACtllA■
0..1
-•fl••
(A l fll ■
eo,,o ■
... ,.
Cotto ■
. . . .0
N1&110
1011&. ••• • •• • ••••
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100 . 0
100.0
100.0
JOO , O
•1110 naa, ........
211.,
31. 7
2'. 7
26.8
31.7
,0.0
a.o
,o, l
'3,0
ID - :111 • ••• •• • ••• • •• •
,i . 1
,z.,
,o.o
'1 , 9
,i.,
25-•····••··•·····
19.7
19,1
z.,
z.,
21 . 2
"'·'
'2.1
17. 6
"·'
11 . ,
i, . 6
...... -
,0.1
21). 1
20.9
...
11.0
i,.1
11.7
8. 1
1.6
10 . 1
n.1
11 . 7
16.,
16.0
OYII . . .... . ...
5,6
1.1
1.,
1'-9
65 -
1,8
1.8
Ft11ALII -
TOTAL •• • • • • • • •
100.0
100.0
).00.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
- • 10 ........ ... ..
:19,l
,1.6
28. l
21.,
29.•
28.8
29 .8
27. 7
26.6
10- 211 .......... . ...
,2. 7
,2.9
29, 5
21.1
22.2
20.2
21.0
"·'
,0. 9
22.0
"·'
'2. 7
25- ............. . ..
"·'
,1.e
2, . 0
21.0
2,,q
19.6
., _"··············
11.6
10.5
u.o
1_, . ,
10.9
11.5
12. l
11 . 2
12.8
1. 6
5. 1
•.9
2. ,
,.o
6.2
e.8
II. I
., _ 61 . ........ . ....
"- -···········
,.
Yeaale, ■ade up a larger perceutace of the relief population
than for whites in any other area. 1he percent11e of ■ales 45
to 64 ,ears of age (16., percent) was higher than iu any other
area for either whites or Megroes. The large nuaber of persons
~ r 45 years of age on the relief rolls in this area is a reflection of the 11e distribution of the general population and
not due to an abnor■al.ly high relief rate for "rsoas o advanced age.
Digitized byGoog e
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
48
'ftle populations of the counties of the Wheat Areas and the
white population of the Western Cotton Area were characterized
by a relief rate higher than average for persons 10 to 24 years
of age and lower than average for persons 25 years of age and
over. In the Spring Wheat Area this was a result of the extre■e
drought situation which forced far■ers with older children onto
the relief rolls: 29 percent of all far■ owners were receiving relief and ■ any of the■ were ■en 45 to 64 years of age with
co.pleted families. In the other two areas the excess of persons 10 to 24 years of age receiving relief appears to consist
largely of young adults who ■ igrated into the areas io recent
years in search of employ■ent only to beco■e stranded there when
unable to find work. More than one-third of the persons receiving relief in these three areas were between the ages of 10
and ~4 years.
The Negro population receiving relief in both Cotton Areas
included ■ore aged persons, especially aged women, than any
other group. In the Western Cotton Area counties, persons 65
years of age and older were al11ost two and one-half ti■es as
0W1erous in the relief as in the general population. A similar
situation was found in the Eastern Cot ton Belt where women 65 years
of age and older were almost 4 ti■es ( and ■en j times) as nu■erous in the relief population as in the general population.
It is obvious from these data that an unduly large proportion
of aged Negroes were on the u.oe11ployaent relief rolls in the
Cotton Areas. The fact that this was true onlv CJlllont lletroes
roints to the socio-economic system of the Cotton South as the
causal factor. In the Appalachian-Ozark Area, in so■e parts of
which the cropper syste■ also exists, aged white persons were
on the relief rolls in ■uch greater n1111bers than in the iener!U#
population, but the excess there was ■uch s■aller than 1110ng
Negroes in the Cotton Areas. All infor■ ation iathered in this
study points to the fact that there has been considerable local
effort to get aged Negroes on the unemploy■ent relief rolls in
the South.
E.
Gainful Workers In the Fa~II ies
of gainful workers-especially ■ ales-in these
faailies has a direct relation to the prospect of the families
sustaining the■selves if given the economic opportunity. It is
therefore indicative of the fact that the final solution~ the {
The
nu■ber
Digitized by
og e
TB! fAMILI!S R!C!IVIJG RELllf
49
problea is 110re intricate than appears at first glance.
Although this survey included only f•ilies on the rolls of
govel"Dlental unaployaent relief agencies, 110re than 11 percent
of the faailies receiving relief included no gainful workers 16
years of age or older and an additional 8 percent no ■ale gainful workers (Table 6). In general, the areas with the l<n1est
TAILI
6.
...,....... .,......
•--•• ue Su
0#
Puc1 ■TA&I D11TIIIUTIO■ IT . . . . . . . . .
100.0
u.,
1 .......................
l F1111M.t ••••••••••••• •
51.5
2 ......................
9.0
2 Fl.MALIS •••••••• •·•••
1.1
l IIIALl ,HO 1 FIIIALI •••
10.6
2. 7
0.2
2.2
1.8
5
Ftlll.\l.ll. • •••••••••• •
l Fuw.. 1 •.
2 ..... · 2 flblALII a ■e l MN..1 ••
......................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.6
'6.9
•.I
12. 7
0.9
7.6
,.9
0.1
2.1
1.0
2.1
1•.•
1.•
62. I
6.,
LACNIA ■
6Atllf'UL llo,tst ■ I •• ••
' ......................
......, •........,..,
,,, .,..
Au
•••••
6.6
,.o
St•"'
Oua ■
LHI
$TUii
eu,-
62.8
,. 2
8.6
o.,
5.2
l. 7
0.1
I.•
0.9
I.•
SNO■ T
G&lffUL . ,. . . . ,
Anu•
()YU
TOTAL
ALL flMILIIS ••••••••••••
No
.
•• FAliULIII lhc.11wu•
Gun
SP• 1 ■ a
,.,
U.•
o.•
3.6
,.o
...........
2.•
o. 7
,. 7
eo,,o ■
N1&■ 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1i.9
•7 .6
6.0
8.9
1.2
11.9
,.6
15.•
9.9
:N.8
12.8
19.•
,.1
11.9
0.•
,.o
Eaa11 ■•
eo,ro ■
""'''
71.1
1.9
WtiSTI ■■
NIG ■ O
WN1
I
fl
..,.1' .. ,
26. 2
l!.O
,0.1
10. 7
27.•
0.6
1.6
2f!. 2
0.8
----•.1
·-o~, ----,.o
0.2
0.8
6. 7
1.9
3.9
,. 7
0.•
5.0
•.6
6.1
LO
~-6
22.9
o.,
O.G
,. 2
,. '
,.9
•4 •&,,111FUL IIOl. . l l , • U 1111 T•OW&NCHtt TNII llll'Ollt, II A ■ T PlllO ■ 16 YIAII OP Al,I Olt Ol.Dlll, WNO MAI
WOlhle r•1v1011Sl.T (Af OTNII , .... A IIOII llLIIP' JOI) . . . IMO ••• . ,••••• OIi UUI ■& wo■ II At , .., " " '
0, TNII INYIY (Jl ■ I 19'4). JtoullWIYII WNO IM 90NI . . . , ■o.llWOIC I ■ TNI II 0911 NOMII WIii IIOT CLAIIIP II• II &AIWIIL IKMICIII.
relief rates included the largest percentage of fuilies with
no 1ainful. workers. The lae States Cut-Over was U1 exception
to this generalisation, however, over 14 percent of the failies containina DO 1ainfal workers; only aaona Neve, failies
in the !astern Cotton Belt, where alaost !5 percent contained
no gainful workers, was this percent11e exceeded.
As 110st of the faailiq whicla included only one f e■ale pinful worker were failies consistine of a woaan with young children, the ■ajority of these failies were not bona ftde nneaploy■ent relief cases.
It is therefore likely that had a progra■ of aid for aged persons Uld dependent children been in operation in these areas, the n1111ber of faailies on the une■ploy
aent relief rolls would have been froa 10 to,, percent lower.
for exuple, the evidence indicates that nearly one-half the
Negro f111ilies in the !astern Cotton Belt and about one-fourth
of those in the Western Cotton Area would not have been on the
uneaploy■ent relief rolls if the states involved had ■ade coaprehensive provision for aid to ■others with children and the
aged. Moreover, about 21 percent of the white fa■ ilies receiving unaploy■ent relief in the Eastern Cotton Belt included no
gainful workers or only one fe■ ale gainful worker, and 17 percent of the white fa■ ilies in the Western Cotton Area and 18
percent of the fuili es in the Lake St ~~1~ 80C0~ a 0 ' rl" a fell
50
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
into this class. In the Wheat Areas similar cases accounted
for about 11 perc~nt of the families receiving relief; in the
Appalachian-Ozark Area, for about
percent.
However, the ■ ajority of the fa■ilies receiving relief in
all six areas included at least one ■ale gainful worker. The
proportion varied a11ong the areas fro■ 52 percent of the Eastern
Cotton Belt Negro families to 89 percent of the fuilies in the
wbeat Areas. Only in the Eastern Cotton Belt and among Negro
families in the Western Cotton Area was the percentage of families containing at least one male gainful worker less than 80.
More than one-fifth of the fBllilies in the Appalachian-Ozark
and Spring 'Wheat Areas and of the white fS11ilies in the Western
Cotton Area included 2 or ■ore ■ale gainful workers. Around 80
percent of the families containing one or ■ore male gainful
workers included only one male worker.
The largtlr percentRges of the families in the Cotton Areas
which reported one or ■ ore fe■ ale gainful workers in combination with one or ■ore ■ales is illustrative of the fact that
the f a■ ily is the labor unit in these areas. ln the other areas
the wife and daughtP.rs usually do only the ho11sework and incidental chores, leaving the far■ work to the husband and sons.
Even uong these fllllilies who were receiving relief only
percent in the Appalachian-Ozark, 10 percent in the Spring Wheat,
9 percent in the Lake States and fewer than 4 percent in the
Winter Wheat Area reported both ■ale and fe■ale gainful workers
in the S811e family. In the Winter Wheat Area where far■ ing is
■ost highly mechanized, the percentage of families with fe■ale
gainful workers was lowest, but in the Eastern Cotton Belt where
/-farming is largely hand work, 42 percent of the white f&11ilies
and 'fl percent of the Negro families reported both. ■ale and
fe■ale gainful workers. These differences will be an i■portant
factor in deter■ ining the type of rehabilitation progra to be
instituted in each area.
1,
1,
F.
Usual Occupation of Heads of
Fa■ lll11
1.
Reltef Rates. Indicative of the relief situation in these
areas is the occupational background of the heeds of fa■ ilies
on relief as shown by their usual occupation. In none of the
areas were far■ owners I fa■ ilies on the relief rolls in proportion to their relative nu■bers at the ti■e of the 1930 Census.
In all except the Cotton Areas the fa■ilies of f ~,;Jz&ie'"~
~ le
51
TBE PAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEf
croppers aade up a larger percentage or the relief load in June!✓-·,
1934 than they did of rural and town fuilies in the sue counties in 1930 (Table VI). In the Eastern Cotton Belt, bowever,l ·
white 1 cropper families were receiving relief in June 19~4 out >/
of proportion to their numbers in 1930, and the relief rate for
croppers and tenants in this area (based on the 19~0 Census)
was three ti.lies as high for whites as for NegrOfl~ (Table '7\
TAM.I 7. P[RC(JlfAC.l. Of F&WIL1£S RtC(IVIJIC. Ruu, Ill TNI
Cou•Ti'!S SuAVlYfO IT Tt•utt( Stuus 0, H(AOS o, F&11ILll!S
0CC!aPATION
o,
Ht AO Of
fAa,1L Y
Tor.u
APP.I-
j..Al(f
ALL
LACl'IIAIII
Sr.1r1s
lAtAS
0ZARI(
l't1111f(II
O._iu
l11[&T
"'"''"'
"" I ff
10
l7
22
2'
ll
2l
FaNIL l(S 11 ••••••••
13
2•
10
•o
21
0.•11:•s ••••••••..••••
12
1,
8
29
B
ftNA ■ TS ANO CROP'PE•S
10
•7
26
M
5l
Jrioff--fuu. FAWIL l[Se ••••
22
19
36
, . ,JUN!,
19~
r:,. ...
&p(IIC[IH l'AWILltS llfCEIVllllli l l [ L l l '
1111
19~-
,.twlLlf'
16
""'11[
1111 (A:'.K
NfHO
10
•
9
26
22
ISO'
COT TIJ•
ME~•o
,
J
g
II
21
I7
19
c.aou,
•
• NUlll!lt o, fAltU fAMILlf!
FAMILIES,
rAfTOlil
Jp11 I NG
ALL FAMIL 115 •• •. • • • • •• • •
E.•,TOII
W( ~Tf• ■
St1o•r G•os
cu,-
19~
A55Ullll!O
TO 91
1'11f
, .....,
. , 1111u1i1,iit:• o,
f.',1,AMfA"1:
5fCUlf.0 IT 5UITRACT1111G TOTAL f.UW(AS ,111ou TOTAL
11tt;111-,aAw
"AMILtlS.
This large difference between white and Negro relief rates did
not hold for other occupational groups. The rate for Negro
non-fan1 fuilies was greater than for whites. In the Lake
States Cut-Over Area, in the Winter Wheat Area and in the Cotton
Areas, a larger percentage of non-fani families (which included
fllMI laborer faailies) w~ receiving relief than fan1 fRllilies. 1
The percentage of fan laborer fuilies among the non-fant families receiving relief was highest (18 to 29 percent) in three
of the areas with high relief rates for non-farm families. Families of farm laborers, non-agricultural laborers and servants
and waiters 11ade up 52 to 65 percent of l.he non-farm families
receiving relief.
In alJ of the areas, with the exception of Negro families in
the Eastern Cotton Belt, the relief rates for farm owners' fam-~
ilies were lower than those for tenants and croppers. In fact_
in every area, except for Negro families in the Cotton Areas,
~1te, u used here, Includes all non-Negro groups. In tilts area 11e:i:tc111s !U't tile
on1.1·ot21.er noo-'lllllte group ot &111 111portance. Separate an&1,1s1sor the saall nuaber or Kextcans_ included did not 1nd1cate enough d1tterence between tllelr reuer
rates and occupat1011s and those ot t.be 111l1 tea to warrant treat111g t.ba u a aep-
f.:&t•
group.
As 1t WU tapoaalbl• to NClll'9 data fro. t.be 19~ Ceneus on the nuaber or t&I'II
laborer falllea, no rates coald be coaputed tor tllea aeparatel7.
Digitized by
Google
52
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
. fhe relief rate for tenants and croppers was more than twice
that for owners. The lower relief rate for Negroes in the Eastern Cotton Belt is especially striking end indicates that crop,pers and tenants found it difficult to get public relief during
i~he growing season, regardless of the per11anence of the job or
,f.he rate of reauneration. The lower relief rate for Negro than
/ for white tenants and croppers in the Eastern Cotton Belt inaicates that the Negroes probably obtain public relief in this
,area during the busy season to even a lesser degree than the
whites. 'That this difference in relief rates indicates less
need for relief &110ng Negroes is questionable.
2:- Occupattons Represented. Only in the Lake States Cut-Over
Area were the usual occupations of the heads of fuilies receiving relief chiefly non-agricultural. In this area the lareest single group on relief was non-agricultural laborers (25
percent); far11 owners were second in nU11ber (14 percent) followed by ■echanics ( 12 percent), ■iners ( 11 percent) and lu:■ber
■en, woodchoppers and rafts11en (6 percent) ('J'able XIII).
The
reaaining one-third of the fa■ ily heads reported a variety of
occupations, farm tenants, factory end railway employees end
fer■ laborers accounting for one-half of the group. The ■ ajor
ity of the f9111ilies receiving relief were therefore on the relief rolls because of loss of emplo)'lllent in the ■ining, l1111bering and wood-working industries of the area or because of the
loss of jobs in industry elsewhere: 21 percent of the faailies
had lived in the county in which they were receiving relief less
then five years.
From the standpoint of the usual occupations represented, the
relief problem in the Lake States Cut-Over Area in ,June 1934
was an agricultural one only in that many of those usually employed in non-agricultural industry had turned to agriculture
after losing the jobs which in normal times had furnished all
or the greater part of their incomes. There were relatively
few bona ftde farmers on the relief rolls in June 1934. The
drought of 1934, however, resulted in an increase in the number
of farmers recei'ving relief.
In the Spring Wheat Area far■ families ■ ade up three-fourths
of the relief load: 40 percent of the heAds of families were
fan1 owners end 35 percent fal'II tenants. 'The next largest group
were non-agricultural laborers, 8 percent. Only 2 percent were
far■ laborers, about one farm laborer family to each 45 farm
Digitized by
Google
---- -
---
.... -----
-
--
-·
-
-
-
tt
---·-
>"II
=
t-:1
~
>
::.a:
1-4
I
am.
IIIIIIINIII
tttttttt
111111111111
'_m9tp
1
·i:;;~
1
0
cci"
i'j"
""
~
~
L
.""""'
z:~~;~su~
=~~T~~E~VING
IN COUNTIES SURVEYED
0
0
-
FIGURE II:
~
I
·
RELIEF~tttttttt~
-- ttttf
\ \.J
\
~ _,. ....,I
\.
t""
1-1
r,a
Cll
"'
t-:1
("l
!WJ
1-4
~
1-4
:a=
C')
tllJ
"'
t""
1-1
..,
tllJ
USUAL OCCUPATIONS OF HEADS OF FAMILIES
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
RECEIVING RELIEF
( i)
'-11
-·
---- - - - - - - - - - -
~
54
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
fllllilies receiving relief. Yet on April 1, 1930 there were 18
farm wage .laborers per 45 farms in the counties surveyed. Although direct comparisons cannot be made between the two ratios
(one deals with families and the other with persons per fan1)
it is obvious that the number of farm laborers' f&11ilies receiving relief was very small in proportion to the nllllber of such
families which must have lived in these sa■e counties in 1930,
This points to the conclusion that the farm laborers had either
111oved to the cities or out of the area and the fact that 1111ch
of the farm labor in this area has been perforaed in the past
by migratory workers lends credence to this conclusion. Moreover, considerable numbers of far■ laborers fro■ this section
have been 1'eported in the transient camps of the F.!.R.A. In
this area, as in none of the others, the relief problea was one
for which agricultural conditions alone were al11ost solely responsible.
In the Winter \¥heat Area farm tenant families were the largest single occupational group on relief, with the farm owner
faailies next. These two groups made up 52 percent of the relief load and the far11 laborer families another 9 percent. The
relief rate for far■ers (owners and tenants) in this area was
only about one-half that for faniers in the Spring Wheat Area.
The relief rate for tenants in both the "Wheat Areas was ■ore
than twice that for owners. Non-agricultural laborers and•~
chanics (skilled and semi-skilled laborers) with 14 and 8 percent,respectively, were the only other individual occupational
groups in the Winter Wheat Area making up ■ore than 5 percent
of the relief load. The usual occupations of the heads o( the
remaining 17 percent of the families were varied. Non-fan1
families made up a larger proportion of the rural and town fuilies in this area (in 19j0) than in the Spring Wheat Area and
the relief rate for non-farm families exceeded that for far■
families. Tenant families, however, were receiving relief at
a higher rate than the non-farm group. The heads of ■ore than
one-fifth of the tenant families receiving relief in the Winter
~beat Area were unemployed in June 1934, as compared with less
than 10 percent in the Spring \¥heat Area (Table XIV). Crop failure due to successive dry years was a major cause of the high
relief rates and about 46 percent of all f911ilies-90 percent
of the farm families-were reported to be receiving relief because of crop failure. Unemployment of far■ers (i.e. actual
Digitized by
Google
TB[ JAMILllS R!C[IYING RELIEF
55
displaceaent), of fan1 laborers, and of non-agricultural workers was responsible for al.llost twice as ■any fuilies receiving
relief in this area as in the Spring Wheat Area.
In the Western Cotton .4rea 25 percent of those on relief were
tenants and approxiutely 7 percent each were far■ owners and
far■ croppers, while fan1 laborers' failies contributed 17 pe~
cent, bringine the total for those eneaged in 9i"iculture to 56
percent. Of the re■aining faailies, non-agricultural laborers
(16 percent), ■echanics (8 percent), and servants and waiters
(6 percent) accounted forthe ■ajorit;y. Unmploy■ent and drought
were the two ■aj or reasons for faailies receiving relief. About
90 percent of the ■ale heads of faailies who usnally worked as
far11 laborers and 11C>re than 90 percent of the ■ ale heads of all
other non-fana faailies were unaployed in Jone 19,4. Of the ;
I
far■ faaily heads, about
percent of the owners, 40 percent I
of the tenants, and al■ost 60 percent of the croppers were un-)
~ - Uneaployed far■ operators ■ade up about 20 percent
of all the unmpl6yed receiving relief. About 45 percent of the
fani operators were reported to be receiving relief because of
crop failure due to drought.
Cotton acreafe harvested in Texas and Oklabaaa in 1934 decreased about 7 percent fr011 19" but the nu■ber of bales of
cotton produced in 1934 was less than one-half the 19,, figure. - ;
The decrease in cotton acreage in this area 1 along with the in- ',
troduction ofaachine ■ethods in cotton far■ing has resulted in<
the displaceaent of ■any fU'llers. Migration into this area_,,,,r
fr011 other parts o( ·the country
percent of faailies had
■oved into the county in which they were receiving relief within
the past 5 years) which began in a period of expandine 91riculture appears to have continued after there was a decreasing need
for labor, for ■an, of the uneaployed f ar■ers and far■ laborers
were ■igratory workers who caae into the area for seuonal work
in the cotton fields and failin, to find it were without sufficient resources to enable tha to leave.
About 17 percent of the f•ilies receiving relief in the
Western Cotton Area were Negro fuilies. The unskilled laborer
group ( fani and non-agriculture! laborers and servants and waiters), which included 62 percent of all Negro fuilies receiving
relief, contained 11C>re than the average proportion of Negroes.
'°
<,o
1
0>tton &Cl'HCI 1D CltlallCIM ad 1'H&I hl4 dlCNllld lD 11l3' to 80 p1rc:eat ot tile
Ul25 (-.nam)
ltoat ot CIIU dlcllDI occurred betON tlll 14ffDt ot tilt
acnac•-
A.A.A, Procz-a. 'Dile
hOINIYtl'.
Prosra
PNYaltad a
lDCN&II lD &CN... hU'fta t.
Digitized by
0
7
8S.
56
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
Although the farm tenant families receiving reliefincluded less
than the average proportion of Negroes, the percentage of unemployed Negro tenants was less than for whites (Fig. 9).
The f'S11ilies receiving relief in the Eastern Cotton Belt were
largely fa•ilies of the wage-earning class, which depends upon
others for its employment. Most of the heads of families were
unskilled laborers ( including farm croppers). As in no other
area, families in occupations at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale predominated among both whites and Negroes: croppers, fana laborers, non-agricultural laborers, and servants
and waiters comprised 58 percent of all families receiving relief. Seventy-five percent of the Negro and 43 percent of the
white heads of fBlllilies receiving relief reported the above
group of usual occupations.
Although the percentage of fant operators' families receiving
relief in the Eastern Cotton Belt was identical (39 percent)
with that of the Western Cotton Area, the percentage of croppers
was greater and that of the tenants, smaller. The percentage
of owners and tenants among both Negro and white families receiving relief was only one-half that of the latter area. Nonagricultural laborers, and servants and waiters accounted for 15
percent of the families receiving relief, and mechanics, and
factory and railroad empl~yees, another 15 percent. This latter
group, consisting largely of skilled and semi-skilled workers,
was larger in this area than any other except the Lake States
Cut-Over where 19 percent of the family heads reported their
usual occupations in this category. The introduction of cotton
textile mills into the South during the present century has
provided some industrial employment. Lumbering and. the woodworking industry have also been important in some counties. As
the condition of the cotton growing industry is reflected in
employment in the cotton mills, the presence of a fairly large
industrial group on relief was to be expected.
Of the families receiving relief, 48 pe_rcent wer~-~~gr_Q___a_nd
the highest proportions of Negroes were in the unskilled laborer
clas:ies. The servant and waiter group was 91 percent Negro,
the non-agricultural labor group 65 percent, the f ani laborer
group 66 percent and the farm cropper group 49 percent. The low
percentages of Negro families were in the skilled labor groups
and among fara owners and tenants. In proportion t o ~
be~ in the counties surveyed in 19j0, al110st: on_~ and one-half
Digitized by
Google
THE FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
57
FIGURE 9
USUAL OCCUPATION OF HEADS OF FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF IN COTTON AREAS, BY RACE
EASTERN COTTON AREA
WESTERN COTTON AREA
PERCENT
"PERCENT
100
0
0-QNRS
T-TBWITS
C - CJU'l'ERS
Fl- FAIII LA11HAS
10
90
20
70
30
40
50
NM. - IOhtG!. I.AIDER
totf!-illNERS
16: - IEO!ANICS
F
- F ~ & R.R.
11111
60
tOIKERS
S - SERVANTS
IO -All OT\ERS
70
90
IIIITE
Digitized by
Google
58
SIX RURAL PROBLF.M AREAS
, ,l_i111es as aany white as Negro families were receiving _reli~f in
'th1s area. This difference in re_lief rates was pri11arily the
result of a low relief rate in June 1934 among Negro croppers.
The Appalachian-Ozark Area with al111ost as large a proportion
of its faailies on relief as the drought-stricken Winter Wheat
Area had a relief rate 1 aaong far■ faailies which was exceeded
only by that in the Spring Wheat Area, where 40 percent of all
faniers were receiving relief. Al■ ost one-fourth of the far■
fa■ ilies in the Appalachian-Ozark Area (15 percent of the owners
and 47 percent of the tenants and croppers) and about one-fifth
of all non-fana fuilies were on the relief rolls in June 19340f the heads of faailies receiving relief, 26 percent reported their usual occupation as fani owner, 10 percent as tenant,
23 percent as cropper, ■aking a total of 59 percent for fani
fuilies. An additional 2 percent were faf'III laborers. Of the
re■aining 39 percent, 11 percent were non-agricultural Jahorers,
6 percent ■ iners, 5 percent l1111ber11en, 3 percent mechanics, and
, percent factory and railroad employees. The other 11 percent
reported varied occupations, about one-half of the■ (largely
fe■ale heads of faailies) reporting that they had no usual occupation.
As these occupation figures indicate, the relief proble■ in
the Appalachian-Ozark Area is both an agricultural and an industrial one. 'ffle large nU11ber of farmers on relief and the
high relief rate for far■ers of all tenure groups in this area,
where econoaic conditions have not changed radically since 19,0,
indicate the chronic nature of the proble■ and the presence of
a ■arginal type of agriculture.
To say that 59 percent of the f&11ilies receiving relief were
far■ ers does not describe the occupational distribution of the
heads of fuilies in this area. The fanaers on relief practiced
part-ti■e agriculture and depended upon the lU11bering and ■ in
ing and woodworking industries for suppleaentary incoae. In
this respect the faner on relief was in ■uch the s811e predica.■ ent as his fellows in the Lake States Cut-Over Area. However,
the far■ er of the Appalachian-Ozark Area is of an indigenous
stock and has always considered hi■self a fanaer and bis other
job a sideline. He has a si■ple standard of living and is never
1.u these rates are based on the 19:'!0 PoPlll•tloo, It ta probabl7 tbat tll•T an
_....., bllbi there baa been aoaa retum of tall1ea to Ulla area l'l'OII c1tlN.
'ftle blltl rate or populat1oo 1ncreaa• la thte ~ -.ld alao IDCN&M Ula malla'
or C•1llea and ttwe 1Ddlcate a lO!Nr rate than Ula oa• S1 na.
Digitized by
Google
THE FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEf
59
far fro111 the bare subsistence level of living as measured by
modern standards. Unlike the tenant, and particularly the cropper of the cotton fields, he has not been, in the past, subservient to a landlord class. He is willing to fend for himse If
if given a chance, but is just a bit bewildered by his sudden
introduction in recent years to the ceaplexities of our ■odern
industrial syste11 and is often unable to cope with it. This
area is a definite culture area as well as a geographic region
or type of farming area. The far■er of this area is "the ■ an
with the hoe" who learned to depend on modern industry for partial support only to learn of its undependabili ty when it was
too late to look elsewhere.
3. Sex of fa11tzv Beads tn lach Usual Occupatton. Of the r...
ilies receiving relief in the 65 counties surveyed, 14 percent
had fe■ale heads, the percentage for whites varying •ong the
six areas froa 7 to 17 percent. For Negro fa■ il ies in the Western and Eastern Cotton Areas the percentages were 22 and 40,
respectively (Table XV). Outside the Cotton Areas, only in the
Appalachian-Ozark Area was the percentage of fe■ ales aong fa■ily heads who were usually fani owners greater than 6, and the
percentages of fe■ ale heads 8JK>Dg tenants and croppers was even
smaller. One of the lowest proportions of fe■ ale heads of faailies (8 percent) was in the area with the highest relief rate
(Spring Wheat) and the largest proportion (10 percent) in the
area with the lowest relief rate: the Negro faailies of the
Eastern Cotton Belt. The ■ajority of the fa■ilies with feaale
beads were broken fuilies, consistine of a wo■ an and her children. As faniine in the Cotton Areas is a fuily task, the loss
of a husband and father is not as ■uch a handicap as in a ■ore
co■plex econo■,y where wo■ en seld011 work in the fields.
As a
result, fani fuilies with feaale heads were ■ore frequent.
Only in the Cotton Areas were fani faailies with fe■ale heads
on relief in greater nu■bers than their proportion of all heads
of fa■ilies in the SllllPle states indicated in 1930. Other data
at hand indicate that •ong Negroes ■any of these were aged
feaales no longer ab le to secure contracts as ·croppers nor to
live as ■e■bers of another cropper fa■ily's household because
of the landlord's refusal to "furnish" any but the i•ediate
■e■bers of the cropper's f•ily. In the absence of relief ■ any
of these vo■ en would have been cared for by the landlord group.
Under a syste■ which gives the cropper so little return that he
Digitized by
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
60
D1Ust depend upon his landlord to advance him enough food to enable him to make a crop, it is difficult for him to care for
elderly members of his household. If the landlord refuses to
advance him enough food to support the extra person, he has no
choice except to allow his aged relative to apply for relief.
Comparisons of the percentages of farm families with female
heads ( 1930) in typical states in each area with the percentage
of female heads among farm families receiving relief in June
lQ'-34, in the counties surveyed in each area, appear below:
....,,.
Rll 11, FAIIIILIII U
DwlilT 111 SlfllYUID
19'!0
U,-ALACP11AJl-0lAIIIIC
Jtt15T \lllllilJIIA •• , ••, •• , , •••• ,, , •••• ,. ••• ••
..
... ,,., -................................ .
S,,111 NG WttlAT
Sol,T" DAKOTA,••••••,••••••,••••••,,••••••
MANIAS,,,,,,••••••••••• • •••• • ••••••••••••
WaSTIIIII CoTTON
Ttu,1
7
WH!Tl,, ••• •••, ,. , , •••• •••• •••• •••••,
N1"110 •• ,, , ,,, •••••· •••••••·• ••• ••• ,,
... ,,,,,, ... ,
1'
EAlfUtt Cono•
lttt1T!,, , , , , , , , , , , , ••••, ,, ,, , , , , , , , , ,
•.. ,•...............................
NIGIIIO,,,, ,, , ••• •• ••, ••, •• • ••••• ••• • •
6to11s1,
N1•110 •••••• , •• •••••• •••••••••· •••,.,
'
11
'
27
6
12
About 94 percent. of the heads of f•ilies reported as having
no usual occupation were wo■en who had no eaploy■ ent save that
of housework in their own homes. One-fourth of the female heads
of families receiving relief fell in this category. Host of the
385 fe■ale heads in this classification, in the 65 counties
surveyed, were in the A~palachian-Ozark and Lake States Cut-OVer
Areas where 41 and 55 percent, respectively, reported that they
had no usual occupation.
The only usual occupation reported by many female beads was
that of servant or waitress (including all domestics) which
included 20 percent of all female heads. Of those reporting
this occupation, 84 percent were female and 16 percent ■ale
heads· of families. Other occupations including more than the
average percentage of female heads of families were "clerical
worker or salesman", the professional and proprietor group, and
farm laborers.
-'· Ate of Heads of Famtl tes tn Each usual Occupatton. As abost
three-fourths of the families receiving relief in the 65 counDigitized by
Google
THE fAHILitS RECEIVIMG RELIEF
61
ties were nonaal. faailies, the age of the tuily head is a useful index of fuily ca.position. One-half the ■ ale heads of
f•ilies receiving relief in the 65 counties were under 44 years
of age and one-half of the fe■ale heads were under 50 years of
age. 'nle average age o{ white ■ale f oily heads ranged fr011 42
years in the Eastern Cotton Area to 47 .5 years in the Lake States
Cut-OVer Area; for Negroes froa 4,.5 years in the Western to
49.0 years in the [astern Cotton Belt. In all except the white
fa■ ily group in the Western Cotton Area, fe■ale heads of {a.
Hies were, on the average, 4 to 7 years older than the ■ale
heads. Approxiaately 7 percent of all ■ ale and 5 percent of
all fe■ale heads were ander 25 years ot a,e and
percent of
the ■ales and
percent ot the fe■ales were 65 years ot age or
older (Tables m and MI).
In the Appalachian-Ozark Area, one-halt ot the tU'II owners
were under 48 years of ace, one-half the croppers 1111der '9 years,
and one-half of the no1H1gricultaral laborers auder 40 years.
'lhe average age of ■ale fU'II owners recei'vine relief in this
area was less than 1D ~ other area, and only for the Western
CottOD Area whit.es was the awreae age of both croppers and DODagricaltaral laborers as low. 'Ibis is partly he to the type
of faail,y orsaiutiOD; aced persona iut.ead of livinc as separate f•ilies were fond livinc vitlt tu fatly of a eoa or
daqltter. As a result fewer persons over 65 years of 91e were
receiving relief in this area, and the naber of aced persons
per faaily receivine relief was aaller thu, for exuple, lllll>DC
Negro fa■ ilies in the Cotton Areas. 'lhe seriousness of the
UDe11plo,-ent proble■ in the Appalachiu-Ozark Area lies in the
fact that such a large proportion of the uneapl07ed were yoq
adults who had never had an opportunity to earn their own liYing. One-fourth of the ■ale fa■ily heads receiving relief were
under ,2 years of age and ■ore than three-fourths under 51 years
or age. The ymmger f•ily heads were usually croppers, tenants,
or anskilled laborers.
In the Lake States Cut-Over .Area the aver91e age ranaed fr011
55.5 yeara for fU'II owners to 4,.5 years for non-•icultur&l
laborers. 1 'ftle yoqest occupational eroup ■ade up the largest
proportion of the relief load; the oldest eroup the second largest. Lu■beraen, ratts■en and wood-choppers receivine relief
1,
i,
1
DclUlft of tan lallo1'91'8 ao &ftl'qltdOQlJ 88 7eanot ... but RN a Nl&URU
IMl1 ll'OUP, &CCIIUlltllla tor ODl7 CIIO percmt ot Ult failUI rtCtl'fllll nlltt.
Digitized by
Google
62
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
averaged 54. 5 years of age. This group and the aged farm owners
accounted for most of the unemployable males on the relief rolls.
Moreover, the average male family head receiving relief in this
area was older than the average white family head of any other
area.
In the Spring Wheat Area the average age of male farm owners
was 51 and of tenants 40.5 years. In the Winter Wheat Area the
average age of owners was 50 years and of tenants 39 years. As
relief rates for tenants in these two areas were more than twice
those for owners, it follows that young farmers were more frequently receiving relief than older and presumably better established ones. This fact is of considerable importance because of
the probable necessity for aiding families in these areas to
relocate in more favorable areas.
In the Western Cotton Area the average age of the male heads
of families receiving relief was 43.5 years, for both whites
and Negroes. However, the average Negro owner and cropper was
older than the white, but the average age of the Negro ■ale fa....
ily heads who were usually farm laborers was 37 years, 5.5 years
younger than for whites in this occupation. As in the Winter
1'heat Area the younger family heads receiving relief were largely unskilled laborers and these younger families were, to a
large extent, recent migrants into the area. Most of them were
uneaployed in June 1934 and were living as squatters wherever
they could find a vacant shack to house themselves. In this
area there were more families literally stranded due to a failure to find e■ploy■ ent in agriculture than in any other.
In the Eastern Cotton Belt the average age of white ■ale
heads of families receiving relief was lower than in any other
area, except Winter Wheat, and that for Negroes higher than for
any other area among either whites or Negroes. Among male f&11ily heads the youngest were farm laborers or non-agricultural
workers. There was little difference in the average ages of
whites and Negroes usually employed in non-agricultural occupations, practically all of the variation in average age occurring among those usually engaged in agriculture. This difference means that the families of young Negroes, who were usually
employed as farmers and farm laborers, were not on the relief
rolls to the same extent as the whites. The whites were a ■ore
migratory group than the Negroes, and more of them were without
employment in June 1934. This may explain to some degree the
Digitized by
Google
THE FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
higher relief rates for white far■ faailies but the differences
in the ages of the two groups suggest that there was s011e discr.iaination in favor of white families in the granting of re·lief. This belief is supported by the difference in the relative 8110unts of relief given to the two groups (Table VIII).
G. Occupational Shifts and Current E•ployMnt
Status of Nale Heads of Ful I lea
Actual unemployaent as a "cause" for relief varied inversely
to the nearness of the fa■ ilies to the land. Although the far111
owners receiving relief were not uneaployed in the sa■e sense as
the wage workers, they were probeb~y in just as dire need of
help. Because of their control over the capital and land which
they worked and the fact that they were not without s011e work,
they were ■uch less a social proble■ than the laborer who depended entirely upon others for an opportunity to work. Only
48 percent of the ■ale heads of households receiving relief were
· uneaployed in June 1934, i.e., they had no work (exclusive of
work relief) at any ti■e during the ■onth, far■ operators being
considered ellJ)loyed if operating a far■ even thoueh drought ■ade
it i■possible to ,row a crop. About 42 percent of all ■ale
heads were eaployed at their usual occupation, 10 percent at
so■e occupation other than their usual one.
Far■ owners were
110st frequently e■ployed at their usual occupation (86 percent),
followed by tenants, croppers, fal'II laborers and non-agricultural workers in descendina order, only six percent of the latter
group being so e■ployed (Table XVIII). Although the proportions
eaployed at their usual occupations varied widely fr011 area to
area, the order indicated above held for all areas.
Only 10 percent of the ■ale far■ owners by usual occupation
were une■ployed in June 1934, and only in the Cotton Areas was
there an indication of actual displaceaent of far■ owners. As
fara owners ■ade up 7 percent or less of the relief loads in the
Cotton Areas, this displace■ent was a relatively ■inor factor
i-11 the relief situation in all of the areas. On the other hand,/
displace■ent of tenants and croppers was a ■aj or factor in soae ' ,,
of the areas. Twenty percent of all ■ale fa■ily heads who were(_
usually e■ployed as tenants were UDellJ)loyed in June 19,4. In ),
the Western Cotton Area, where tenant fa■ilies ude up 25 percent of the relief load, 45 percent of the white and 2, percent
of the Negro ■ale tenants were une■ployed. 'nle ■ajority of
Digitized by
Google
64
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
these displaced tenants were st.ill living in houses or shack!; as
squatters, but. were unable to secure work of any kind and were
without sufficient resources to move elsewhere. There were also
a considerable number of unemployed tenants receiving relief in
the Winter Wheat Area. Farm tenant families made up almost onethird of those receiving relief and about 21 percent of the ■ale
heads of families in the latter area who were usually faI'II tenants were without employment.. Repeated crop failure, due to
drought, had forced many tenants into bankruptcy and off their
fanrs. Although a large percentage of the tenants receiving
relief in the Lake States Cut-Over and Eastern Cotton Areas were
unemployed, this did not represent the displacement of 11any
able-bodied families. In the former area less than 6 and in the
latter only 8 percent of the families receiving relief were usually tenants. Moreover, other data at hand indicate that more
than one-half of them were aged family heads no longer able to
work.
The most extensive displacement of farmers had occurred among
the croppers of t};e Eastern Cotton Belt. About 25 percent of
all family heads receiving relief were croppers and 57 percent
of the white and 49 percent of the Negro male heads of cropper
,families were unemployed in June 1931• In addition, another 9
1
percent had become farm laborers and non-agricultural workers,
making a total of two-thirds of the whites and 58 percent of the
1 Negroes who had been
displaced from their farms (Table XVIII).
About 75 percent of the whites and 50 percent of the Negroes
were the heads of families considered capable of self-support
by the local relief workers, indicating that at least 45 percent
of the white and one-third of the Negro cropper families receiving relief were families displaced fro■ their farms for reasons
other than absence of persons in them able to work. A siailar
situation existed in the Western Cotton Area, but cropper families made up only 7. percent. of the relief load in that area
·where most of the farmers on relief were tenants, many of whom
as indicated above also had been displaced from their farms.
Almost three-fourths of the male heads of families receiving
relief, who were usually farm laborers, were unemployed in June
1934. The proportion varied from a low of 41 to 43 percent in
the Appalachian-Ozark and Lake States Cut-Over Areas to a high
of 86 to 89 percent in the Spring and Winter .wheat. and._Western
Cotton Areas. In the Eastern Cotton Belt approximately twoDigitized by
Google
THE FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
65
thirds were uoe■ployed. Like the tenant and the cropper in the
Winter Wheat and the Cotton Areas, the far■ laborer, too, had
lost his job because of drought and the adverse econ011ic condition of agr.iculture, and the change to ■achine ■ethods in soae
areas. Inth~Appalachian-Ozark and Lake States Cut-Over Areas,
both poor land regions, 41 and 30 percent, respectively, of the
fara laborers had becoae owners, tenants and croppers, and 19
and 26 percent were still e■ployed as far■ laborers. For no
fara occupation group in any area was the nu■ber that had shifted to non-agricultural occupations as ■uch as 4 percent of the
total nu■ber of faniers e.nd far■ laborers receiving relief.
The shift fro. non-agr.icultural to agricultural e■ploy■ent,
however, was quite pronounced in the Appalachian-OZark and Lake
States Cut-Over Areas. None of the other areas, l!xcept the Eastern Cotton Belt, showed any noteworthy shifts of this character.
The sbifi to agriculture was ■ost i ■portant in the Lake States
Cut-Over, both fro. the standpoint ot' the nu■ber of fa■ ilies involved and the percentage increase in the nu■ber of far■ers in
the group: 17 percent of all the ■ale heads of fa■ilies receiving relief and usually e■ployed in nou-~icultural occupations
were far■ing, and an additional one percent had beco■e far■ laborers. As the heads of ahost 80 percent of the ta■ilies receiving relief in thh area were usually eaployed in no~aer.icultural occupations this ■eans that approxi■ately 15 percent
of the heads of all fa■ ilies receiving relief had becoae agr.icultural workers in recent years, ■ost of the■ because of uneaploy■ent in their usual jobs.
So■e of t.hese fa■ilies already
owne~ land which was farmed by their fa■ilies while the fa■ily
head worked elsewhere. Since he had lost the job which was the
chief source of family inc<me, he was classified as a fanier.
The "fara" which was for■erly only an incidental source of incoae-a place to live, to grow a garden or truck patch and perhaps to pasture a cow or two and to raise a few chickens-beca■e
the fuily 's sole source of inc011e and subsistence. So■e of the
fmiilies did not own any land but were far■ing land belonging
lo others without the owner's knowledge or per■ission. Squatters, if they were far■ ing, wef'e classified occupationally as
fara owners.
'ftie Appalachian-Ozark shift to agr.iculture involved 41 percent of all ■ ale heads of households receiviJJi relief and usually engaged in non-a.rricultural pursuits. As about 40 percent
Digitized by
Google
66
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
of the fuily heads in this area were noraally engaged in nonagricultural pursuits, about 16 or 17 percent of all fuilies
receiving relief were involved, but the ratio of fuilies shifting into agriculture to those already there was saaller than in
the Lake States Cut-Over Area. Like the fuilies of the latter
area, aany of those who had recently beco■e faraers ■ade no
radical change either in their residence or their ■ode of living. Most of the• were fonierly employed in nearby ■ines, in
l1111bering operations, or in s■all factories. A shift to agriculture was to the Appalachian-Ozark family simply a retuni to
agriculture-to the traditional ■ode of living on which the culture of this area is based-in a neighborhood in which the fuily was "kin" to ■ost of the families living there. In this
latter respect the Appalachian-Ozark Area was sharply in contrast with the Lake States Cut-Over Area where there were few
fa11ily ties and many of the inhabitants past the age of 50 years
were i•igrants fro■ other sections of the country.
About 6 percent of both the white and the Negro ■ ale heads
of fa■ ilies in the Eastern Cotton Belt, who were usually in nonagricultural occupations, had agricultural jobs in June 1934Host of the "'hi tes were tenants and croppers, most of the Negroes, croppers and farm laborers. The other areas had so■e
occupational shift toward agriculture but the nU111ber of fa■ilies
involved was a relatively small part of the relief load.
H. Relation of Occupational Changes to Shifts In Residence
The occupational shifts of the heads of fa■ ilies receiving
relief were accompanied by a ■ove■ent of families between the
open country and villages and towns. In the Appalachian-Ozark
Area where the proportion of the heads of families who were
totally uneaployed in June 1934 was relatively saall, there was
little ■ove■ent of fa■ ilies receiving relief, either to or fro■
the open country, between 1930 and 1934. Yet the proportion of
the ■ ale family heads that had shifted to agricul tore by June
19'4 (41 percent) was larger in this area than in any other.
'nte shift was obviously aade by people already living in the
open country who had lost the jobs which had been their chief
source of inc011e, or who had ■oved fro■ an open country non-fara
residence onto a fara.
In the Lake States Cut-Over Area 18 percent of the 11ale heads
of families had shifted to 9iricultural pursuits by June 1934.
Digitized
byGoo~le
THE fAMILIIS RECIIYING iELI!f
67
In the sue area 10 percent of the opea coantry f•ilies receiving relief had moved there fr011 towns and villages and 11 percent fr-011 cities since 19,0 <rig. 10). TIie net gain in the
n1111ber of fuilies receiving relief ia the open country., due to
migration between the open country and villages and tans, was
only 7 percent because of soae aoveaent of f•ilies frca tbe
open country to villages and towns. As city faailies were not
included in this survey, it was iapossible to tell to what extent the faailies who had 110Ved into the open c01111try since 19,0
were ca.pemated for by faailies who had aoved to cities daring
the saae period. Probably about one-sixth of the opn country
relief load in the Lake States Cut-Over counties suneyed was
a result ofaoveaent of fuilies between the open country, villages, towns and cities, since 19,0. Over 6 percent of the
fuilies receiving relief in villages and towns had ■ igrated
fr011 cities since 19,0.
_J!1 the remaining four areas the trend of ■igration was predoainantly fr011 the open country into villages and t ~ . This
wasespecially true in the Winter Wheat and Western Cotton Areas
where the net chqe in the open country relief load due to aigration of faailies fMIII the open country to villages and towns
was equal to 10 and 14 percent respectively of the f•ilies
receiving relief in the open co11Dtry (fig. 10). The IIOW■ent
was largely one of ueaployed fal'II tenants Uld fal'II laborer•.
In neither of these areu had • ~ of the fuilies receiving
relief ■igrated into the open country since 19,0.
The open country relief population of the Sprinc Wheat and
Eastern Cotton Areas also showed decreases due to the e■i.iration
of faailies receiving relief fr011 the open country to villages
and towns. As indicated above, this survey, included no f•ilies
living in cities of 5,000 or ■ore inhabitants and as a result
it is probable that a great ■any ■ore fuilies receivina relief
have eaigrated froa the Short Grass and Cot ton Areas than are
indicated by the data given. The saall nuaber of far■ laborers
receiving relief in the Spring Wheat Area indicates that ■ any
such fuilies who were. living in this 211"ea in 1930 had e■igrat
ed. Likewise in the Eastern Cotton Belt the evidence points to
a coasiderable ■igration of rural fuilies into cities. The
decline in the noaber of f11n1ers in the Mississippi Delta region
and the large nu■ber of rural Negroes receiving relief in cities
suc)i as Me■phis, Tennessee, are undoubtedly related.
Digitized
byGoo~le
°'
00
FIGURE 10
NET MIGRATION
OF RELIEF FAMILIES
SINCE APRIL 1930
TO OPEN COUNTRY
APPALACHIANOZARK
A
'
,....
U)
CUTOVER
STATES
LAKE
AAAAAAA
'
'
'
'
'
'
><
'
::0
c:::::
::0
>
FROM OPEN COUNTRY
1u 1u 1h lu
I:""
.,,
SPRING
~WHEAl
,._·
t·
n-,r\rrrtl-n"Vl'Tl.i"TTV'7nJTI"'lrTOL:n:l£TCl
WINTER
WHEAT
~
n
0
cci"
;cc
rCj"
~
CY
'<
0
0
~,........
~
1h 1u 1h 1h lu 1h t
~
a
r
~
WESTERN
COTTON
~-
EASTERN
~
COTTON
"'a,
0
EACH FIGURE REPRESENTS I PERCENT OF RELIEF FAMILIES IN OPEN COUNTRY IN JUNE 1934
I:""
r-:1
:x
>
::0
r-,
>
rn
THE FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
69
'!he unemployed relief clients tended to migrate into, or reir•ain in, the towns and villages. Figure 11 indicates for male
heads of households usually employed in agricultural and in nonAgricultural occupations ( l) the percentage employed in June
1934 anil, (2) the percentage of the employed and unemployed in
each group living in the open country or in villages and towns
in June 1934, lo all except the Appalachian-Ozark Area the percentage of the unemployed living in villages and towns was considerably greater than for the employed, among male family heads
usually engaged in agriculture., ~ost of the unemployed agriC\lltural workers living in villages and towns in the Spring
Wheat and Lake States Cut-Over Areas were aged and retired faniers who had, in all likelihood, moved there before the effects
of the present adverse conditions in these areas made themselves
felt. In the other three areas, and particularly in the Winter
Wheat and Western Cotton Areas the difference in residence of
employed and une111ployed agricultural workers was a result of the
migration of displaced fal"II tenants, croppers and laborers into
population centers. On the other hand, in the Eastern Cotton
Helt proportionately ■ore of the displaced far■ers and fani
laborers who were receiving relief in the counties surveyed in
June 1934 remained in the open country.
Aliong 111,le heads of faailies usually employed in non-agricultural occupations, the proportion of the unemployed living
in the open country was largest in the areas which had the greatest nonnal employment in industries (other than agriculture)
located in the open ~ountry. In these same areas-the Appalachian-Ozark, Lake States Cut-Over and Eastern Cotton-the proportion of non-agricultural workers that had shifted to agriculture was also greatest. It is evident fro11 this that the
shift fr011 non-agricultural to agricultural occupations was al11ost entirely a matter of the proximity of the families to land
and particularly to cheap land. In other words, areas with industries which were located in the open country-such as mining,
lu■bering, wood-working-and which i.n addition had unoccupied
poor land, had the greatest influx of the industrially unemployed
into agriculture. That the ■ovement of families receiving relief
to the land was not an isolated phenomenon is vividly portrayed
by the striking increase in the total number of far■ers in the
Appalachian-Ozark and Lake States Cut-Over Areas fro■ 1930-1935
(Fig. 12).
Digitized by
Google
70
OD
SIX RURAL PROnL E~ AREAS
Digitized by
Goog Ie
71
THE FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
In addition to the 11ovement of the relief population between
the open ~ountry and population centers, there had been a considerable movement from county to county within the previous
10 years. About 30 percent of the families in the 65 counties
had lived less than 10 years in the county in which they were
receiving relief. The most stable relief populations were those
in the .\ppalachi an-Ozark and Spring lo,neat Areas and the Negroes
of the Eastern Cotton Delt. In these areas, 84, 79, and 87 percent of the families receiving relief had lived 10 years or
longer in the same county. Less than one-half of the white faailies receiving relief in the Western Cotton Area and only a
few more than one-half of the Winter Wheat Area families had
lived 10 years or more in the county in which they were receiving relief. In the fol'ller area one-third of the white fuilies
had moved into the counties during the past five years; in the
latter, 23 percent, (Table XIX).
Much of the movement of fllllilies into these counties represented a change of residence without a change in occupation.
The rapid expansion of wheat and cotton-growing in the Winter
Wheat and Western Cotton Areas brought ■ any far111ers fro■ other
sections into these areas and the population increased steadily
until about 1932. Since that ti11e, a series of dry years has
bankrupted ■any of the far11 operators and forced the■ off their
fal'lls and into villages and towns, along with the far■ laborers
wh011 they formerly e■ployed.
In the Eastern Cotton Belt, the 21 percent of the white fa■ilies who had moved, during the previous five years, into the
counties in which they were receiving relief, were apparently
of two types: croppers who had moved from one county to another, and unemployed families who had moved fro■ farms or cities to towns and villages. The white f811ilies on the relief
rolls in this 81'ea were a llllCh ■ore mobile and a ■uch younger
group than the Negro families.
In the Lake States Cut-Over Area, the movement of fa■ ilies
into the counties surveyed was definitely a part of the e■ i
gration of families from cities and the shift to agricultural
occupations. The occupational shifts of family heads in this
area resulted in many 11ore changes in the place of residence
th.an in the Appalachian-Ozark Area. In the latter, a change in
occupation consisted, in most cases, in nothing more than atteapting to far■ the land on which the family already lived, or
Digitized by
Google
-J
~
FIGURE 12
PERCENTAGE INCREASE OR DECREASE
FARMS BY COUNTIES
Cl)
1-4
~
::0
c::
::0
►
t""
.,
"'O
0
a,
t""
c..
:x
r:7 ....,. a,
L.:J
E ◄ TO ---.
llliJI
0
cg:
■ • •,O•""'
~
0
0
-
~
(v
IT0 •-4'
. .. . . .
~·
~
, - PR£UlllfWl'I REPORTS Of THE UNITED STATES CENSUS Of AGAICULTVM 1935
ilMlfll .
10 OIi LUI
...
.,
►
~
►
Cl)
THE FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
a returntothe ''h0111e" farm nearby; but in the former, the frunily more frequently had to move from a city or village in order
to get on the land.
On the basis of the preliminary figures fro11 the 1935 Census
of Agriculture, it appears that the shift to agriculture of the
families receiving relief in the Appalachian-Ozark and Lake
States Cut-Over Areas was not an isolated phenomenon, but part
of a general movement. The number of farms in the AppalachianOzark counties surveyed increased almost one-third, in the Lake
States Cut-Over almost one-fourth. Although these figures are
preliminary and later revision may reduce them, the increase is
large enough to indicate a significant change in the number of
farm units. The Spring Wheat and Western Cotton Area counties
showed practically no change and the Eastern Cotton Be~t counties show an actual decline in the number of fal"lls. This may
have been partially due to under-enU11eration but general information of the conditions in these counties would indicate the
probable accuracy of the Census figures. The increase in the
Winter 'Wheat counties is probably a reflection of the increase
in the nU11ber of farms which occurred in this area during the
period 1930-1932. Information on conditions in this area indicates that there has been some decrease in the number of farms
since 1932 as a result of the severe drought conditions of 1933
and 1934.
P11c1.r INC ■ l!AH
bu,
Au A1u1 .. ••....•••...... ••• .•......•...•.. •••••••• ..•.•.... ••• .• ,
A,,-ALAC ■ IA....0ZAI•• •• •. •• ••• • • • •• • •• ••••• • • ••••• • ••• • •. •. • • ••• •...
♦
( ♦) 01 DtCltU,SI (-)
7,2
♦ 32, 2
LAkl 5TATIS CUT-0Yfl,.............................................
t-23.9
S,.111•C1 . " ' " ' · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
l11tTII INIAT •••••••••••••••••••• , ••• , •• , , , •••• ,, ••• , ••• , . . . . . . . . .
l(STtaN CoTTO ■• • • ••. ••,, ••• , • • ••• • •••••• • •• •. ••. •• •••••• • •••••• ,.
EA1,e:1• CoTTo ■••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
♦
1
Sou11cE:
u. s.
Cl•sus o,
A1aJCfll.TUII( P•u1MINAIIY RtPOITS,
♦
0.8
7,1
♦ 0,2
- &&. l
19,,
1. Residence of Fa■ llies with F111ale Heads
Families with women heads were, as in the general population,
living in villages and towns ■ore frequently than in the open
country. Of all relief families living in the open country, 12
P,ercent had female heads as com~ared with 18 percent of village
and 18 percent of town families (Table 8). Except in the Lake
States Cut-Over Area, where only 10 percent of the family heads
were women, and among the Eastern Cotton Belt Negro families of
which 40 percent of the families had women heads,
e re c> &
0
0 c)
Digitized by
74
SII RURAL PROBLIK ARIAS
higher proportion of wcaen heads of f811ilies in the villaees
than in either towns or the open country. But uong all groups,
except the Western Cotton Area white faailies, the proportion
of families with women heads was greater in the towns than in
the open country. 'lhe concentration of Negro families with
women heads who were receiving relief in the open country and
lHLl
a.
R1s.1ou1Cl Of' FANILlf.l R1c11w1 ■, Rn11ar . , Sia CW HIAD
,,,,._
TOTAL
Au
LAC11 I Ali
OZAO-
AREAS
lut
Suns
CuTO~Flit
SHORT GAAsa
S,A '"'
W••
W11rr1T(A
WNl'.t.T
W11 IT
2,ooi
000
100
51
2•
100
2•
1'
l. 311
100
75
19
6
1,921
100
92
7
1
1,560
100
1,208
100
l.B6J
6•
77
17
100
5•
22
6
211
2"6
100
81
178
100
103
100
I•
28
•••5
1•7
100
27
TowN •••••••••••••••••
1,536
100
57
27
16
19
11
ALL FAM IL Ill,•.•., •• ,.•,
1•
11
10
8
Q,,:1111 CoUNlllT ••• , . , , , .
YILL•&I ••• •,. • ••••• ,,
12
18
18
10
20
9
'
ALL
T
EAITIIN
WEST UN
C0TTOH
COTTON
NUMIE•• •••• • • •. • •••• •. • •
Pl ACE liT, •••••••••••• • •••
0,lN Cou•TAT, ••, •• •• •
VILLAGlo., • • • , , , , , ., ,
To ■ N, ••••••••••••••••
fA.,.ILIES WI TH MALE
10,771
100
""'"
100
91
8
1
21
1,
l, 738
100
6,
2,
•1
16•
100
37
26
37
l, 3•7
100
1.2,1
!)9
35
18
62
25
128
100
1.11•.
100
•I
61
25
1•
26
1,
100
13
Huos
CoUNlAT, • • , , , , ••
9,235
100
67
'VILLAGE,, •• ••••••••••
20
Tow ...................
13
NUMIEA., •• , ••• ••, ,, , ,, ••
PEACE NT,, ••• , , , , , , , , , , , •
0,(fll
? , 167
66
N"ie.An
NFGRO
FAMILIES ••
23
13
70•
100
"8
~
21
18
'8
96
.~.
.
71#J
100
61
29
10
FAMILIES WITH r:1wALlHU.DS
HuWlfR •••• •. • • •. • • • • •, • •
PEACf.lill, •••••••••••• •. • •
OPEN CoUlllllRT,. 0 0 0 0 • 0 0
'VILL.-&l,,, •••• •••••••
To•••., ...•..•..•....
~•p0ClNTAfill NOT COW'UTlO HCAUSI
'
o,
"
"°
100
•3
•l
19
I•
13
,i
18
•97
m
65
19
"
16
1
12
22
17
I()
•
11
1,
q2
l•
11
36
15
20
21
Porc•ntnf• of Al I Hoada of ,,.11101,
12
233
100
52
12
10
'•1141••
3)
16
,,
'1
IM4LI. NU... 111 Otr CASlf,
in the towns in the Eastern Cotton Belt is probably a result of
the life of the rural Negro, particularly in the plantation
areas, which has been centered around the plantation nther than
a vill8ie co11111unity. It is to this social unit that the Negro
has looked for sanctuary in his declining years rather than to
the local coiauni ty centered in a village or small towns as does
the retired faraer of the Corn Belt. In the Appalachian-Ozark
Area, where a large proportion of the fuilies with fe•ale heads
were found living in the open country, the life of the fuily
has been centered in the kinship group and in the neighborhood
which consists of the families that live on the sue "branch".
In this case the widowed and the aged depend upon the kinship
group to care for the■ and the results are the saae as in the
Cotton Belt. 'nie fact that w011en can, and do, work on the farms
in these two areas also helps to account for the presence in the
open country of a large nU11ber of f&11ilies with female heads.
At first glance the fact that one-half of the heads of Negro
faailies receiving relief and living in towns were we.en uy
Digitized by
Google
THE fAMILIES R!CEIYING RELl!P
see■
75
to refute the explanation offered above for their presence
in such large n1111bers in the open country. However, aside froa
far■ work, the chief opportunities for e11ployaent for Negro
woaen are as servants, waiters and domestics, and since the
larger towns ab greater use of services of this type than do
villages, they hne attracted aore f•ilies seeking these types
of work than haw the latter. As eaployaent in such work fluctuates widely with econoaic conditions, the servants and waiters
are forced to apply for relief in large nuabers.
Digitized by
Google
IV. SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES OF FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
In the foregoing chapter the "human resources" were analyzed
and assessed. It is now in order to attempt an analysis of the
, ''material resources" actually in the possession of the f uilies
' receiving relief when this survey was 11ade. Since unemployment
i relief was not, either by policy or accident, confined to the
utterly destitute or the completely une■ployed, but rather was
• granted to all those who could not, by their own efforts, achieve
the ■ inimum subsistence living standards deemed as adequate by
, the relief authorities of the area in question, such an analysis
\ is possible. The nature of the resources, whether employment
or property, naturally varies from area to area. For exa■ple,
the 11.11ount of land in the possession of fani owners on relief
is significant only when measured against the amount apparently
necessary for economic sufficiency in the area in question. No
national standard of acreage can be used. Similarly with livestock and poultry: area practices in farm economy decidedly
influence the figures here given and are significant only in
relation to the possessions of the non-relief fanners of the
same area. Moreover, when the incidence of the catastrophe is
fairly universal throughout the area, as in the case of drought,
the figures may very nearly reflect normal conditions and any
obvious deficiencies apply, not to the relief population alone,
but to the general population. In short, poverty resulti~ in
dependency is a relative concept only made meaningful when measured against the condition of the self-supporting overlying
population.
If fana operators are included, one-half of the heads of the
relief families surveyed were employed 1 in June 1934, The proportion employed was highest in the Appalachian-Ozark (72 percent), Spring Wheat (71 percent) and Winter Wheat (50 percent)
areas, lowest in the Cotton Areas (Table XIV). For the 65 counties, all but 15 percent of the employed were operating or attempting to operate farms; of the 15 percent who were not fal"II
operators, about 5 percent were farm laborers, the remaining 10
1occupatton, as used 1n this section or tbe report, refers to JUne 1934 employment
and Should not be contused wlth "Usual occupation• dlacussecl earller.fll.ni operators were c1asa1tled u up101ec1 1f tbey were operating or atte■Ptlng to operate
a rani 1n June.
76
Digitized by
Google
SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES OF FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
71
percent being engaged in varied types of non-agricultural eaployaent. In the Lake States Cut-Over Area 10 percent, and in
the Eastern Cotton Relt about 7 percent of the faaily heads were
employed in non-agricultural occupations. In the latter area,
7 percent of the faaily heads (5 percent of the whites, 9 percent of th(' Negroes) receiving relief were employed as fan
laborers in June 1934.
/
Of the fa■ilies who were operating fans (42.4 percent of all
f1111ilies receiving relief) in June 1934, 43 percent owned all
or part of the land they were fal'lling, 55 percent were faraing
, rented land as tenants or croppers,· and about 2 percent were
_ squatters or h011esteaders ( Table XX). Of the fant operators who
owned their land, 55 percent reported real estate aorteages.
About fl percent of all fuilies operating faras (about 50 percent of the tenants, 40 percent of the owners and 5 percent of
the croppers) reported chattel ■ortgages. About 70 percent of
the fal'll operators reported dairy cows, 60 percent work stock,
60 percent hogs, and 85 percent poultry.
Of faailies in which the head was une11ployed in June 1934
(50 percent of those receiving relief122 percent owned their
hoaes, 69 percent were renters and 9 percent were squatters.
Of those who owned their h011es, approxi■ately one-fourth reported real estate ■ortgages. Only 4 percent of the une■ployed
reported chattel aortgages. The saall nu■ber of these f•ilies
reporting mortgage indebtedness is undoubtedly a result of the
low value of the property they owned. Only about one-fifth owned
dairy cows, less than 5 percent owned work stock,
percent
owned hogs and only one-third owned poultry (Table XXI).
Faailies in which the head was eaployed in non-agricultural
occupations in June 1934 owned their hoaes in aore instances
than faailies with uneaployed heads, but other indices indicate
that they were si■ ilar in econo■ ic status to the latter.
1,
A.
The Appalachian-Ozark Area
Nearly 69 percent of the fa■ ilies receiving relief in the
counties surveyed were operating far■s, , percent of the heads
of faailies were eaployed at pon-agricultural occupations and
28 percent were une■ployed. Because of cheap land and the proxillity to the land of persons fonierly employed in the industries
of this area, large nuabers of those who lost industrial jobs
turned to subsistence farming. Thirty-two percent were owners,
Digitized by
Google
78
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
12 percent tenants and :,5 percent croppers. Of those who owned
their fants, but 2, percent reported 110rtgages. The fU'llers
receiving relief were living on SJDaller fal'IIS than the average
for the S811e counties in 1930. Nearly 38 percent were operating
fal'IIS of less than 20 acres, and al110S t 75 percent, fal'lls of
less than 50 acres with the ■edian fant 't7 acres. ID 1930 in
these sue counties, 20 percent of the far11s were uader 20 acres,
and 47 percent of the farms under 50 acres with the ■edian far■
56 acres. The far■s in the counties surveyed were, in 19,:l,
slightly larger than in the Southern Appalachiau Area u a whole
(15, p. 54). In this region only about one-third of the land
in f&r11S was crop land in 1929. If the faniers receivi.ne rdief
had this ratio of crop land to total fant acreage, 75 percent
of the■ had less than 17 acres of crop land, about 50 percent
less than 10 acres and '3 percent less than 7 acres.
About 70 percent of the fan operators receiving relief reported dairy cows, 40percent work stock, 60 percent hogs and a
little over 80 percent poultry. 'These percentages were oDly
slightly lower than for the Southern Appalachian Area u a whole:
about two-thirds of all f8J'llers reported dairy cows and fivesixths work stock in 19,0 (15. pp. 67-69). The fan fuilies
receiving relief lacked work stock, a reflection of the large
proportion of croppers. Only 6 percent of the fa.,. operators
reported chattel 110rtgages, a saaller percentace tb111 --c
Meeroes in the Cot.too Areas.
'!he large proportion of f•ilies lbiJla on aall fvas -■d
the absence of real estate uacl chattel aortgaces characteri•
the self-sufficing agriculture of this area. '!hese fuilies
have never attained other than the si■plest standards of liYing-standards not •ch above the subsistence level-and altho1Jih those receivine relief probably had an iocoae only slightly lower than the general population, the econo■ ic ••rain was so
narrow that a saall loss in inccae particularly cub incoae,
forced the■ to accept relief. 'ftle faners have depended upon
weces earned for work off the f&l'll for a considerable part of
tbeir cash inccae. Daring 1929 the value of the far11 products
sold, traded or ased on the far■ was less than $400 on 30 percent of the farms in the Southern Appalachians and under $600 on
50 percent of the faru. The annual income fro11 the far■ is
quite frequently under $100 after fara expenses are paid. Daring 1929 the awrage Southern Appalachian f aner worked 5, days
Digitized by
Google
SOCIO-ro>MOOC RF.SOORCr.S
or FAMILHS.DCUT.ING
RELIEF
79
off his fara for wages (.t5, p. 54). This fi.Fe does not take
into account waeea earned by other ■e■bers of the f&11ily which
local studies indicate to be an i■portant ite■ (17). To a fa ...
er whose total cash inco■e was $400 or less, the loss of outside
e■ployaent which yielded as ■uch as $100 annually ■eant at least
a 25 percent reduction in total cash incoae (fig. YI).
Thus although the ■aJority of the heads of fuilies receiving
relief reported their usual occupation as "faraer" ■ost of the■
undoubtedly had had an alternate source of inco■e. Since the
industrial depression shut. off e11ploy■ent. opportunities for ■any
who would non1ally have ■igrated froa this area to northern cities and also curtailed eaploy■ent. in the ■ines and factories of
the area, the increasine population has had to depend upon agriculture for its subsistence. Aaong the reasons frequently 1iven
for fa■ ilies receiving relief were Nfara too saall 11, "Loss of
suppleaent.ary occupation", "Poor landN, all reasons which indicate the poor econoaic circ1111Stancea of the faraers. The population has increased u natural resources have decreased so that
now the only hope of usurina these faraers a decent. standard
of living lies in t.he develoiaent of soae source of industrial
e■ployaent.
J'uilies vi th une■ployed heads ■ade up 28 percent. of those
recei•ing relief. Of this eroup about. one-quarter owned their
ho■es, three-fifths were renters and one-sixth squatters. Only
11 percent of the owned hoaea were ■ortcaeed, an indication in
110St. cases of the s■all value of property rather than the freedo■ froa debt of t.he owner. Furthe evidence of the econo■ic
status of this eroop was the near absence of chattel aortgages.
In this day of instalhent buyine, f•ilies with any credit
standiq would have reported ■ore chattel ■ortgages than the 1. 5
percent of this group.
percent of the un111ployed reported dairy cows, 24
Nearly
percent reported hoes and 45 percent. kept. poultry, but less than
6 percent of the f•ilies owned any work stock. Yet the nu■ber
of une■ployed f•ily heads who reported dairy cows, hogs and
P<>ul. try was greater than that for the une■ployed of any other
area. Only a■ong whites in the Eastern Cotton Belt was the pro. portion of the une■ployed reporting these types of livestock
&mywhere near as lar1e and ■any of the latter were ■ igrants froa
the Appalachian-Ozark .Area who had carried their mode of living
with the■ into the eott.on country.
,o
Digitized by
Google
80
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
e.
The Lake States Cut-Over Area
Only 29 percent of the families receiving relief in this area
were farming in June 1934, most of them as owner-operators.
Almost three-fifths (59 percent) of the heads of families were
without employment, 10 percent were employed in non-agricultural
occupations and about 2 percent were farm laborers ('I able XIV).
Of the farmers, 69 percent owned the land which they were
farming, 27 percent were renters, 3 percent homesteaders, and
two families were squatters. Fifty-two percent of the farm
owners reported mortgages and twenty-one percent of the farm
operators reported chattel mortgages. The make-shift nature of
the farming operations of the families receiving relief is evident from the fact. that only one-half of them reported work
stock. This is a higher percentage than in the AppalachianOzark Area but in the latter area many of the farmers were croppers who depended upon the landlord for the necessary work animals, while most of the farmers .in this area owned their own
land, and the majority had recently shifted to farming after
losing their usual jobs. Eighty percent of the farm operators
owned dairy cows, 45 percent other cattle, 33 percent owned hogs
and 76 percent reported poultry (Table XXI).
About one-half of the farmers receiving relief operated farms
of less than 50 acres and 81 percent farms under 100 acres .in
size. Only 22 percent of the farms in these same counties .in
1930 contained less than 50 acres and 54 percent. less than 100
acres. It does not follow from this that the size of the farm
was necessarily responsible for the families appearing on the
rolls for many industrial workers had been thrown on relief by
the loss of their usual job and had turned to the land for a
possible solution of their employment problem. These "farms"
were small, poorly equipped and under-stocked because of t.he
financial straits in which the owner found himself upon losing
his job. The relief situation in both is evidence of the precariousness of a part-time farming economy based almost solely
on exploitative industries (Table XXII).
The unemployed, who made up about three-fifths of the relief
load in this area, owned property or had chattel mortgages in
fewer instances than those who were farming. About 39 percent
owned their homes, 53 percent were renters and 7 percent squatters. Only 3 percent reported chattel mortgages and only 24
percent of those who owned their homes reported real estate
Digitized by
Google
socr0-EC01t00c USOURCT,S or rwur.s
iECEilllG RELIEJ
a1
aortgages. 'lhese low aortgaae fipres probably reflect the
...U value of the property. About 17 percent had dairy cows,
ODly , percent had work stock, 5 percent kept hogs and less than
!O percellt reported pOul.try (Table m). 'l'he contrast between
this group and the uneaployed group in the .Appalachian-Ozark
Area illastrates soae basic differences in the econOII,)' of the
two areas. The latter is historically agricultural and the population indigenous to the area; this area only recently resorted
to agriculture and any of the people are migrants. In the
Appalachian-Ozark .Area, the tme11Ployed group receiving relief
was a relatively saall part of the total relief load, and the
relief heaefit per f•ily was low, asaost of the fuilies were
able partially to apport tbellselves on the land; in this area,
altlaollp soae llad tanecl to faniing, the nu11ber of unemployed
ns large ud relief beaefits were high as few of the fe■ilies
llad either the trailUJII, experience or capital to enable the■
to attaia Ute •terial atadards of livine to which they were
ICCUtcaed.
C.
The Wheat Areas
Tile f•ilies receiYUII relief in this region included ■ore
f..Uies, who, oder ordiury conditiou, were able to enjoy a
satisfactory scale of liviilc, than did either the faailies of
the Appalaclda-Ozark or of the Lake States Cut-Over Area. In
the Spring Wheat. .Area 68 perceat and in the Winter Wheat Area
46 percent of the heads of fuilies receiving relief were fantine in June 19'4· In the foraer area about 50 percent of the
fanaers owned their land and in the latter area about 40 percent.
Aside froa those vho were faraing, few of the faaily heads in
either area were aployed: over 29 percent in the Spring Wheat
and aore thaa 50 percent in the Winter Wheat Area were une11ployed in June 19'4 (Table m).
Over 70 percent of the faraers receiving relief in the Spring
Wheat Area were operating f&MIS of 260 acres or larger (more
than 80 percent of the faras in these sa■e counties in 1930 were
in this size group); 7 percent of the faraers receiving relief
were operating fal'IIS of 1000 acres or 11ore ( 18 percent of all
faras in the coanties surveyed in 19,0 were in this size group)
(Table ml).
In the Winter Wheat Area approxi■ately 55 percent of the
f&r11ers receiving relief were operating faras of 60 acre s or
Digitized by
008 1e
82
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
more ( 80 percent of all farms in 1930) and only 4 percent of the
farmers receiving relief were operating farms of 1000 acres or
more (but about 16 percent of all farms in 1930). In both areas
farm operators with less than a half-sect ion of land ( 320 acres)
were on the relief rolls more frequently than those with 1arger
acreages, farmers with one section (640 acres) having shout the
average relief rate for the group.
More than four-fifthsofthe farm owners receiving relief in
the Wheat Areas reported their farms mortgaged; of the farm operators 79 percent in the Spring wl1eat and 61 percent in the
Winter Wheat Areas reported chattel mortgages. Of the farm
owners, 85 and 65 percent reported chattel mortgages, while for
the tenants the percentages were 73 and 58, These mortgage
data indicate something of the debt burden of these farmers.
The investigators reported that in one county in the Winter
Wheat Area, the chattel mortgage indebtedness alone was equal,
in 1934, to the value of a normal wheat crop at one dollar per
bushel. As this county had a complete crop failure in 1934, this
debt burden may never be entirely amortized. Only by some debt
adjustment and assistance in replacing their capital can many
of these farmers hope to cover their losses even with normal
crop conditions (Tables XX and XXI).
About 76 percent of the farm operators receiving relief in
the Spring '\'f'heat Area and 83 percent of those in the Winter Wheat
Area reported dairy cows, 78 and 46 percent reported other cattle. In each of these areas about 66 percent reported hogs, and
90 percent reported poultry. Work stock was reported by 91 percent of the farm operators in the Spring Wheat Area and by 72
percent in the Winter Wheat Area. The relatively small proportion of the farmers receiving relief in the Winter Wheat Area
who reported no cattle other than dairy cows indicates something
of the change to wheat farming in this area in recent years. It
may, however, reflect the effects of the government cattle buying program in the drought areas.
Of the unemployed heads of fS11ilies receiving relief in the
Wheat Areas, 22 percent owned their homes, 76 percent were renters, the remaining 2 percent were squatters. Only 39 percent
of the owned homes were mortgaged and 10 percent (16 percent in
the Spring and 7 percent in the Winter Wheat Area) of the unemployed heads reported chattel mortgages. About 12 percent owned
dairy cows in the Spring Wheat Area and 27 percent in the Winter
Digitized by
Google
SOCIO-ECONOttl'C RESOORCr.S Of JAHILIFS RECEIVING RELIEF
83
Wheat .Area;: 1~ an<t 6 ptreent reported· workstock, 5 and 11 percent reported! hogs.,. and about 25 and 35 percent reported poultry. Except. f<m- workstock. and cattle, the fuilies with uneaployed beads in the Winter Wheat Area owned 110re livestock than
the same group io the Spring, Wheat Area. This difference was
probably due to the greater nuber of displaced faraers aaong
the unemployed· m 1ih.r ·Winter Wbeat Area who wer-e still t.r:J,HI
to produce soae-· of their food supply ('tole ffl).
11-.. TM le1tern Cotton Arn
Only 30 percent of t,be white and 28 percent of the Negro
heads of families receiving relief were employed in June 1934,
111,,st of them as farm operators. Twenty-one percent of the white
and 25 percent of the Negro farm operators owned the land they
were fanning and about 61 percent of all owners (7, percent of
the whites and 11 percent of the Negroes) reported mortgages.
Over 40 percent of the white and about 14 percent of the Negro
farm operators reported chattel ■ortgages.
Over 70 percent of the white and about 50 percent of the
Negro faf"lllers receiving relief reported dairy cows and workstock, and over 90 percent of all fan operators kept poultry.
More than one-eighth of the faraers operated farms under 20
acres, over half of them farm under 58 acres, and two-thirds
of them fanns smaller than 100 acres. As in the Wheat Areas,
those operating small fanis had a higher relief rate than the
operators of the larger farms; one-half of the farms in the s&11e
counties in 1930 were under 104 acres as ca.pared with one-half
under 58 acres for the relief group.
(-- A large proport.ion of the 78 percent of faailies receiving
· relief in which the head of the faaily was unemployed in June
l 1934 were displaced fal'II tenants aa4 1t0einployed fal'II laborers.
Only about 16 percent of this group owne4 their hoaes. 55 .,.._
cent of the white and 60 percent &f the Ne,:rees were re11ters
\
aad !9 percent and 23 percent were squatters. This sqaatter
group was without resources of any kind, unable to find work and
,literally stranded in the area.
I
E. The Eastern Cotton Belt
In approxi..tely oae-tlir.t of tJae f•ilies recei,ring relief',
the laead of tJae tally was ..i,lo,e.l ia June 1934. As a ..ch
Digitized by
Google
84
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
larger percentage of white than Negro families included gainful
workers the proportion of the employable Negroes actually employed in June 1934 was larger than for whites. About 5 percent
of the white and 9 percent of the Negro family heads were e111ployed as farm laborers, and 5 and 9 percent, re spec ti vely,
in other occupations. The remaining 68 percent of the white
and 63 percent of the .Segro hea<ls of families were uneinployed
in .lune n'34
Only 22 percent of the white and 16 percent of the Negro fana
operators owned their farms; the remainder wP.rP. renting land.
' Of those who owned land, 69 percent of the whites and 16 percent
\
of the Negroes repo~ted real estate mortgages. Thirty-one per/ cent of the white and 14 percent of the Negro farm operators
; reported chattel mortgages. As more than three-fourths of the
farmers receiving relief were tenants or croppers in June 19'4,
this low chattel mortgage indebtedness was to be expected, as
\ 11ost of the capital and equipment of the far■ is furnished by
I the landlord under the share-cropper system.
Dairy cows were reported by 61 percent of the white and about
40 percent of the Negro farm operators. About 66 percent of the
white and 61 percent of the Negro farmers reported work stock
available and 65 and 54 percent, respectively, kept hogs.
Poultry was reported by about 80 percent of all fann operators.
The farmers receiving relief were operating farms smaller
than the average for the sa111e counties in 19~0: 20 percent had
farms of less than 10 acres, 42 percent farms of less than 20
acres. Only 5 percent of the farms in these same counties (in
1no) were smaller than 10 acres and but 22 percent smaller than
20 acres. From these and other data available it is evident
that most of the farmers receiving relief in this area were
those habitually near the economic margin.
There were fewer home owners among the unemployed heads of
families receiving relief in this than in any other area, less
than 12 percent reporting possession of real estate. Of the
owners, 29 percent reported real estate mortgages. Six percent
of the white and 3 percent of the Negro unemployed heads of f8lllilies were squatters. Less than 2 percent of the une111ployed
reported chattel mortgages. One-fourth of the whites and less
than one-tenth of the Negroes kept dairy cows, about one-sixth
of the whites and one-fifth of the Negroes reported hogs. Almost
as few reported work stock or other types of livestock.
1
Digitized by
Google
SOCIO-ECONOtIC RF.SOURC!:S OP fANILHS Rr.cEllIMG RELIEP
85
The faailies of non-agricultural workers, a larae proportion
of which lhed in villages and towns, reported livestock less
frequently than did the faailies of un•ployed persons. Fara
laborer faailies reported dairy cows, hogs and chickens aore
frequently than the faailies of non-agricultural and uneaployed
persons.
Digitized by
Google
V.
\
PLANS AND PROSPECTS FOR REHABILITATION
OF THE FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
To rehabilitate, in the strictest sense of the vord, means to
restore to a previously attained status, to ■ ake solvent again.
In this narrow sense of the term rehabilitation would ■ean to
many families receiving relief only a return to a socio-econo■ic
status more insecure than the one they enjoy as recipients of
relief. Rehabili tati.on, if it is to be of maximllDI social value,
must therefore be conceived more broadly. It will need to set
as its goals the helping of fami Lies to attain and 11aintain a
social and economic status commensurate with et least the minimum standards of health, wealth, security and social well-being
considered essential to national welfare. The effectiveness of
the rehabilitation program aimed to attain these ends will be
determined by the kind and extent of the human and material resources available and the facility with which they can be brought
together for the improvement of the status of the comunity •
. The material resources of any community, present or potential,
will be of value in II rehabil Hat ion program only to the extent
to which the families to be assisted ere capable of utilizing
them and to the extent to which they are made available for use.
In some of the areas under discussion, human resources will be
much more of a limiting factor than the availability of material
resources. This extremely obvious fact may be easily overlooked. The characteristics of the family and the community
of which it is a part may be such that the f8111ily, even if given
financial assistance, will shortly return to the relief rolls.
By human resources are meant all cultural factors such as the
training, experience and aptitudes of the family and its members,
the niche which the family occupies in the social structure of
the conatunity, and the relationship of the types of fDilies and
( of community organization to the economic organization, A case
1
/ in point is that of the Eastern Cotton Belt cropper family.
Although it appeArs possi.ble to improve the standards of living
of the cotton croppers through a system of diversified farming,
humim inertia to such a change, both among the land-owners and
the croppers the111selves, 111ay delay it for a generation or more.
While it may be possible to provide an illiterate share-cropper
86
Digitized by
Google
PLANS fOR REBABILITATION
or FAMILIES RECEilDG IIELIEP
f!l
with a saall fan of bis own, the probabilit7 that the aver119
cropper will be able t.o ND819 it succeuf1ll.17 is slight..- Likewise it. aay be a questionable policy to t.ry to ■ake • dairy
far.er out. of a coal •iner vho is used to an ei&ht.-hour day with
Saturday afternoons and Sundays o rr, or even t.o t.ry to train
a dry-land faraer to operate an irrigated fara. Hore dubious
still would be the relocation of faailies in a new co.unity of
which they would find it difficult. t.o beco■e a part because of
their race, relijrion or prejudice on the part. of the coaunity,
or the relocation upon an isolated fl.Ml of a villa,ee or town
faily if the wife and h011eaaker knew nothing about, or disliked,
far11 life. In areu vhere woaen seld011 work in the fields, the
rehabilitation of failies on s■all faru which ■ ay require considerable fara labor on the part of the wife or daughter is not
. likely to be successful, kcause the f•ily would lose caste if
its voaen did fana work. Although rehabilitation by setting
the fuily up on a saal.l fan1 and furnishing outside work for
the husband should be successful in the South and possibly in
the Appalachian-Ozark Area, it will not be very successful in
other areas unless the coabination of fara and non-fani work is
such that 110st of the vork can be done by ■ale ■e■bers of the
faily. l'ara uni ts, out.side the Cotton Areu, will need for the
■ost part to be ganied t.o the labor of one ■ale plus only incidental labor of other ■e■bers of the fuily.
The prospect of rehabili tatiog f•ilies on relief in the
co.unities in which they live reduces to an a.nswer to the question, "To what extent and by what ■et.hods can they be assisted
to utilize the available ■ aterial resources so that they may
become self-supporting, productive 11embers of these co11111unities?" The answer to be returned varies widely and depends upon
the resources of the area, their availability, and the capacity
of the faailies to use th•. F•ilies that cannot be rehabilitated in place because of lack of suitable resources will have
to be assisted to resettle elsewhere.
A. Capacity of
Fa■ llle1
Receiving Relief to
BecOllle Self-Supporting
All of the foregoing infor■ation takes on relevance in this
study only insofar as it enables one to esti■at.e the prospects
of rehabilit.atina the f•ilies studied. In the opinion of local
relief lfOrkers, 20 percent of the f•ilies recei ·. reliief in _
Digitized by
og e
.
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
88
the 65 counties were incapable of self-support, 15 percent capable but in need of supervision as vell as te■porary finaneial
aid, and 65 percent capable of self-support if given only te■porary financial aid (Table 9), The .ajority of the failies
classified as incapable were aged one-person cases, other families with aged heads, broken f8111ilies con~isting usually of a
woman with children under 16 years of age, and families containing but one gainful worker in which the number of dependents
(aged persons and children) per worker was too great to make
self-support possible. Of those faailies considered incapable
of self-support 54 percent included no gainful workers 16 years
of age and over, l'i percent included only one fe11ale gainful
CAl"ACIH
•o•
To UL
.,,,,...,_
ALL
LACNl,U
Ht;AO
AllllU
0URK
5E.LF - Su,.,.o ■ T
n
Au
Sui:
Of'
LAicl!
Sun,
S "OAT GhSS
curOv111
S Ulli\f
I, 7"8
100
22
78
7
71
l.'11
100
16
Bo
9
I, '60
1.2(1"
100
13
87
10
W~f AT
WIIHl!II
WNt:AT
[ASHRII
WfSTf.1111
Cono11
"" ITf.
CoTTON
N(C.lltO
""' Tf.
H1!6RO
FAM l l U1
Nuwat• ••••• •• • • •• •••• •••
10,771
100
2. 167
20
100
1,
BO
1,
65
0,
29
'6
9,2.1~
100
15
85
15
70
l.021
100
12
'9
100
19
81
7
7•
Nuw8(11. , •• ,., ••• •• •• • • • •
PEAC(Nf,,,,.,. , •• , , ,, •• •
1,516
100
206
100
178
100
I NCAPABlf,,,,,, ••••• , ,
q7
CA,.A BL(.,, ., . , , ., •• , , ,
Llf!TH ~ llll'!IIVIS101t,, ,.
WITHOUT Sui"EII Y l5 l0111,
53
lo
39
Pt:ACE'IT.,,,,,,,,, •• , , , , ,
l•CA"Al!!lt.f ••• , . , , ••• , ••
C"-1" A8LE, •• , , • •. ,, • •• ••
WtTK 5UPfPY'ISION, •••
SUl"fltVISIOII,
.,,,.our
1,
2,fXJ7
100
10
86
B
78
800
l.tl6o
100
lro
1,
0,
10
75
Nuw8£R, •••• , •••••••••• ••
I NCAPABLl,,,,,, , •• • , • •
CAPA8LE •• ;, •• , , •••• , • •
WITH 5Ull'fltVISIOM . , , ,
WITHOUT S Ull'tllVI SIOM,
fAWllltS WITH FlMAll
88
29
77
II
89
8
81
1.3•7
100
20
77
BO
25
17
""
65
704
100
13
87
10
128
100
I.II•
100
16
8•
18
77
'6
66
96
36
100
233
100
35
65
12
J:°AWIL IES WITN M.&Lf Hf ADS
Pt:RC(llfT,,.,,.,,.,, , • • , . ,
16'1
100
23
20
00
2"
1.n1
100
59
61
22
39
700
100
27
73
2•
•9
Hoos
••'6
27
29
,0
,0
2
"8
103
LOO
49
51
5
•6
1"7
100
"8
52
B
.
100
27
73
8
60
16
6"
17
•7
,1
•97
LOO
'6
••19
2•
worker and another 2 percent included two or more fe■ ale but no
male gainful workers-a total of 71 percent of the faailies
considered incapable of seJ f-support by the local re: :ef workers
included no male gainful workers. Of the 29 percent re■aining,
21 percent included only one male gainful worker and many of the
latter were workers incapable of performing normal tasks, because
of age or other disability.
Only about 15 percent of the Appalachian-Ozark, Spring and
Winter Wheat, and Western Cotton Area white families were considered incapable of self-support (Table 9). In these four area
groups the proportion of normal families among those receiving
relief was highest, ranging fro■ 77 to 83 percent. In the first
three the percentage of all families including gainful workers
was also highest.
Digitized by
Google
PLANS FOR REHABilITATION OF FAMILIES RECElillG RELIEJ'
89
As ■ ight be expected because of the co.position of failies
with wo■an heads, about one-half were classified as incapable
as compared with but 15 percent of fa■ilies with ■ale heads.
The largest proportion of fa■ilies with female heads classified as incapable was for Negro fuilies in the Eastern Cotton
Belt (56 percent), the saal.lest in the Western Cotton Area and
for white faailies in the Eastern Cotton Belt ( 27 to 36 percent).
Taking faaily type into consideration, it is obvious that the
greatest proportions of fa■ilies with female heads were classified as capable in the areas in which wo■en are accusto■ed to
working in the fields.
Of all fuilies receiving relief in the 65 ~ounties, 18 percent of the open country fuilies, 24 percent of the village
f&11ilies and 21 percent of the town f&.11ilies were classified
as incapable of self-support (Table XXIII). This variation
between the open country and population centers was largely a
result of the congregation of faailies with female heads in
villages and towns. In the Eastern Cotton Belt where the proportion of Negro fuilies with female heads in the open country
was higher than in villages, the proportion of the open country
Negro f1111ilies considered incapable of self-support was also
higher.
In conclusion, it is clearly apparent that the faailies considered i■possible to rehabilitate (20 percent of all) are chiefly those which would be provided for by a co■prehensive syste■
of social legislation.
B,
Indices of Standards of Living, and Education
SolM! indication of the differences in the ■ateri&l standards
of living of the faners in the counties surveyed are apparent
in the following tabulation of the nu■ber having certain facilities and conveniences in their homes at the ti■e of the 19,0
Census (Table 10). The Spring and Winter Wheat and Lake States
Cut--Over Areas exceed the United States average in nu■ber of
radios, and the latter exceeds it in nu■ber of telephones, with
the fol'ller two only slightly lower. All are below the United
States average for proportion of ho■es with electric lights,
th e Lake States Cut-OVer Area again being hi~h with 8 percent.
The Winter Wheat and Western Cotton .Area counties were highest
in percentage of far■s with water piped to the dwelling and to
th e bathroom, with the Spring Wheat and Lake St.at.es Cut-Over
Areas Poor seconds.
Digitized by L.oog e
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
90
At the botto■ of the list for all these i te■s stand the Eastern Cotton Belt counties with 2 percent or fewer fanas reporting
radio, electric lights or water piped to the house and, fewer
than 5 percent of the far■s with telephones. The AppalachianOzark farmers reported almost as few conveniences, less than 8
percent havin.e: telephones and less than 4 percent reporting other
hB L l
10 .
PE'I C f.NlA Ci f
o,
F AII Y S
u. s.
TO T &&..
,. '"'
Co u,it11( S S uA VETE O · " " 5P l C lfllO FAC ll.111(5
l Cl~Q•
TOUL
..,,.,.,.._
ALL
LACHIAII
OultN.
Cur-
SP' A I IIG
w,,inut
WlSTUN
AllllU
Ovt•
WHEAT
WHfAT
COTTON
:Ill . I
31. 7
LU£
ST ATES
T(Ll "HOW( •••••••• • ••••••••• ,
, •. o
l ~. ~ "
RADIO,,. , •• ,, • •~••••,,,,••••
21.8
9 .6
7. ' ·
2. 7
2,.0
hlCTRIC LIGHTS IN 0WELLINI,
13 . •
5. 8
5.6
8.0
0W&I.L I NG,., ,. ,,,,,,.,,••, ,
1,.8
6. •
3.•
7.8
e.,".°°"· ·· ···· ······ ·····
e.•
,.'
l.6
2.•
5 HOIU
(. AA SS
[A S TUN
eo,,01111
51.•
22.0
•-9
2,. 1
9.2
1.8
, .1
"· 7
2.l
6.2
19,0
l•. 3
l.8
2. •
7. 9
8.•
"· 7
"· 7
Wart• P IPlD TO:
1.,
conveniences. The possession of the above conveniences indicates, roughly, the wide variation uong these areas vi th respect
to social organization and standards of living . The average
amount of relief granted in June 1934 in the six areas was highest in the areas in which the percentage of farms reporting
radios (in 1930) was highest.
When it is considered that the farmers receiving relief in
such areas as the Appalachian-Ozark, Lake States Cut-Over and
the two Cotton Areas were or. the s■aller f8J'lls and were apparently faailies habitually near the econ011ic ■argin, as contrasted
with the faailies receiving relief in the Wheat Areas who ■ore
nearly represented an econo■ic cross-section of the population,
the wide differences between faailies receiving relief in the
two groups of areas bec011es more apparent.
Another index of the socio-economic levels of the various
areas is the education of the heads of faailies receiving relief
in June 1934 in the counties surveyed. It is also an iTldication
of the type of rehabilitation progru possible in each area.
One-half of the Negro fuily heads and one-fifth of the whites
, in the Eastern Cotton Belt reported no schooling, and four-fifths
of the Negroes and about one-half of the whites had less than
.five years (Table 11). Although the percentage of fuily heads
with no schooling in the Appalachian--Ozark Area was less than
for whites in the Eastern Cotton Belt, the proportion that had
co■pleted fewer than five grades (56 percent) was larger.
Digitized by
Google
Se
~
ii
::i.
uJ
a:
0
~
0
z
C)
~
::c
en
:2
<
a::
"'
<
_,
..
::i
.,;
~
~ i
z
(/) !!
.
g
-<
u a::
~i
X
z in
_,
~ 0.
a::
"'
(/)
a:
uJ 0
-
PLANS JOR REBABILITATIO~ OJ rAPtILI!S R~IVIJG RILilr
i
!!
a:
~
Ii
Google
I ! i'
1!
Digitized by
91
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
92
The heads of families receiving relief in the Spring and
Winter 'flheat and Lake States Cut-Over Areas included about 5.,,
and 8 percent, respectively, with no schooling, and 10, 12, and
6 percent who had c011pleted 11 grades or ■ore. In this connection it is interesting to note that of the white faaily heads
in the Eastern Cotton Belt about 9 percent had coapleted 11
grades or more. The white fa■ilies receiving relief in this
area appeared to consist of two rather definite groups, an unskilled, unschooled, cropper-laborer class and considerable
nU11bers of younger, better schooled fftlllily heads, living in the
villages and towns, who were Conierly e■ployed at non-aericnltural occupations.
Tu,
11
GttAOI IN SCHOOL
,.
TOTAL
;,,·-
f
a,p,,,_
OP FAMILIIS RtCIIVIN& RtUU
11111 SKI! D IT Hp-•
LAU
~ . , r....._.._.
STUii
laaH••
WIITII ■
•.. ,
......
eo,,o ■
Au
LACNl,0
AHAi
0ZH•
""'•l•kr•••n
10, n1
2,167
1,7'8
1.511
2,007
800
164
1,547
1,257
8.26,
l, T19
1,065
1,017
1.1•,
788
162
l,25S
1,072
NONI •• •• ••••• •• ••• •• ••
1,32'
2(,()
80
29
71
,e
2,1
!1'12
1--'I ...................
2,263
758
282
1,:)
131
225
'9
3'7
5113
'}-7 ...................
2,081
,:)fl
280
251
270
2'19
"6
5,1
1110
189
282
U7
•'8
11,
11
117
20
79
64
12,
90
12
F1 ■ 1SNl!D IY HtAD
ALL
GU,H
FAMIL Ill ••• •• ••••• •••
c,n-
SPIIH
W1 ■ TU
IN
l&f
CoTTON
N•a.111n
N••-
f,...ILIII R1,o ■ TINI
ScNOOL I NG OF
HIAD •• • •• •• •
"'
8 ...................
1,609
9-10 •••••••••••••••••.
•97
•
11-12 ..................
5'1
"
70
19
'19
77
105
,0
5
65
7
12 ...............
1'9
10
11
211
51
10
1
114
8
UNKNOWN • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2,506
588
61,
29<1
862
12
2
108
16,
Ovtl
P•rc•nt
FAIIIL
ua
RtPOIIIT1••
SCNOOL I NQ OF Ht AD •• ••••••
100 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NONI.•.•• •• •.•• •••• •••
16.0
1•.6
1.,
,. 5
2.5
9.0
2, ••
20.5
!:O.,
1.........................
27 .•
•1.,
26'.,
L•. 7
11.•
28,5
56.•
27.2
,2.0
'}-7 ...................
25.2
28.6
26.•
22. 7
25.6
51.6
28.•
28.8
15.l
8 ...................
19.,
10.6
26.,
•LO
.0.0
l•.6
6.8
9.Q
1.9
9-10 ..................
6.0
5.1
7.5
6.5
10.8
11.•
2.5
5.6
1.1
11-U ..................
•.2
1.1
•.6
7.6
9.0
3.8
1.9
5.1
0.7
Ona 12...............
1. 7
0,5
1.0
2.•
2. 7
l. 5
0.6
5.6
0.7
Although the data on schooling presented above are probably
not comparable from area to area because of variation in school
standards, they do indicate area differences, as the poorest
school systems from the standpoint of length of tenis, equiP11ent,
and training of te'lchers, are in those areas in which the heads
of faailies reported a ■ini■UII of schooling.
Digitized by
Google
PLANS FOR REBABILITATIO.
c.
or
FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEJ
9,
Occupational Experience and Rehabilitation
:Nearly half of the f•ilies receiving relief who were judged
capable of self-support 1 had ■ale heads reporting agricultural
experience. Thirty-seven percent of all heads were operating
fal"'lls in June 1934 and 6 percent were une■ployed far■ operators,
■aking a total of
percent with experience as fan operators;
about 2 percent were employed fara laborers and 4 percent une■ployed far■ laborers. Of the reaaining 50 percent of the f81tilies, ,percent were capable f•ilies with ■ale heads e■ployed
in non-agricultural occupations and 22 percent of the faailies
had uneaployed ■ale heads whose usual occupations were nonagricultural (Table XXIV).
Al thoqh fa■il ies capable of ael f-support with ■ale heads who
were farainc or had been fara operators ■ad• up "' percent of
the relief load in the 65 counties surveyed, only " percent of
all fuilies were f•ilies with ■ale heads considered capable
of bei.ne rehabilitated as faraers (the difference was large~
due to the Lake States Cut-Over Area, where aan;y of those who
were faraing in June 19'4 had recenUy shifted to 8""iculture
because they had lost their industrial jobs); but another 28
percent were considered capable of operatinc saal.l plots as a
aeans of partial support in conjunction with other eaployaent
(Table m). '!he basis for the local relief workers' classification of each fuily by typeofwork for which it was qualified
thus appears to have been largely its past occupational experience.
Accordinc to a classification which presupposes rehabilitation on the type of far■ prevalent in each area and at a standard of living near the average for the area, the proportion of
all faailies receiving relief who were classified as capable of
rehabilitation as full-tiae faraers varied fro■ but 18 percent
in the AppalachiaJH)zark and Lake States Cut-Over Area to 64
percent in the Spring Wheat Area. Naturally, those classified
as capable of becoaing far■ operators in the Appalachian-Ourk
Area ■iiht not succeed as far■ operators under another type of
far■ ine and ■any entirely capable of self-support as cotton
tenants or croppers would not know how to operate a wheat far■
in the Great Plains region.
4,
1
1\le loC&l reuet 1110r1ten " " aakecl to clu■ l l) each ra111 ldlleh UleJ cooe1CleNCI
caoable or se1r-supp0r't, accordin& to lta qu&1Ulcat1cxi1 tor operatlng a tara or
1 card• Plllt (part-tl■ e rara) wUb GUier IQlOJ■alt.; &11 capable ta111H DOt
coo110.ree1 111t1lJ' to be 11111cceaafal u tall or per► tllle iar.re
J,ll!=l~'lqt!.u.i Cler
tile llll4111& aouier aplo,-t•.
D1g1tized by
94
SIX RURAL PROBL[H AREAS
Thirty-one percent of all faail ies were classified as capable
of rehabilitation on the land if given supplementary employaent
of s011e kind. The percentage falling in this group was highest
in the Appalachian-Ozark (65 percent) and Lake States Cut-Over
(44 percent) Areas, lowest in the Eastern Cotton (11 to 12 percent) and Spring ~beat Areas (11 percent) (Table XXV),
The proportion of the families receivine relief who were considered unlikely prospects for successful rehabilitation as operators of full or part-ti•e fanas but capable of successful
rehabilitation in so■e other occupation varied froa less than
3 percent in the Appalachian-Ozark Area to 2, and
percent
for white families in the Western and [astern Cotton Areas,
respectively. It is obvious fr011 these classifications, even
though they are based on subjective judpents, that the type of
rehabilitation program which will be successful in one area would
likely fail in another. Moreover, occupational experience is
only one of the limiting factors. Age, fuily co.position,
socio-economic status and racial factors further c0111plicate and
differentiate the type of proble■ that 11Ust be solved in each
area.
,1
D, Rehabilitation Prospects in Each Area,
1, The Appalachtan-OzarR Area. The rehabilitation of this vast
cultural area offers a greater task than does any of the five
other areas as it will involve (1) the 110ving of faailies from
subaarginal lands, (2) the regulation of the cOU1ercial exploitation of the area's natural resources so as to insure their
orderly developaent, <,> the develop■ent of forests and recreational areas, and (4) the extension of educational opportunities.
The average fuily receiving relief in June 19,4 was a noraal
f&11ily, consisti~ of husband, wife, and three children. The
husband was between 40 and 45 years of age, had received less
than five years of schooling, and was a tenant (or cropper) fal"lter on a fani of about
acres, not ■ore than 10 acres of which
was tillable. The faaily owned a horse or ■ule, kept one or
two cows, so■e hogs for its ■eat supply and a s11all flock of
chickens. It had always lived in the same county, in a house
without electric lights, running water or any other ■odern convenience, had no radio, telephone, or autoaobile. What limited
personal property the fa■ily owned was free of ■ortgage. In
nor■ al ti•es the husband secured a considerable port ·.Qn of his
Digitized by
008 e
,7
PLANS FOR REHABILITATION OF FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
95
by work off his fal'll. Because of the drought in
1931, and the loss of his supple■entary occupation, the fa■ily
came onto the relief rolls in 1932 and has been receiving relief
■ore or less regularly ever since.
The above characterization of the average fuily indicates
rather clearly the type of fa■ily receiving relief. Nearly 60
percent of the families were the fuilies of farm operators and
another 14 percent the fuilies of unskilled laborers. Nearly
83 percent were non1al fuilies and 66 percent included one or
IIOre children under 16 years of ftie. About three-fourths of
all the f a■ilies including children under 16 years and only onesixth persons 65 years of age and older. Over 90 percent of the
failies included gainful workers 16 years of age or older and
about 86 percent included ■ale gainful workers. Alllost two-thirds
of all persons in the failies receiving relief were under 25
years of age. Of those who were faraing in June 1934, about '8
percent were operating fal'lls of less than 20 acres or in other
words, , to 6 acres of tillable land.
The resident population is already too large to per11it an
adequate standard of living and is increasing rapidly. The
largest increases are aong the young adults. .As a result of
heavy e■ igration of young ■en and w011en froa this area to Northern cities during the 1920's, the nu■ber of persons 20 to
years of 91e in 19,0 was ■uch saaller than of those 10 to 20
years. Without ■igration the nu■ber of .fOUDi adults between
years will have increased 25 to ,<> percent by
ages !O and
19,5. Recall that one-fourth of the ■ale faily heads receiving
relief in June 1934 were under 32 years of age. The seriousness
of the proble■ is indicated by the fact that large nuabers of
these young adults have been receivilli relief for three or four
years, 110st of them for more than two years. It can be expected,
however, that with the develo:i,.ent of a standard of 1i ving s011ewhat above the subsistence level, the birth rate of this area
will eventually decline.
It is difficult to see how, under any progr• of rehabilitation or reemploy■ent, all the ■an power of this area can be
absorbed in any industrial or agricultural employment possible
at the moaent. The coal and lu■ber industries, about which the
present part-tiae faniing economy has grown up, are the only
important non-agricultural resources iaediately available.
Past experience with such exploitative industries indicates the
cash tncOille
,o
'°
Digitized by
Google
96
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
insecurity of an econoay built around the■• The 9iricultural
land available is very li■ited but so■e far■ families who are
located on submarginal far111s with their poor soils and vertical
fields should be relocated on more fertile lands which would
furnish an adequate income. Much of the land withdrawn from
farming should be set up as forest areas (18, p. 176) 1t.nd developed to offer a certain amount of supplementary employment
to far■ families located in the area and to establish a stable
forest industry. Dovetailed with the creation of forest lands
is the connercial opportunity for the development of recreational
activities. 1be area's scenery, climate and proximity to population centers are propitious to such a development (Fig. VIB
In the face of all the facts the prospects for rehabilitation
of families receiving relief appear none too good. Some form
of industrial employment must be found to supplement the income
from the farms if the present population is to remain in this
area without governaent subsidy in the form of relief. S011e
families could be employed in a reforestation progr8JII which is
badly needed and some improvement could be brought about by
diversification of the agricultural practice which at present
centers too much on a few crops. Fruit can be grown success fully
in 11any parts if a market can be found.
In the opinion of the local relief workers only about onesixth of the families •receiving relief were qualified to operate
full-ti ■e farms, about two-thirds to operate a part-ti11e far■
in connection with other employment and less than 3 percent for
other employment (Table XXV). The prospects for rehabilitation
of these families rests, in two-thirds of the cases, upon the
possibility of securing a steady source of part-ti11e employment
for families already living upon the land. Emigration ■ust be
encouraged but it will be unwise to carry out any widespread
resettlement projects which will radically change the enviroD11ent
under which these families live. The proble■s involved here can
only be solved by substituting for the present economy of this
area a planned economy which will insure orderly developaent of
the natural resources. The area's importance in the national
economy ■ust be recognized and the agriculture and other industry
organized so as to benefit the population of the area rather
than to be left to the whim and caprice of individual farmers,
Without some rational
■ ining companies and timber operators.
plan of future development this area will continue to present
a serious social problem.
DigitizedbyGoogle
PLANS FOR REHABILITATION OF FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
97
Along with a planned developaent of tlle resources of the area
■ust go an educational systea which will assist youth better to
assi.11ilate the ideas and ■ethods of ■odern industrial civiliz&t ion. The public schools in a large part of this area are poorly
equipped and the e11igrants to regions of higher school standards
are severely handicapped by their lack of trainina. Only in
sections of the Eastern Cott.on Belt are educational facilities
poorer.
Improvement is evident in North Carolina, and West
Virginia where the fin,mcial responsibility for the school systea
has been taken over by the state. Through its financial support
the state of west Virginia, for exuple, is able to supply co•
■unities with facilities l>eyond the econ011ic aeans of the local
coamnity.
The progru is beina geared to adult vocational
prob) e■s as well as to the children of school 9£e and to the
■ore academic subjects, and will serve as an exuple for the
entire area.
In a resettlement prograa for this area the siaple standard
of living of the population ■ust be kept continually in ■ind.
It will be difficult to obtain co.unity support for a progru
which gives fuilies on the relief rolls better hoaes, for instance, than those occupied by the aver91e fuily not receiving
relief. In this connection it will be well to bear in ■ind that
fewer than 5 out of each 100 far■ers in the Southern Appalachian
region had electric lights or a bathro011 ( in 1930) and that al■ost as few had telephones.
Before liviD£ standards of the
relief group can be raised appreciably the standards of the
■ajority of the faailies in this area ■ust also be raised. Only
through a long time prograa of education coupled with so.e ■elDs
of increasing fa■ily inco■e is such iaprove■ent possible.
If agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, through
■aking cheap power available over a large part of this area,
can encourRge the develop■ent of new industries and resources,
they will contribute 1111ch to a solution of the proble■ s of the
area. From the standpoint of the socifl.l organization of the
Appalachian-Ozark Area, it will be ■ore desirable to bring the
industries to the people than to have large nu■bers of the■ ■i
grate to strange enviroments els~where.
2. rhe Lake States Cut-Ouer Area. The future of this area depends on a rehabilitation program which can be developed around
a land zoning prograa and the d011inant industries of this area:
forestry, ■ ining, agriculture 1111d recreation al projects. Alqe
Digitized by
Google
98
SIX RUR.AL PROBLEM AREAS
area is suitable only for reforestation (fii. 14), and the
stranded far. fuilies should be relocated on 11C>re arable lana
and other fa■ ilies provided with part - ti■e work in a reforestation program which in the end will establish a stable forestry
and woodworking industry.
The families receiving relief in this area were of two distinct types: one-person fa111ilies, usually lone ■ales too old
to work or unable to find employment who were formerly eaployed
in the forests or mines, and normal f&11ilies consisting of a
husband, wife and two or three children. The average fallil.y on
the relief rolls was a family of four. '.!.'be head of the fuily
was between 45 and 50 years of age and had less than 7 years of
schooling.
He was without employment in June 1934, and was
usually employed as an unskilled or semi-skilled worker .in the
lumbering or woodworking industries, or in the ■ ines. He lived
in the open country in a rented house but owned no livestock of
any kind. His few chattels were not mortgaged.
The majority of the f&11ilies receiving relief int.be counties
surveyed in this area were those of non-agr.icultural workers.
Only one-fourth of the faailies were capable fa■ilies with ■ale
heads (Table XXIV) and living on farms in June 1934. Few of the
remaining f8111ilies had any farming experience.
Only about 18
percent of the families ( about three-fourths of those with far.
ing experience) were considered capable of beco■ing full- ti ■e
farmers. Another 44 percent were considered capable of rehabilitation on the land if given supplementary employment, 16
percent were capable of non-farm work only, and 22 percent were
incapable of being rehabilitated.
Nearly t.wo- thirds of the incapable families were families
without gainful workers and families consisting of lone males
A~d one-third were families without male gainful workers. The
majority of the incapables were aged lumbermen no longer able
to earn enough to support themselves, most of whom were living
alone. However, th is latter group contained some gainful workers
who, if given employment, could at least partially support theaselves, and their families. The occupational experience of the
head of the families receiving relief, coupled with the local
relief workers' classification of their qualifications, indicates
the necessity of proceeding cautiously in any further development of full or part- time farming in this area. Unless su_pple■entary employment can be found for at least one- fourth of
Digitized by
Google
....:r
:::,
"'
Ill
..,
...
0
LL
"'en::::,
u, Z
"'
....:z: 0
z
l.!I C
C ..Jl.!I
u
0
a, a:
..J::Z
::::, w -
a:
z ....
LL
u, a:
..,
....0 Cz
.... ....:,:::z:....
....:,::
◄ O w
..J
a, LL 0:
a:
_ ,_
en a: o
o o.. en
. . ..
w
C
<fl
....
a:
Google
0
~
0
z
~
"' :,
.,"'· .,
0
"'
'tz "'0
,. ...
0
0
. "
...,., -..,..
.. .
., .,
z
PLANS FOR REHABILITATION Of JAHILIF.S RECEIVING RlLln'
: :;: ~
o.. z ::>
,c - 0..
" ' I- a:
◄
0.. . . 0..
I- a, 0
- :::> LL
%
en
%
u -c
•z
en
◄
"'a:
Digitized by
99
100
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
the relief group now faraing, they probably eannot attain ccaplete self- support. Of the faailies not on faras, 110re than
one-half 111ight be set up as part-ti■e faraers if additional eaployment can be assured to supplement their farm inco•e. Unless
some steady source of employment can be found, it will be futile
to encourage these f8Bilies to remain on the land by lending
them equipment and capital.
Careful zoning of the land according to its best uses, the
development of far•forest communities, and the relocation on
better land of capable farmers now on poor land see■ to be indicated. Others should be assisted in clearing their land and
increasing the si :ze of their farms to 11ake agriculture a 110re
stable and profitable enterprise (Fig. 15j, It should also be
kept in ■ ind that ■ any of the fa■ ilies receiving relief are recent migrants who probably should be encouraged to e■igrate
elsewhere as employment picks up. The stranded co•unities of
the copper ■ ine, timber and woodworking areas are separate problems. It will be to the interests of this group, and of society
in general to assist them either to leave the area or to locate
on land suitable for farming. Under the present system (or lack
of system) the families llost poorly equipped for farming are
finding thefr way onto the poorest lands. A well-planned rural
rehabilitation program for this area should be gauged to the
av11ilable resources, and not become just an instrument for setting up additional marginal farm units. Considerable population
adjustments will be necessary to correct the ill-advised promotion of land settlement which has contributed to the economic
insecurity engendered by the collapse of the lumbering and mining
industries. The development of recreation as a source of income
offers possibilities for a few families. Lakes, fishing and
climatic conditions of the area are favorable (Fig. VII). The
area is fortunately situated near population centers, and though
recreational facilities are embryonic in their present development, they offer promising possibilities of beco11ing a permanent
industry. If some of the energy and money spent in extolling
the dubious virtues of "Cloverland" to uninformed buyers had
been turned to developing what now is admitted to be "The Land
of Hiawatha", some of the present troubles of this area could
have been avoided. Only through a system of lend zoning, such
as that used in \iiisconsin, can a repetition of wildly speculative
land selling schemes be avoided.
Digitized by
Google
~
_,
_,
<
Ill
:I
t--
0
0
~o
_z
z:, 2:
_,
~~
0
~~
~~
"'~~
o<
Google
PLANS FOR REHABILITATION OF JAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
~
..,
.
"'..,::,
...$ >
~f
.. 0
u
"'~
~
_,
"'<
Digitized by
101
102
SIX
RURAL PROBLEM AR£AS
3. The Sprtnt Nheat Area. Social and economic plans for this
area ought to include a program which will bring the rapid soil
erosion under control and which will assure l\n adequate far11
income over a long period of years. Much of the sub■al"linal
land should be retired and replanted in grass for grazing (Fig.
14). Selected farmers can be assisted in enlarging their holdings so as to restore cattle, sheep end horse raising and to
reduce the extent of dry land farming, so that the ine'Vitable
crop failures will have less severe effects.
The Montana and
Nebraska projects for the construction of flood irrigation da■s
and dikes in coulees and other favorable locations where water
from the torrential rains may be i11pounded should he encouraged,
and where favorable, irrigation homesteads developed.
There
is, however, some scepticis■ as to whether a dry lend f&r11er of
long experience can become a successful irrigation far■er. The
land remaining in dry land far11ing will have to be cultivated
under a method which permits the least erosion, for a further
depletion of the top soils, either by wind or rain erosion, will
render a large proportion of this area entirely useless for
agricultural production.
In what appears to be a necessary
program, there is a demand placed upon the Depart■ents of .Agriculture in the states within the area for the developaent and
dissemination of a long range production progr811 geared to the
social needs and the natural resources of the area. Only in
such a long range diversified prograa is there prospect of permanently controlling the major factors responsible for the present relief situation. All informants familiar with the history
of this area agree that such a progr8JI will involve relocation
of many families now on f8I'lls ■arginal for arable agriculture,
either because of soil and cli■atic conditions, or because of
the size of their farms. Care will need to be taken that thA
necessary relocation is carried out as a part of the rehabili~
tation program. The necessary reorganization of agriculture
must be based on a land policy which will insure against a repetition of the present difficulties. A resettle■ent policy will
be of little value unless measures are taken to curb the unbridled expansion of wheat acreage in years of aaple rainfall.
The typical fa■ily receiving relief was a faaily of four or
five persons, consisting of husband, wife and two or three children. The husband, p1st 50 years of age, had received 8 years
of schooling and had lived in the county in which he was receivDigitized by
Google
PL>.NS FOR REHABILITATION OF FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF
103
ing relief 10 years or more. He was a farm operator renting a
f8MI of about 400 acres. As a result of a succession of crop
failures due to drought, he had to apply for relief in order to
obtain food for his faaily and feed for his livestock. His fam
equipaent and his livestock were 110rtgaged and in order to subsist he had been forced to use so■e of his capital. In ■any
cases he had been able to re■ ain in the area only through a succession of loans.
Three-fourths of the flllli.lies receiving relief were the fa■ilies of fal'lll owners and tenants, who were forced to accept relief because of the severe drought. Poor soil in so■e counties
and a low and variable rainfall throughout the area ■ ekes wheatgrowing a speculative enterprise. Many saall far■s have been
cut out of what was originally good grazing land, and the extension of arable agriculture has resulted in trouble for both
the far■ers and the ranchers. The ■ajority of the far■ f1111ilies
receivine relief have achieved a standard of living which insures th6t they will present few social proble■s if given ad~
quate incoae.
In the opinion of local relief workers, about two-thirds of
all fa■ ilies receiving relief were capable of operating far■ s
if assisted in recouping their capital losses of recent years:
11 percent ( ■ost of whOII were young fuilies who had not accu■u
lated enough capital to bec011e far■ers) were considered qualified for rehabilitation on farms if given supplementary employ■ent (Table ID). Of the re■ aining 25 percent of the fa■ ilies
16 percent were classified as incapable of self-support, and 9
percent as fitted only for non-agricultural work, or work as
laborers on far■ s.
,. rhe ftnter f,\eat Area. The recent rapid expansion of dryland far■ ing in this area without r9iard to the rainfall cycle
has led to the present relief situation. Since 1920 there has
been a phenoaenal increase in the acreage brought under the plow
and planted to wheat. In the hope of quick profits, far■ ers
rushed into this area, boueht tractors and co■bines, apparently
on the assaption that the good years would last forever. The
boo■ was encour91ed by good wheat prices and by a period of
years durine which there were few serious crop failures. The
successive crop failures of the past few years have bankrupted
■any faraers and left the■, and the far■ laborers whom they for■erly eaployed, stranded.
Here, as in the Spring 1iheet Area,
Digitized by
Google
104
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
it will be necessary to relocate s011e of the farmers and reaodel
the agricultural econOJIY to insure 110re stability in good years
and bad.
Wheat production in this area is a highly speculative venture
and until more knowledge is gained of the periodicity of weather
conditions, a specialized type of faraing seellS to lead to a
questionable econo-.v. Large areas of the region which have been
destroyed by erosion will have to be withdrawn fro■ cultivation
and eventually returned to grazine (Fig 14). Likewise, other
subMarginal lands will sooner or later have to be retired. M&IIY
of the farms are at present too saall to be operated in an extensive agricultural and grazine econo-.v. An increase in fara
size would pel'llit a aore diversified fal'lliJII. In the southeastern section of the area the ■ove away fr011 wheat to other
saall grains and sorghU11s should be encour9£ed to reduce the
social effects of periodically recurring crop failures inherent
in the present one-crop syste■ of agriculture. Unless ■easures
are taken to prevent further wind erosion through the use of
cover crops, or by listing, ■uch of this area will be subjected to wind erosion to an extent which will eventually ■ake
faraing impossible. Water resources of the area could be i■proved by 'I conservation prograa which would attempt to i■pound
the waters of the torrential rains in coulees and other suitable
places .
.Although the general characteristics of the fllllilies receiving relief were si■ilar to those of Spring Wheat fnilies, more
of those on relief rolls in this area were young f•ilies, and
■any of the• had ■ov~d into the county in which they were receiving relief during the past five years. In the opinion of
the local relief workers, about 46 percent of the fuilies receiving relief could beco■ e self-supporting far■ers and another
23 percent part-ti ■e far■ers, if given help. Over 17 percent
of the fa■ ilies were considered capable of self-support but not
qualified to operate either full or par t-tbie faru. Many of
the displaced faraers will probably need to be assisted to locate under ■ore favorable conditions if they are to reaain off
the relief rolls.
These two Wheat .Areas s,re pri■e ex811ples of the sort ~f econowy which can develop under individual initiative with no thought
of social and econo■ ic consequences either to the state, to the
region, or to the nation. A constructive rehabilitation policy
Digitized by
Google
PLANS FOR RF.BADILITATION OF FAHILIF.S RECEIVING RELIEF 105
will face the need for soae change in fara organizatioa in these
areas, and will not encOlll"ece faraers to plow up land which is
sulaaf"linal for arable egricul ture.
<6'· -,,_. hst~To-Uon "jr,Q";- In this area the mediate relief
~ - is related io the ,following several factors: (1) an
enOl'IIOllS and rapid expaasioa of a one-crop agricultural systea,
U) depressed arket prices,
adverse crop conditiona, and
(4) an anstable tenancy systea caopled with a creat d•and for
seasonal labor.
Since the western liai ts of this area have been pushed nearer
the precipitation liaits belOlf which cotton ca11Dot be crown, an
abnonlally dry year necessari~ results in widespread crop failure. Moreowr, increasiq use ofachiaery has aade aall faru
uprofitable and displaced a creat any tenants and laborers.
The stability of this area will depend upon the developaent of
an adequate earicultural proera which will •ke the best utilization of the availabb land for fara failies of all classes.
Laaberiq and the petrolea indastries will not play an iaportat part in a rehabilitation pracra. The foner is ■inor in
illport.ance to the lll"icaltaral industry in the area, and the
latter is already too overcrowded to offer eaplo,aent. Mien the
cotton acreace was expanded ■u;r aall far■ s were established
where the acreace vu too aall to prOYide profitable ■anap
■ent.
The ■edian sise far■ of farMrs on relief was 58 acres.
'lhe need for consolidation of far■ s and for the diversification
of crops is essential (18, p. 159) (Jic. 15).
The •Jority of the failies receivinc relief in this •rea- J
were faraers and far■ laborers, ■ost of the■ wbi te failies. , '
'lbe avera,e 919 of ale heads of failies wu about 44 years ·
(
ud their averace schoolinc aboat six crades for vhi tes and four
crade• for Negroes. The averaae fuily head wu rentine the
houe in which he lived and owed no livestock ud few chattel.a.
About 41 percent of all white and '¥7 percent of all lfearo
f•ilies were considered capable of rehabilitation as far■ operators, ff percent of the whites and ,5 percent of the Negroes
as pert.-ti■e farMrs. About 2, percent of the whites and 15
percent of the lfearoes were clusi fied u capable of self-support bat not qualified for rehabilitation on the land. Of the
hero failies percent were considered incapable of attaininc
self-support. Jitty-eight percent of these fa■ilies contained
no gainful workers and an additional 16 percent contained no
<,)
2,
Digitized by
Google
106
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
male gainful workers. In other words, practically all of this
group consisted of families which included no adult ■ales of
working age.
Almost one-fi ftb of the fa■ilies receiving relief in this
area were uneaployed squatters, ■arooned in the area. These
squatters were, for the most part, young faailies. Fnrther i■11igration of this class of laborer into the area sbOuld l;,e discouraged and a considerable proportion of those now in the area
should be given assistance in ■oving elsewhere. Because of the
seasonal nature of labor needs, much could be accoaplished by
setting up the unemployed fara laborers on s■ all plots of land
under proper supervision so that they could produce part of
their food supply and derive soae income froa work which they
can do during the slack season in the cotton fields.
Adj ustaents aust be 11ad-e in the syste■ of agriculture in the
western part of this area if the effects of recurring dry years
are to be avoided. As in the Wheat Areas, arable agriculture
based on a one-crop syste■ ■akes for social and econo■ic insecurity. These adjustments will require the resettlement of so■e
of the present population on better lands elsewhere.
In the eastern part of the area the problems are akin to those
of the Eastern Cotton Belt with its cropping system. Only through
a far-reaching and long-time rehabilitation program can the situation be re■edied. Education and gradual induction of the
present share-croppers, or their posterity, into the status of
land-owning farmers appear~ to be indicated.
6. The lastern_Cotton Belt._ 'The socio-econ011ic status of the
average f&11ily receiving relief in this area is such that only
through a long-ti11e progra■ of education can it learn to ■anage
its own affairs efficiently. The colonial system of agriculture
(9), based on the exploitation of both the laborer, and the
lP.nd on which he works, for the benefit of the mother country,
has left in its wake denuded, worn-out soils and a large population of illiterate, subservient workers, poorly equipped to guide
their own destinies.
The typical family receiving relief in the Eastern Cotton
Belt counties was an unemployed far■ cropper, either white or
Negro. About one-fifth of the white fa■ ilies and ■ore than
two-fifths of the Negro fa11ilies included fewer than three persons; one-person f&11ilies and broken fa■ilies consisting of women and children ■ade up about one-fifth of the white and twoDigitized by
Google
PLilS JOR RliJABJLitATION Of FAMILIF.S RECEIVL~G RELIEF
107
ti tt.hs of the Negro fuilies receiving relief. 'The average age
of fuale heads of f•ilies receiving relief was about 46 years
for whites and 55 years for Negroes; for aale heads of families
'1 and 48 years, respectively. Over 25 percent of the ■ale anl'
'fl percent of the feaale heads of Negro fuilies were 65 years
of aae and older. The typical relief fuily lived in a shack '
afit for huaan habitation, owned little or no livestock and
it.a chattels were few and uiaortgaged.
, Aboat '1 percent of the white faailies and 17 percent of the
( Negro failies were classified as unlikely prospects for reha'bilitation on the land, about 20 and
percent, respectively,
I
(_as incapable of self-support. Of the white fuilies considered
}incapable of self-support, 46 percent included no gainful workers, 24 percent one feaale gainful worker only, and an additional
14 percent included no ..1e gainful workers, ■aking a total of
/ahaost three-fourths without ■ale rainful workers. Of the re,■ainiq 26 percent, the ■ajority were fuilies including ■ale
workers who because of old age or other incapacities, or because
~f their y011thfulnesa, were unable to attain cOlll)lete self-supjort. Host of the failies with only one fe■ale rainfnl worker
:were broken failies couistinc of a wo■an with children under
16 years of 919. Of the }fqro failies
percent were consid1 ered incapable of attaininc self-support.
Sixty-four percent
of these fuilies containednoaainful workers andanadditional
; 25 percent contained no aale aainful workers. In other words,
. practicaIJ., all of this aroap consisted of fuilies which in\ claded no adult ■ales of working age.
Nachofthe soil which bu been depleted by over cultivation
is so saburginai. in this area that it will find its best utilization as forest laud (Fig. 14), On other ■arginal lands atteapts should be ■ade to control erosion by terracing, contour
cultivation and cover crops and to restore the soil's fertility
by lepainous crops, and by a reneral progra of diversified
famnc. Mot only will diversified tar■inc assist in eli■inat
inc •UV' of the detects of the cotton -,ricultural syste■ as it
esist.s, but it will perait the far■ f•ilies to produce ■ore
subsistence crops. The pasturinc of cattle froa the drought
areas throughout the South ■ay have a very- ■arked anrl favorable
effect on the change towards diversification (6, p. 2~u. In
Alabaa there has been a trend towards beef cattle, dairy, and
•ixed type faraine conducted ■ostly by the white operators.
,9
,9
Digitized by
Google
108
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
Extension of land ownership is indicated as a partial solution
to probleas of economic instability in this area. In the opinion of the local relief workers about
percent of the white
and 33 percent of the Negro faailies were capable of operating
fanas, and about 11 percent of all faailies capable of rehabilitation on the land in connection with a suppleaentary job (Table
XXV). To atteapt to set up ■ any of these faailies on their own
, farms and expect the11 to manage their own affairs will be fu( tiJe. A rural rehabilitation prograa for the ■ajority of the
families receiving relief11ust furnish careful supervision over
a period of years if it is to succeed. The cropper who has always depended upon his landlord to keep his accounts and tell
hi■ what to do, and when to do it, cannot be transforaed over
night into a successful independent faraer. An iaportant factor li■iting the prospects for rehabilitation in this area is
the resources of the families themselves. Only the ■ore resourceful tenants and croppers can be expected to succeed as
independent farm owners; the remainder will require close supervision. Little will be acc011plished toward the solution of present probleas, however, by perpetuation of the "furnishing" syste■
under govermaent auspices; the rural rehabilitation progra■s of
■ any states in this area have thus far done little ■ore than
this. These prograas to date have been conceived as a form of
e■ergency work relief.
S011ething ■ore is needed: the sharecropper syste■ and its one-crop agriculture ■ust be fundaaentally
chaIJged if the cotton far11er is not to re11&in econo11ically insecure. A satisfactory rehabilitation prograa ■ust assist in
the breaking up of this syste■ of econo■ic serfdo■• The prograa
will need to be gauged to the abilities of the present generation
of far■ers but it ■ust also plan for the next generation so tliat
they will not be dependent share-croppers and far■ laborers of
the present type.
The large DU11ber of white faailies classified for non-acricultural rehabilitation were uneaployed workers in the ■ ills of
the villages and towns, s011e of thea f or■er e■igrants who had
returned fro■ the cities. For these the final hope appears to
be a revival of industrial e■ployaent. Supple11enting the seasonal wage by making land available on which to produce subsistence crops or garden produce would help to bring a stability
which has been unknown to a large naber of f •ilies in this
area. But resettleaent of these failies on saall plots of land
,9
Digitized by
Google
PLANS fOR REHABILITATION OF FAtofiLIF.S RECEIVING RELIEF 109
will be successful, in 110st instances, only if they are given
soae supervision. Without it, the average non-agricultural worker
receiving relief in this area is not likely to i■prove his econo■ic status even though he has land of his own.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
APPENDIX A
Tabh1
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEHEMTARY TABLES
P•cwottTIO• a- TNI Au•&L,
, ... , I.
U ■ 1no
TotM..
Suns
ALL
TOTAL
Auas
To,.._ ......•..... ~22,
n,.°"6
c,,, .. .........
6",257 ,233
Rua&L ANO Ton.
'll!,'37,813
109 ■ • ••••••••
•,717,')9()
Rua AL ••••••••
Tona ■oC1n P0PI.H.ATI0N0' THI U ■ 1TI0 SUTll
53,820,223
Suus
A■
Ouu
2<1, 766,519
S"o•,
Lau
.,,,,_
LACH!
IN'"' Six
PlltO ■ LIM AHo•
6-01
CUT-
s, ....
.,.,u
Ovu
WNtAT
WMtAT
·-·
JftSTU ■
Easru ■
Conoa
C.Ono ■
5,:183,2'3 l • "'8 •"8J 8',.111
1,201,198 •.539,037
10,,9'8
27•,5'1 1,077 ,811()
1.833,961
7•9.1'9
926,6117 3.•61, 197
9. 10, •• 1,
•.288.!!97
"'8,603
••7 ,fi8o
20.•n.m
•• 7'4,6'0
900,796
1,228,20'1
199.~
112,790
27,•27
19,2'19, 718
"·"'·°"'
.. '
788,006
721, 732
11.,39 •• ,.
2'8,988
,10,i,1
867,581 3,202,:>09
9.B,.336
!!9,266
farcent
TOTAL ••••••••••••
100.0
20.2
1.1
o. 1
1.0
,. 7
C1 ,, •••••••••••
100.0
6. 7
0.9
0. 7
0.2
o.•
l. 7
2.9
RuU,L AIID To••·
100.0
35.0
8.1
1.5
1. 3
1.6
5.9
Ton .........
100.0
26.0
•. 2
2.•
0.6
1. 3
,.,
16.6
12.1
RUIIIAL.
100.0
3'.8
8.•
1.,
l. 3
1.6
5.9
17.0
•u. s.
0000 • • •
cusus, 1930.
J-■LE
II.
Fuwe•s H
PlltOPOttTIO■
Tt ■ u ■ t
Af...L FA1tMEAS •••••••••••
o.. ,.
(AND 1'4 ■ 4CHft).
T111tANT 0
•. •
•
•
•
•
•• •
•
•
•
C.OPPI •• • • • • • • • • • • • •
0,
ALL F.........
0,
'"'
U■ ITID
FAltWfJtS ••• ,, ••••••
0w11U (ANO MUAH")•
TE•A11T •••••••••••• ••
c.o,,1 ....... ........
SU.TIS , . TNI
S1• AuUL P11tOILllill A,n,.,•
U ■ tTID
Tou,..
Suns
..., ....
ALL
LACNIAN
cu,-
S,111 NG
WINTUt
ToTA.L
Altl'-1
Oz•u
Ovt•
WHt4T
IHIAT
•93,083
9",180
106.,21
7~.•77
31.0••
6,288,6"8
3,li2",283
l.i388,087
776,278
2,679,08,
l,17E.•2•
86,.1•1
63',,20
·-·
""· 2••
103_0,,
, •• 98'1
Perce,it
ALL
9.•
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•2.6
32.,
.,.8
81.9
7.8
9.8
.. ,
5.,
LAKl
SNon Gaa.sa
STUii
B3.B72
10. 308
-----
1.,
----2. 3
0.5
----1. 7
2.1
1.6
-----
112,3•9
67,121
•~.026
-----
fftSTlh
£.UTUN
CoTTON
Cot TON
"1,1 ,991
Hie. 778
212, •6•
106. 7,,
1.8
1.9
2.•
.........
Digitized by
7.B
•.6
II.I
13.8
l,IIN,9"
428, 7IO
i.62. i.1.11.1
•93. 781
22.0
11.B
2•. 5
61.6
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
114
TULi 111.
PUCl:NU8(
o,
TNI N1010 Fuwus o, TNI U ■ ITID SU.TIS •• TNI CoTTON
A1t1u•
U ■ 1T!D
FA ■ Mfltl IY Tl!NUltl
Wl!STUN
_,..,.
4LL
916,070
20~.8•2
317,331
'92,897
NIGltO F.1U1h1(tS •••••••• , •••• ••••••••
Owwe:R,lAIIO MAIIAflll) •••••••••••••••••
Tl!JIIAIIT, •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
C■ a,,11
•••.••••••••••••.•••••••••••.
700,798
!o6,ij33
2,,, 185
}113,180
608,961
83,3~
220.9,3
95,837
23,083
3•, 232
38,522
30•,6,S
l'ereH&
()wNl!llt (.& ■D .......... ,. ••••••••••••••••
flNAIIIT,,,,,,, •,, o, ■,, • • , • , , , • • • • • • • •
C110,,11 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
au.
5, CINIUI,
TABLE
69.6
87. 3
9,8
"°·'
11.,
19,0.
IV.
AGRICULTu•u
PEltCfNT
Yl(LO
PER AcRf
SOWN&
AIIANOONfOI
ACRl.lGl
1911
1912
191 l
191Q
191,
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
19,9
1910
1911
19~2
1933
66,q
!l.2
10.8
76,9
7
ANO CLIMATIC DATA FROfr,il THI! KUSAS COUNTU:S IN TH( WtNTU WH!AT AIU
ANNUAL Av
YIAAS
10.,
BQ,q
,1.
100
100
100
100
ALL NtGRO 'A ■ NIII, •, ••• , , , , , , , , ••, •,,,
1,.0
,,. 7
,~.8
o.c
1,.a
11.2
E4.l
62. l
0.0
9, 7
13.C
29.6
M.B
6 .6
lll,-,
20.C
•2 .6
ll.4
1.0
6.l
1.c
34.C
1.0
6.l
2.3
17 .!
11.,
12,Q
o. 7
2.~
11.Q
ll.9
e.'
7 .2
2.C
l•.l
6.6
9.9
2. 7
12.1
l• .2
11.8
17. 5
6.3
YlfLO
P1t
1Cf
PIER ACRf
p,.
HAIIVlSTl!0 1
BuSHH
3.9
9.6
5,2
17. I
13.6
Jq,c
o.6
6.0
11.•
1,.9
9.8
!C.2
,.e
15. l
7. 7
12 ,Q
Q, 7
17. 7
1• .6
12.6
1e.o
5-~
.1,
.Bo
. 76
,83
.e9
I.le
2.01
1.93
1.96
l.82
.96
.9C
.BC
1.07
1.38
1.17
I.le
,91
1.00
.6C
,33
.30
fJU.Gf Tn,1,-
I! RATURl
ANNUAL
A.MOUNT
RA I NJ:ALL
PUCl!NT
o,
POlll'ULA-
(CRo, Yl!U) CRo, Ytu)
';ll.l
19.6
21.Q
l~.8
20.1
2c.3
20.9
11.9
If .2
1e.o
16.!
2'5.l
22. l
22 .c
2C.3
23.5
24 .I
22 .6
26. 7
51.9
211,ll
'5".e
56.C
!E.9
21.C
16.2
1f;_11;
~-3
51.2
53,9
"· 7
'3.6
"'·2
53,q
, •. 1
,Q.2
,4.C
, •. 8
'!ti .9
55.6
53.1
56.2
'54 .l
.,~.2
,e. 7
,,. 7
(50,2•)
TOU.L
A.CllEAGf
TION
1'4
130, 3'18
124 .616
12l,810
119.848
125,670
I 4C ,219
l~C.ffl
146,862
Jql .e,9
150, 7GI:
1,,, 791
I ,665
1Ec.ce1
!6C,123
!cl. ~90
,1
lf'-1,04~
161,ne
!6l ,!Ee
16e. 156
177,€45
I e2, 7f5
181' .,7£1
WNEAT
11.6
10.3
9,q
11. 7
11.e
13. l
15.9
14, 7
1,.2
If. l
IE.I
19.E
19.5
17 ,q
19.9
22 ,Q
24.3
2l. 7
23.9
~7. 7
30. 7
2•.8
TUC TOA
COMBINfS
P••
PfR
10,000
10,000
ACRES
ACRE.$
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
......
2
3
3
•
'
7
IC
IC
12
Jq
I•
19
21
2•
27
24
2,
31
l
3
q
'
6
e
13
1,
16
21
uo. 1•)
1 LIMITEO TO WINTtR IIHlAT ACRU&E.
11 NOAWAL,
Digitized by
Google
lVi
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
T,ULI v. R1s1of•Cl o, ~UUl ... o To•• f.WILIII •• TN( ,.,.., uo TN( Cou111TIIS Su•vn10:
Al.to Pao,O•110 ■ O, THI fUlll. 116 , . [&CM ..... "' lNI Coun1ts S u•v, .. o
.......-
TOTAL
AtSIHNCI
Au
LACHI I.II
Auas
Ozu•
LH
. :t
Suns
S"o•T G•ass
Cur-
S,,R I NG,
...... ,
To UL
QYU
Conow
.NIAT
Tou.1.. Nu»IU . • •• 8'1,2,1
100. 0
P1•ct ■ r •• • • • •
Ru•AL.,,, ••
To ■■ ••••••
•
93 . 7
6,3
l,CXll , 672
100 . 0
9, . 1
•.9
389 . 780
100 . 0
9• . ,
198 ,256
100 .0
,.'
90 .8
9.2
I
Area
171.072
100 .0
96 . 1
3,9
218,708
100 . 0
93 . 3
6. 7
Pt•ct•T • •••• ,
Ru•M.. ••••• •
To•• • •• •. .•
238 , 523
100. 0
90, 6
9.•
"8 , •37
100. 0
98 . 5
29 ,.0
02•[ 38.
100 79"
.0
100
au. u
8•.6
15.6
15.•
1.,
of
Percen&
TOTA&. •• • ••, ••
Rut AL ••••••
To ■ N, • , . , • •
,. 3
5,1
8.0
•.8
,.o
1.,
I
,,,.11 lu
l•.6
]3.6
2•.5
I
I
1, .0,0
100. 0
92. l
7. 7
13. 76"
100 .0
79.,
20.5
' " ' ' ' , - Nt~O
I
779 ,866
100 .0
91.8
8.2
2. ll•,683
100 . 0
9 5,9
6. 1
I
1Qll1lt11 ,,. Cou11U11 &r~11•d
Tou.L frluMHR.
CoTTON
NtGIIO
IHI Tl
I
,q,11 llH t•
[ASTIEO
IISTUII
IINTIR
37,827
100.0
100.0
8".8
87. 3
12. 7
15 , 2
I
au .,un
100. 0
88 . 8
11.2
100.0
95, 5
•.5
In Area ,,. C.OwUl11 S..r..,.11~
10 .0
8. 9
28. 3
I I "·" I
8.8
8.•
17.'
10.9
9. 3
•.9
•. o
•.6
7, 7
•.9
3.9
s,.
ha.1 YI. PUCINUG,f Of' Fu .. 0,-fUTO• FAIIIILlfS Ill [ACM Tt11uu GIOUI" ...
RURAL A ■ us ;
COtd&lltl~N o, AI..L RuflAL AND TOWN F&MILII, I N ' " ' ARtA ANO'" C.O ulllflt~
SuAVlTlO, 19!(), ANO FA1t111Lll$ RlCllVINli RlLll' IN JUNl 19 ,q
....
LHI
TOU\.
u,,._
su,u
ALL
LACH I &N
C uT-
Aaus
0ZUIC
Ovu
S..ou Guss
S,11 ••
""'"'
TOTAL
"'""·
WH(Al
. ,,,...
CoTTON
E&STt••
CO TTO't
WHl 'ft
NtG.10
IJMIU
Nt~IIO
100.0
22 .•
27 .•
10 . 5
39. 1
100.0
17.8
100.0
27 .b
1~ . 5
1, . 1
38. 0
100 .0
"}. 1
25.6
,, _5
29 -•
100.0
13. 7
27.6
8.8
•3.J
100 . 0
100 .0
26 .0
19.8
18.8
100 .0
6.9
52. 1
''·"
2,.'
100.0
6.1
lU.6
7. 3
72.0
100 . 0
7. 3
9.5
2•- 7
100 . 0
l.9
6.9
~ -3
63. 9
I
l'otol .treo - 193'.I
F'AWIL I f.!i • • • • ••••
Fa ■ w
Ow111u •••• • •••
FA ... TtNAMT ••• • •••
FA• .. C1110,-,.u ••••••
At.L Nolt-F H.,a •• •••
100.0
26 . 3
20. l
13.•
.0.2
100.0
100 . 0
27 . •
20.2
12. 2
•0.2
100 .0
38.1
12 . l
3. 3
"6.5
"·
10 ••3
,. 5
,0 . 8
!00.0
•2.'
,. 2
··---
52,5
Cowu
ALL F..,.tL llS , • • •• •••
Fuw O.•t• ..•.• •• .
r.. .., r,.,.., ... .. ..
Fu11 Ct10,,.11t. • ••••
"-• No11--Fu,.. . .•..
IIIU'OI -
100 .0
100.0
36.6
19. 5
100 .0
100 . 0
""· 1
18.2
20.6
lO.a
------------u5 , 9
37. 7
"8 . 6
t•• Surua11et1 100 .0
,S .9
20,5
29 . 6
26 . '
193'.I
·100 .0
100 . 0
,, . 2
••.6
"°·'
5. l
17.9
22. 2
----- -------·· ----'"·" II0.6 31 . , •2 . 6
rown 100111 ..
26 . 3
u.,
17. 7
20. l
"8.9
5,.1
Recoluln, Rollo( •
Juno 193, Cowl! IH :S.ruovod
A6.L
F°MIILIIS, ... • • • •
r ....
r,.111111
O•••··
····...··
ti•••' ....
f•IM C ■ M,t• ••••••
Au Now-fu,.a , , •••
100 . 0
18 . 2
17 . 2
11. 3
52. 3
100 . 0
26.•
9. 1
23 - 3
II0.6
100.0
13. 9
,.,
----80.6
100 . 0
28 . I
n .o
···-38.9
100.0
39 . 5
3', 2
100 .0
20.6
31. 7
100 .0
7. 2
2,. 3
•7 . 1
58, 7
----- -----
26.9
7.2
,e.,
• 1 flCI..IIDII PAMU, Ill OP Al• ICUL TUIAL UIOIIII.
Digitized by
Goos le
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
116
Tou: VII.PIRCl ■ TAGl o,
011
h,r
o,
RIL I lf
LAKl
TOTAL
,.,,,._
Au
LAC141AN
Cur-
OUAll
Ov111
.... ,
...
"°""•
1-. Cou llllll!i Su RVlTlO R(CEIVING DIAlCT ,
01R(CT .UD WOAIIC RH. lfl' , tl'f Su Of Huo
FAMILl(S
Bont
Suns
SHOIIT Guss
Euuui
Wtstt•11
s,11, .. ,
W1 IIUR
WHl AT
tlH(AT
COTTON
WHI
tf.
COTTON
NEGRO
W141Tf
NE GAO
5'
9
100
75
18
7
All faaltt.,
To,""••· .......•.. .•• •....
100
IOO
011t(CT 011LY , . , , , , , , . , •• •
5'
55
67
:18
12
5
100
51
100
"°"" O
O ■ LY • • ••• ••• • • •••••
8oTK
lll(CT 00
'fllo••·· ..
1aat Lt •a
'TOTAL, ••• , . , •• •,••,•••• •••
011ttCT ONLY,., , , , . , . , , , ,
Wo••
AIIO WOH:, , ••
36
13
TOTAL , • • , ••• •••• , , , , . , • • , ,
OllillCT ONLT ••• , , , . , , , , , .
100
85
WORll 0fllLY,,, •• , , . , . • •••.
11
8ont
ONLY •••• •••• •••••••
0111ECT
6"
30
6
100
100
65
17
18
100
21
62
17
100
69
100
100
87
11
20
1
12
56
""q7
100
18
65
100
63
39
26
17
100
85
l
l•
100
51
9
100
65
12
23
10
II
100
100
93
2
9•
...
100
78
18
100
92
5
5
6
•6
•6
8
wt th /fat• lead.a
100
62
18
20
100
1aai l tes wt th la.ate leoda
8oTH 0111lCT AND
Wou • •••
•
100
88
9
3
Ii
100
I
,., -'lu,1.t VIII. hfR.lGE YUUE Pu F.t.MIL.T
... Co1.uuns
...
Tou1.
Alf AS
ToT.ll. • • •• •••••••••••••••
011tt:CT 0111. 'Y, •• , , . , , , • •
0N l. T,,,,, . , ,., •• ,
8oTN 0 1A t:CT UD litol'lc:,.
"°ltl(
$13
8
19
21
,,,,._
l,ACMl,lll
0ZHIC
S8
6
12
12
6"
30
67
1100
27
6
6
0,
Rn 1u
SUltWl't'ID,
LUf.
Suns
.,"'"'"'"''"
SNOIH (;ttAS5
cu,-
S,.1t1 " '
0Yfl
'htU,T
$16
12
23
27
Sl•
'
19311
Rt:C(IY(D DUR IN G JUNI
"TT,t o,
•
RHIU'
Wf:STt:11111
CoTTON
[A5ff . .(
CoTTON
WM 1 Tl
Nt: GRO
WNI Tl
Ht:GRO
$ 7
$23
12
25
$ 9
$ 5
11
•5
$13
17
1"
28
16
1~
17
19
10
7
Digitized by
9
5
12
12
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
117
T.t. .. , IX. AftlH .. ¥Al.ft , •• Faa.u, 1' 0# Ru.11, R1c11 YID DUI I •• Jy.. 19,..
IN
SI.LIClla GAou,s
OF SU.Tts•
U■ ITtD ST&lll TOTAL •• • • •• •••••••••• •• •.•••••••.•••• •••••••• •.••••,•• ••• ,•.•••••• , ••• , , , , , , . , , , , •• , $25, 30
P11 ■cr,aL C,1111 •••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••• •••••••••••••
29.92
Alllll ■OII Ofl Cot1•T ■ t ••• , • •• ••• ••• •••• ••,.,,, •• ,. ,, , , •••, ••.,,, ••• , •• •• • • , , , , , . , , , , , . , . , . , , , , ,
s,., .. ..,.,.,
"81• (IIOltTN •••
a, ■ ,1• - . . ,
Alt••
18.08
WO.Ta ■,) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
22. 28
•••co)................. ..... .......... .. ..... .... ....
. . . T1xu).............................................. ..... ........
12.n
Sou,• Oaao,a,
(ka■ u1, O.t..ANDIIA ... ltt•
WtSTII ■ CoTT0111 Ml& (0.LAIIOMA
[A.STUN Cono• Bt:l.T
9 , 12
u.,,
('-..Al&IIA, ......... , Gloee,a, MIIIIISll',1 HD SouTM C&•.J1..1H) ••• •• • •• ••••••••••
1 ....
x. ca... ,••
MU
OI Ava ■au•
s,a
OIi FMIILT R1ca1vu1 R1L11• ••• o,
FM11L1n, 1930
•• .._ FA811 ... llott-f'FMIILIII
R1c11v, ..
RU ■ AL
RIL 11,
Mott-F- A...
..,.,,
•.2
,. ,
•• 1
,.1
....,. • • ••• •• •
•. o
e.l
. . ,11 ••••••••••••••••••••••••
..,,.,
,.1
,.o
LMI St&Tla C.1'-0wta •••• •• ••••• •• •
S.0.T &aaa.--lftllTI ■
.. ,11 ■■
Cono ■
1111 .. 0 ••••••••••••••••• • ••••••
...
[AITl ■ I CoTTO ■
,......................... .
.............................
........
•.2
,.1
, .9
..
,.1
,
..
,
,.9
2.,
• •1
2.9
..,
,.e
. . . DIAN UUI II . . OW I ■ WNICII COU ■ flla N■I 111■ ¥1TII.
Digitized by
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
118
lo'fAL
.,.,...,_
At.L
LAC"I Ah
AA( AS
0ZAAlli
NuMBfA OF
PtASOl<ilS UliiOfA
lf
TUAS 00 6':) 't'(.US
AtoO OLOlR
W[STEAII
S,.111 JIG
OvEII
------------+----+---+--
W11(A1
-f----
¥11 JIIIT(A
WHEAT
--·-
EASTtAll
CoTTON
Cono11
> - - - - ~ - - ~ - - - - --
1¥HLTl
---
~EGIIO
~
WHITE
NEC.AO
--~>----
Percent of fa11l l lcs
All FAMIL 1(5, ••• , . , , , , , , , ,
o.........•.••• ····· ..
1. ••••.••••.....••••••
2 .................... .
3•••••••.•••••••••••••
"· ................... .
5 ................. .. . .
"·····················
7 OR MOIi£,, ,. , ••• ,. , , .
Tu1..1: XII.
100.0
10.a
23.,
19.8
13_,
10.0
100.0
12. 3
6.1.1
•. 5
3-•
5_,
Avuuat
1:,.0
18.0
15. 9
1L2
10.•
"·"
Nuwso
0,
TOTAL, ••• , • , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
P!IISONS UNOfll
16
YI! US,,
0.2
TOTAL, ••• • , . , . , , . , •• , . , ,
2.8
2.8
1.2
•Pe•so•s UNDUI
16
'f'(ARI ANO
lJ.8
12. l
1.0
•. 7
•. 3
3.•
2.8
Nou•AL
"· 2
DOENO(NTS.
A,,,._
LA.Kl
STATtS
65
100.0
20. 3
23.6
22. 7
12.8
,..
9-•
•-9
2.9
,r.
100.0
15. •
22. 3
22. "'
13.6
11.6
100.0
25. 3
21.6
17. 3
13.0
8.0
100.0
18. I
23. 7
21.0
13.7
•-9
3.0
"· 3
"· 3
5- 9
5-•
l. 3
6.a
6. 2
:;.,
100.0
n.,
31.l
16. 9
10. 2
9. l
,.o
•. 2
•. o
FAMILY R(C(IVING RHl1'
SHOltf GIIASS
Cu1-
S,A I NG
11 frHU
0vu
WH!AT
WH! AT
2.3
2. 3
uo ova
Posoo u111ou 16 Ytus ..
PUSON$ 6, 'fu•s AND 0v1•
2'4.•
25.a
l .lCl1 I AN
Quo
PtUONS 6!) YtUS
100.0
21.0
2'4. 3
18.6
13.0
8.1
6.5
l'.Xl.O
WIES TUN
CoTTON
NtGAO
2.•
2.2
0.2
2.2
1.9
0.2
2.2
2.0
0.2
2.8
2. 7
3.0
2.9
1.3
1.2
2.1
I. 7
o.•
2.6
3.0
1.2
.,,Ao o, AH AND OV(lt.
Digitized by
Google
TAil.i XIII.-A. USUAL OcCUltlTIO•S OF HlADS OF FAMILIIS R1ce1v111G RtLl!F
TOTAL
UIUAI. 0cCUPATION OP NIAD OP FAMILY
ALL
•••••
A.ltl'ALlCNIAN
0URIC
L•u
$TATIS
cu,-
Ovf.11
SMOn
IN TNf COUIIITll9 Su•v1TtD
GltASS
SP••
NI
WNlAT
ltSTllN CoTTON
E AITt•N
Cano•
WIMTU
Wtt1.AT
TOTAL
WMITe
N(QID
TOTAL
INITI
.. , ••o
96"
800
16'1
2. '811
1,5q7
1,2'7
377
68
331
!ill
215
!ill
116
10
2•
12
l.006
1•6
213
6<11
!l'9
98
11117
118
128
33'
31•
:x
I
IUV.r
2,167
1.7~
l.~11
2,007
f.4,111111 ••• • • • •. ••• •• • • • • • • • • • • • •• •
,.o,i;
1,960
1,8,..
l.222
l.288
572
211
'I05
337
2•2
95
----
979
518
•61
1.0•9
TtlANT ••••••••••••••••••••••
Clto1t1t11 •••••••••••••••••••••
----
----
239
70
FA•111 LAIOltl•• • • • •• • ••• • • • • • • • • • • •
929
•3
61
22
172
167
128
39
•6'1
1,1
307
21
No.-AUICVLTU•AL LASOl:1••••••••••
l."°9
2"8
•28
96
~
157
118
'9
200
70
130
>
2•
192
18
17•
2
182
161
21
,-t
q
5
l
a,
I::""'
Ow••·· .....................•
•l•
635
SilVANT OI IAJTIA. ••• • •• • •• • • • •• •
370
25
31
18
•6
!ill
MICNANIC. • • • • • ••. ••. • ••. •• • •• • • • •
718
66
202
1111
1"8
76
"'1•
327
126
187
6
3
I
I
LUMH ... AA, RAPTSMAN Gt: WooOCNOltltU
233
107
106
---·
--·-
...
fACTOIT 011 AAILAOAD EIO'LOYH• ••••
!!03
!ill
130
29
59
17
~
~
P•OPIUION..,._ WAN, MIUCNANT, 8AN1Cll
oa OTNII P•cw ■ IITO■ •••••••••
200
22
3'
18
.,
19
0
Ca.t•ICAI.
lohl• OIi SA&..IIIIAN ••••••
161
13
20
18
2•
18
ALL OTNl• OccuPATIONS ••••••••••••
287
23
68
••
87
2"
-
No USUAL 0CCUPAT ION.•• •• • ••••••••
010
10•
103
17
•••
USUAL 0cCUltATIOII UNICNO••• •••• •. •.
188
1111
'°
20
'IO
. ,•••............................
0
cci"
i'j"
""
0
~
(\)
•Nor
U)
.,,.,,c::
10,771
lLL FAMIL 111 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
lLSIWNlll CLASII, I 10.
a,
. ..
...
. ..
20
15
1
16
1
210
162
118
13
6
61
.,
16
18
...
68
65
23
l
Ql
,1
10
29
28
1
113
16
5
2,
"
60
21
10
t""'
~
~
~
--cl
"'
>
~
rJ>
'
15
........
,c,
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
120
hkl
x,, ,-e.
Ua11&L QcCUPUION
USUAL
o,
Occu,ATIONI
H!.AO
o,
""
fAMIL f
Mt.ADS (Mt
fAIULlll R1c11v1•• Ru,., uC:c,u ■ TIII Su•vtYID
TOUL
A,PA-
Au
LACMIAN
••us
0ZUIC
LAICl
CurOvo
......,.,,,.
SNOltt Gl'AH
suus
SP•t•G
WMUT
lltsre••
EAITIIN
COTTON
COTTON
l'ercenl
Au
f.t.WILIIS ••••• • • • •• •• ••••• • •• • • •• •• •••
100
100
100
FA•MC• ••••••• , •••• , ,,,,,, ,,, .,,, ••••
•7
5'J
2/i
19
l•
10
'
0wNfll,,, •••, ••• ••,, ,, , ••, , ••,,,
ltNANT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,
LB ,
CsioP,.,tll •••••••••••••••••••••• ••
17
12
2!
FAIIIIIII L A90111!•.,,,,,,,,, . ,, ,, , , , ,, ,, , ,
B
2
Nn.-lGlt I CUL ru••L La10Rlll•, •••• , •••••
St II VANT o•
WAI
ll
11
Tl! ■,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,
MtC"AIIIIC,, •• ••, ••,,, •• • • , , , , , ,, , • • • •
MINIEII •• , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , •• , , . , , , , •• , ,
5
WooDCN0""'··.
..J
FaCTC>a'f 01t R&IUtOAD Ewi,oLOYtf • , ••••••
'
lUWHIOd, N 1 RAF'T!,1,1.t,N (Mlt
P•Of'lSSIOIUil wa .. , Me•cN.un . B•11u•
o•
OT Hf ■ P ■ OPR1f1'0R •••• •••• •••• • • •
Clt:.,C&l
An
•o
Wo•u• o•
6
1,
"°5'
100
100
,2
59
20
52
'a
2
59
,9-
' a. -'
,2,_
9
17
18
8
l•
16
2
2
6
12
8
6
8
100
ll
6
8
2
2
2
2
0TNl ■ Occui,o1tr1o•s •• •••••••• •• • • •
UNl(NO•N •••• , . , , , • • ,
7
J
SA1. t: swaw ••••• ••••
2
4
USUAL 0CCUPAT ION,•.,, •• ,, . , . , , ,, .
Usu.1.1.. OCtu"u 1011
2,
100
2
~
6
2
2
4
2
2
•Nor ll..Sf,.-N(fll CLASSl,ifo.
•Lt IS
THAN
0. '5
PUCE NT,
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
121
TAil.i 'tlll-C. USUAL Oc:cul'.ITIOJISOPHUDS OJ' WNITI I.ND NeG ■ O FAMILlfS RtCflVING
A(Llf., , .. THI! CouNTllS SUIIVlYlO Ill TM( Corrow AIIIEA!I
PucE•T o, .... TU AND NfGIIOlS
USUAL OCCUPATION
PtlltCUT IN EAC" 0CCUl'ATION
Of
W!STUN CoTTON (ASTUN CoTTOlf
HIAD OP fMIILT
Au
tht1T(
NE GAO
WMITl
Nu•o
1• E•c11 Occu,.u
·w1,nu1 eono•
loTAL
INtTE
ION
E.ASTlllll COTTON
NfGIIO
Tout
""' Tl
NlGIIO
fAMIL IIS ••• ■ ■• •• ■■ ■• ■ ■ •• ■• • • .
100
100
100
100
100
83
17
100
52
118
F••--••••••·••••••••••••••••
21!
•2
36
10
25
25
85
90
8,
12
15
10
17
100
100
100
100
'lli
6
15
7
100
100
100
100
88
llNANT ■■■••••••••••••••
CaMPll ■■ • • • · • • • • • • • • ••
•l
7
27
7
51
••3'
"°•9
FARM L.1.101111 ••••••••••••••••
16
2'I
12
25
100
77
2,
100
30
66
L.1.ao-1•• •••
15
2•
1(:0
75
25
100
•
1•
'
11
l•
100
59
•1
100
"
91
9
1
. .
100
97
88
12
100
---'
100
100
100
75
~
--- --- ---
100
65
6
100
77
23
0......................
Mo""'"...... CUL TUA AL
5E ■ VANT OIi WAI Tl ■• ■.••.■••
lilf.CNANIC ••
••
000 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
.............................
LU.HIIMH,
AAFTIMAN
o• lloo~
CtlOPf'l• ••• ••• •• •. • • • • • •
. ----- --2
l
TOI••••••••••••••••••••
2
q
s..._,.,..., ••
2
---
FACTOl:1' c,a RAtUtOAD E•LOY1t•
PIOf'l 59 IONAL
IIA ■,
MflCMANT
7
l
12
l
•NQ,-
65
"
'
.
100
68
,2
100
7•
26
5
100
100
---
100
96
q
l
100
96
•
100
76
2•
'
100
97
5
100
•7
100
16
2"
100
•3
"
lC:O
9"
1
ALL 0TNI ■ 0cCUf'AT 10 ■ 1 •• • • • •.
3
l
2
•
l
•
USUAL Occu,ATION UNICNOH ••••
2
'
...... TNAN
.
9
•
No USUAL 0c:CUl'ATIO ■ ..........
ILHWNfat CLAHI' l(D,
2
67
6o
12
BANU, OIi OfNU P ■ Of'l 11-
Q.1a1c111.. . , . . , . o•
•7
1
l
l
0. 5 ..,.c1n.
Digitized by
Google
57
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
122
Tou&.
,,,.,,.
Au
LACNIAII
CuT-
AlttAS
0.U.IK
Ovu
10,1n
2,167
l.•87
I, 738
!)09
,16
133
P1tlH.IIT
0c.CUI'," ION
LHI
SUTU
Sttou
Sn1••
IINIAT
GIIASS
W'INTll
.NlAT
Wlnu•
EASTtlll
eo,,o.
C0TTOII
.... ff
Ntc.•o
800
16'1
""'"
NtGRO
labor
A,..t. F&111Ltts •• •••••• • •• •
•• ,11
F,lhllt ••• ••••••• • • ••••
,..... ,..............
2,0'3
1, 6811
83"
2!)11
5'7
,. 3119
0.111111. , , , , , , , ,, , , , , ,
C:.OIIP( ■ ,.,,, ,,,,.,,,
FA ... LA10•1• •• , , , . , , , .
AI..L 0T"IRS,,.,,,,,,,,.
U11tMP1.0YIO,,,,.,,,.,,,
....
68•
2,1
"'6
......
609
31
181
1,017
12
'9
1.,u
89'
•63
•32
2,007
919
'81
,,a
·---2 ·---ll
71
32
382 1,006
19'1
,,
10
1.,.1
291
6,
1,2,1
2'11
I()
126
211
20
108
,.
27
•'7
118
63
72
562
70
137
ll•
108
118
921
77q
100.0
211.2
100 . 0
21. 3
6. 1
12 . 2
3, 0
2. •
100.0
21.6
•.8
8.0
8.8
•.7
, .3
72.0
68.•
100.0
19.,
2. 7
,. 7
11.l
9.2
8. 7
62 . 6
17
P•rce,u
100.0
•2.•
19. l
1,.6
7. 7
2.•
, .2
,0 .0
Fa.. lLIII,,,, ••••••••
Faaw111 • • • •••••••••••••
..... .........
1,.,..,
c.o .... , •...... .. .....
0.11111 •••••••••••••••
F'AIM LalOtlll,, ••• ••• ••
Ai.L 0T"lllS,, , , . , . , , , , ,
U11EWLO'flD, , ••• , ••• •••
Taeu XI Y-8.
P•lSlNT
0CCUl'ATIOII
100.0
68.6
31.,
ll.9
2,.2
0.6
2. 7
211 . l
100.0
29 . 3
21.6
7. 7
.....
1. 8
10 . •
,e.,
"· 3
3'.0
100.0
.,.8
19.0
26.8
2.•
29 . l
,0 . 2
100.0
68.3
--··---··
o.,
0.2
3.'
,.o
1,. 7
3. ,
2. 1
3-•
70 . 3
.. '
PUHNT Occu,u10N o, Mau HlAOI o, FAMllllS A1c11v1111 Rn11,
,,,.,,.
Su,11
Ai.L
lACMIAII
Cur-
Al:lAS
Oun
Ovu
TOTAL
Lut
SMOIIT
Sl'R I NG
""lAl
G•.us
,. ,
...•n.•
Wes rt••
EAST(IIN
CoTTOfl
W1
""' u
COTTON
NltlltO
lltt1 Tl
N1110
128
30
7
18
l.ll•
7110
179
22
'6
101
67
37
•-r
Ao.L I=' Milll
llS •••••• •, • • • • •
fAltM(II, . ,,, •, • • • • o • , o • •
0. .. 1 • • ••..•••••••••••
,, ..... , ...............
C1tOll'll'(lt .• •• ••••••••••
F&IIM L.110•1• • • • •••• ••• .
At.1. Q,MllS., , , •• , • •,, ••
UlllNf'l.01'10,,, ,, • ••••• ,.
9,2'5
•.266
1,876
1,651
7'9
197
5'9
•.•ll
1.560
1,208
1,860
•73
3"3
llO
866
892
•36
•30
,29
36
30
1119
•82
908
2
23
317
11
•3
91•
100.0
100.0
,0, 3
22.0
8. 3
100.0
71. 7
36.1
3,.6
100.0
•8.0
19.6
28.•
1.9
9.6
,e. 2
0.2
1.9
26.2
0.6
2. 3
q9. I
1.921
1.591
62'l
2,0
,11
12
"''
70•
173
30
116
27
17
1•
,00
262
,1
102
109
•'
!)II
56
1
93
7q2
.,1
P•rcut.
Ao.L l='t.Nll. llS,. , , . , , •, • •, •
F t.RMtll ••• ••••• • ••••••••
O••l• ................
ltlllAIIT, ,. • , . , , •• • •,,,
C•o""'"· .............
F .... LAIO•t•- ••••••••••
ALL OtNtaa .••••••••••••
Ulllllll'I.OTlO,, •• ,, •• , , , , ,
100.0
"6.2
20. 3
17. 7
8.2
2. I
3.9
47.8
72.•
,2.,
13.0
26 . 9
0.6
1.9
2' , l
lllO.O
2'1.6
•. 3
16.,
3.8
2.•
2. 0
71.0
100 .0
23.•
,.'
1•.o
3.9
5. l
o.8
72. 7
100.0
23.,
•.6
9.2
9. 7
•-8
100.0
2'1.2
3.0
7.6
13.6
9. l
66 . 7
61. 7
Digitized by
,.o
,.o
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TARLES
Tuu XIY-C. PIUSltlT 0cCUf'ATl0 ■ 01' Fuu,u Hl.lDI o, FAIIILIIS R1CIIYING R[Lll'
Pal st NT 0C:CUf'AT ION
TOT"'Ai.L
.......
.,,,._
LAIi
LACMIAN
SU.TIS
Ou••
cu,Qvu
., . ..
Guss
SNOltT
s,•
,
111,;,
.M(AT
IMlAT
EA5TtU
W(STUN
~TTO~~---
-
CoTTON
---
WNI Tl
NtG ■ O
WNI Tl
NIUO
I
1 .. bcr
Ai.L FWILIII ••••••••••••
FA ■ ... ■ •••••
•.••••••
0.NI ■ •••• • ••••
l, ,'6
2116
178
10,
1•7
96
'6
2,,
097
30,
177
96
60
'6
29
27
18
9
21
10
10
1
''
29
l•
62
12
6
9
'6
9
•7
28
1'
6
16
71
92
62
2'
179
,11
n
27
2
FA ■W LA90a1a •• •• ••.
1,"
,1
AI.L 0T111u .........
198
2,
32
9
UIIIWLOYID •••••••••
976
127
109
6,
AI.L fAMILIIS. •••• • •. ••••
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
F-•••••••••·••••
19,9
u.,
'9,0
28.2
2.8
ll.8
18.•
12. 3
6.1
21.8
10.•
10 ••
1.0
1'.9
3.,
20.2
11.,
1. 7
12.,
6.o
2.6
,.9
12.•
2.•
2.8
7.2
3,9
9,,
16. 7
6.9
10.3
69-•
76, 7
63.9
r, ..... , ........
C■ or,111 •••••••
--' -- -- -7
29
2
1
..
l•
,.,.., ,
°""''·········
r, •••, ..•.....
CIICNtPII •••••••
•-9
f&III LalO■ llo ••• ••.
3. 7
20.•
-----
26.,
1.9
e.3
,.6
-------·- ··--- ---o.6
···-- ----- ----- -----
Al.• 0T111u •••••••••
12.9
9,3
18,0
8. 7
19.0
i,.,
U....LOYID •••••••••
6,.,
,1. 7
61.2
6,.1
62.6
611.7
Digitized by
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
124
1,11.1
xv.
Pe ■ Cl•TAH 0, F111ALII MIO ■S HI.ADI 0, F.WILIII
11' USMAL OCCUPATION
TOTAi
Usu•L Occu,,110•
ALL
.
.,,,._
LACHI AN
h(Al
0:UIUC
Rlc11v1•• AILIIP,
LAU
Su.res $Mon i;,tus
cu,-
S,,W ING
w,nu
ovu
WNlAT
WHUT
EAITUN
WflTUII
eonow
CoTTON
Tout
.HI Tl
Nruo
TOUL
WHIT!
Nu:tto
Percent
ALL FAWILI
rs .•.. ..........
lq
11
10
1
7
10
l
'
--'
FA ■ IIEI •••••• • ••• • ••••
0••1• ....... ,...
9
'
T1NANT,,,, •• , •••
CAOPPI ■,,
•••••• .
FAIW LA1a.11.,,,.,,,,
Nolt-AG ■ ICUL TUIAL
11
20
q
8
q
6
l
2
--
---
2
I
92
q
1
14
12
22
3
1
--'
1
17
q
B
19
l
'
6
17
qQ
17
10
19
8
,0
20
"° "°
8
8
B
16
l
'
'
27
1
25
38
22
47
I
2
1
l
'
l
8
9
q
12
94
a,
LA-
eow11• ••• • .•••••
28
'
--' --'
68
78
78
90
88
92
86
--
2
l
q
q
6
6
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
----
U•PLOYHa., •••••
6
'
2
12
B
9
11
2
PROl"l&SIONAL WAN, ~ItCHANT 1 8AMKU 01
0THfA PROPlllTOR
'
---
---
--
--
---
--
33
2,
31
28
20
21
23
17
qg
q()
69
2,
31
20
28
29
11
11
--
27
--
22
12
39
21
q
q
--
,2
28
22
29
q()
USUAL 0cCUf'ATION ••
9"
96
9,
9q
91
97
96
100
91
96
87
US~L OCCUf'ATION 0N9CNOtN
19
30
2,
'
10
2q
20
17
30
8
SUVANT <Mt WAITU,, .,
li&rCHA.IC,, , , •,, •, •• •,
MIN!R,,,,,, ••,,,,,,,,
LUM11111w.u, R•,.rSM.u o•
WooOCHOf"Pll.,,,,
FACTORY
OIi
AA ILIIIOAD
wo,uu:111
••
Cltl I CAL .
5ALf$1,1.ul.,.,,.,.
An Or"'"
No
8"
OCtUf'ATIONS
.
2,
--
---
•Nor ILHWNI . . CLAII" 11D.
Digitized by
Google
SUPPL!NlNTARY TABLKS
h11.1 XVI.
AvUA&f ••••
0, HtAOI
Su·•••
Occw,n
IJMAL
ION
Of' i=- ... IL.11!!1 Q(CflVING R1u1• . , USUAL
II.tu Ht•o•
OcCUPAT10• 0,
IN SPICIFIID OcCIIIPUIONS
..... ,.,._
LAU
STAflS
Au
LACMIA ■
Cur-
SP ■ IIIIG
Ovu
""'"'
.......
ou..:
......
5NOH Gaol
TOTAL
EASfflt ■
COTTON
. . ,rl!ltN
CoTTON
IINTllt
,
.......
. . 1,1
N1e•o
W..1 Tl
•6.0
•2.0
'6.0
119,0
4".0
TOTAL
FtNALI
Milos ••••••••••••
,o.o
,2.0
•2.5
47.,
.,.o
"6.0
42.0
,2.,
.,.5
!l().0
.,.5
5'.0
'5,5
45,5
45.,
51.0
42,5
!l().0
'9.0
44.0
52,0
44,0
'9.0
60.0
c.o
,2.,
118.0
41,5
'9,0
«1.0
,a,5
'6.0
"°·'
---·. ---- .,.,
,a.o
43.,
42.,
c.,
'9,5
47.,
44.,
,1.,
•.o
"6.0
41.0
.
Ma••·••••••••••••••
.... a
FA.all■••••••••••••••••
Onto ..••.•.•..•.•..
45.0
51.0
Tt ■AIIT •• •• • • •••• • • • •
•LO
F... L•---•••••• ..•••
lil&LI
CIIOPf'I ■
••••• , •••••••
iu.,
··••••--•••
"·',
......:........
~·-· ...
..... ••
~-······· -.o
,
-■ -A-IC&TIII& L ►
--·········-·
lllcu■ 1c.
l--lalA■ ,u•
Fac,•T
-
IAIL . . . .
IMPI.OYII, • •. • •• • •
•.
'2.,
118.'
·---
..,
111).0
1111.,
47.,
45.11
,.,,
•t.9
•.o
119.,
.,.o
,,,5
.... 5
41.5
5'.0
61.0
5',5
,,,0
'!7.0
,a.o
47.0
'6.,
"°·'.
.
. . . . . .
. . • . . .
41.,
'6.0
44.0
.
'8.0
--••A ■ AM; ,0 ,,eace ■Y -■I f ■ II AM OIi DI.NI, ,0 PlltCl ■t TOU ■M ■ a ALL "eulll TO TNI NIAltllT
•loT CGMP'ltTle •e&IU W 8111&&.L ■-• 0, CAIi&,
, .... 1¥11.
Au
o, HIM o, fMULY
Aal 011n11rr1oa
...
TOTAL
,.,.,,..
ALL
LACNIAN
oz-
0,
0.5
,a.,
YIAI,
Mtua OP fMIILIII R1c11v1•• Rl\.111'
LACI
Sun1
Cur0v11
s... , .......
luru ■
-ITIIN
Cono ■
S.,11 ••
WINTU
hlAT
WNl&T
COTTON
IINITI
N1110
800
16'1
100.0
9.'
44.6
56.0
10. 1
100.0
9.8
70'1
128
100.0
9.8
.,. 7
56. l
10.•
100.0
10.2
.,.3
26.8
19. 7
W'lt1n
NIUO
ALL f11t1LIIA
-·················
Pa•ca.,. .•••••.••••••.•
U..1 2' n•••···
2' - .. ,.,••••••
4' - 6" nHa ....
6'
Tl.US A. . 0¥11
!0.111.
...,
100.0
6.9
,...8
14.l
2,167
100.0
6.9
... 2
"·"
11.5
l,731
100.0
4,5
'9.9
,a .•
17.2
1,511
100.0
2.007
,.9
100.0
8. 7
47.,
01.0
10.6
"· 7
10.l
.... ,
"°·'
19,0
'I!. 1
1,,-7
100.0
8.,
118.1
32.8
10.6
1.2,1
100.0
6.6
"· 37
29.
'°·"
fAMILIIS WITII - . 1 MUI
·-·--··········---l'11ce-, •••••••••••••••
2' ........
2' -·...........
.,-6" ....,....
~ na■a -
F.a•111w1T••1-.1
-•
1,921
100.0
7.1
4,. 7
"'·'
12. 7
l.'60
100.0
7.'
119.4
,2.2
11, l
100.0
•.9
"°·
,e.o7
16.4
1,208
100.0
,. 7
•6.2
.o.o
10.l
l.*
...e.,,
100.0
'3.2
10.0
l.11•
7110
100.0
8. 7
~9.5
32.2
100.0
7.6
56.l
,0.9
9.6
2'.•
•aea
- 4 ................
Pl■Cl ■T ••• •• •• •••. ••••
na■ , ...
nan ....
U.ot• 2'
2'- •
,.25'
6'
a • 0¥11
., -YIU&
64 ··-····
2'16
178
105
147
100.0
100.0
,. 7
5'.2
'6. 7
22. 7
,a.9
100,0
l. 7
32.6
42. l
2,.6
100.0
5.8
2'.2
100,0
10.2
'7,4
.0,1
12.'
1.,'6
..
,
4',0
14,4
"·"
15.6
96
56
100.0
5.2
51.0
100.0
8.3
,o,6
"·"
16. 7
8.•
Digitized by
.....
2'3
"97
100.0
7.•
Ol.6
'5,9
1,.1
100.0
,.1
30.l
27,l
Google
,1. 1
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
TAAL"!
·xvi 11.
.,
SHIFTS IN Occu,ATION o• EMPLOYN[NT STATUS MADE 8Y MAU fAMILT HI ADS USU ALL T
EMPLO'f'f.D IN AGII I CUL TUA AL AND No~AGIIICULTU ■ AL OCcu,.&TIONS
IN JUttE
193'1
USUAL 0CCUP'ATION
fAJtN 0WNl!A ••••••••••••••
REMAINED Fuw
O••t• ...
CHANGED 0CCUl'ATIQN 0
•••
BECAME ltNANT •••••••
B!CAMf: CAo•PEA, ••• ••
f.1uu. LABOlll't:R.
Hf.CAMt
fSfCAMf
L•ICl
TOTAL
.,,,,._
SUTll
ALL
LACl'IIAN
Cur-
A.Aus
0ZHIC
OYUt
100.0
86.0
3.6
2.6
0.2
0.1
100.0
93.0
0.8
0.6
htPLOTMl!NT STATUS
W1sno
SttOltT G1usa
EAST! ■ N
Cono•
CoTTON
~AING
WHEAT
Percent
100.0
100.0
75.5
87.9
5. 7
3.5
2.6
3.1
0.2
WINTER
IH(AT
IHITl
Nt:uo
WNI TE
100.0
89.1
•.0
100.0
60.•
6.3
6. ~
100.0
85. 7
100.0
60.8
10.1
2. 5
3.8
"· 3
N(GIIO
100.0
83. 3
•• 2
•• 2
0.9
NON - A.GA I CUL-
8fCAMt UNfWPLO'fEO,,,
o. 7
10.•
F.1.1tM lfNANT, • • , , , . • • • • . ,
JOO.O
RU,.AINfO Fuw lfo,n ••
CHANGED OCCUPATION,••,
76.6
3-•
Bt:CAWE OwNfA,., •••••
BECAME CROP•ER. • ••••
Bl!CA. . Fuw LAl<Mlf.No
0.8
0.6
TUIIIIAL
•01ttct:A, ••
BECAME No•- AG• ICU\.TUlflAL
Wo••t• ...
B!CAMl UN!M,LOT!O •••
f••1i1
C.-0111,eA ••••••••••••
REMA I IUD F AltM CAOf'll'U •
C"ANGEO 0CCUf'AltO .... ••
8ECAW£ 0WNE• •••••• • •
BECAMI TENANT ••• , •• ,
Ml!CAWI FAAM LABORltN •
l.•
0.6
20.0
100.u
5".8
10. l
l. 7
3-•
3.3
2.2
18.8
100.0
65.9
13.2
9.9
6.2
100.0
9".2
"· 3
3.8
0.5
n.•
a. 6
100.0
89.2
I. 3
0.9
2,2
1.1
20.9
l. 5
100.0
82.•
6.2
,. 7
1.1
o.•
0.•
9.5
0.5
6.1
100.0
11.6
I.•
o.6
"· 3
100.0
50.5
0.2
1.0
0.6
21.0
1.,
,,.1
100.0
3'1.5
9. I
"·"
l.9
I•. 3
100.0
72. 7
•.6
•.6
22. 7
100.0
36.•
3.8
29.l
100.0
52.5
10.2
12.5
100.0
6".1
5.8
6.8
2.,
2.9
2.9
0.9
37.5
100.0
27.6
15. 3
29.,
100.0
39. 3
12.0
6.5
,.9
3.Q
5.6
2.9
57 ,I
100.0
23.8
7. 5
3.0
118. 7
100.0
28.8
3. 7
1.6
•-9
0.6
1.9
0.8
68.9
100.0
1.2
67 ,5
100.0
6.1
8.6
0.6
3-•
1.,
0.8
10.•
6.9
0.9
0.9
l. 7
2.1
2. 3
0,. 3
I. 3
82. 7
,.,
l R
tsECAMl NON - AGA I CULTUA AL
Woou .•.
61!CAW£ U•H:Mf'LOTED. • •
FAAM LAl!JORl!R •••• • •••••••
REMAINlD FARM LAIIOflf.R.
CNU4GED OCCUPATION.•••
8ECANf OWNER ••• , . , ••
B[CAMl TENANT.,,,•,,
BEGA"" CROIIIP[R, •••••
c3ECAME NON- AGAICULTUlflAL WoRICl!A,,.
Bt:Ci\Mf UNEM,,LOTEO,. •
NOft-At.R ICUL TUA AL
WOAl(Eft,
r.1
35,1
100.0
lu.8
9.1
2.1
3. 5
2.q
CHANGED OCCUPATION,•••
BECAME OWNER,,.,•••.
8ECAJ,,1E T["IANT,,., ••,
BECAME CROf'f'ER,., •••
BE.CAME F' UM LA80RUI.
BECAME NON-AGAICULlUAAL WOA¥1!A IN
AMOT"f:R 0CCUf'AT tON •• , , , , , , , , ,
BECAME
"on:
UNEMPLOYED.,,
1.8
56.•
100.0
19.0
100.0
26.2
31.2
13.1
16.•
"°·'
16. 7
•.0
19.0
100 .Q
100.0
"°·'
l. 7
q2.6
100.0
5.9
I 7 ,6
7.5
3. 7
3.•
o. 7
q_5
•2.1
17.6
6.Q
17 .o
0. 3
12.6
•. 2
2. 3
76.,
0.8
53.•
Q, 7
70.0
1.1
lq,
l
,.
RUUINED NON- AGAICULTURAL WOR'CElt
SAME 0CCU,,ATION
0.Q
11.•
:AOl'Pf.i,c:J haULATED H"AAATf:LY ONLY
7.6
22.•
100.0
9.1
"·'
"·'
86.•
100.0
l. 7
88.3
100.0
6.3
6.3
l. 3
3,2
•. 1
•• Q
1.0
2.1
0.9
IN
100.0
5,3
6.Q
0.6
Q.I
l.3
87 ·"
100.0
7 .9
3.1
65.6
100.0
10.8
2. 7
2. 3
0.8
89.0
100.0
0.2
3.1
"· 7
o.•
1.9
0.8
0.8
1.1
91.5
0.8
92.2
THI APPALACNI AN-0ZARIC ANO CoTTON
2.1
86.5
100.0
6.•
•.3
2.1
93.6
bus.
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Y1&11 Of'
Rl!IIH ■ Cl
Co ■Tuuoua
ToTM.
•• Cou ■ n
,.,.,,_
LAU
ST.UIS
cu,-
ALL
L&CNI A ■
MIU
Ou••
Ov1 ■
100.0
10 . 5
2. 1
8.•
,. 8
8, . 1
100 . 0
20.8
2.0
18. 8
10 . 0
I
Gu,ss
s.o■,
s..,.,
to,.11.
127
..., . ,
lint ■
9NtAT
•1n11•
EuYI••
Cono•
Cono•
.... ,n:
NtG•O
Nta•o
" " ' T(
P•rc•1t&
1()0.0
17.,
2. 2
1,. 1
11.9
70. 8
TOTAL. ••• •••• •••• ••••••.
LIii TN& ■ ' Yt& ■ I. • •. •
LIii 111a ■ 1 YI& ■••• •
l - , Y1aa1 •• ••. •• • •
' - 9 Yu... ... . ..... .
10 OI N:Mlt YCAII •• • •••
69.2
100 .0
18 . ,
1.2
11.1
17. 7
64 .0
100 . 0
2,.2
1.,
21. 7
21 . 9
'5 -9
100 .0
10.9
0.8
10 . 1
9.9
79.2
100.0
100 .0
, .9
27 .6
19. 2
•7.'
"·'
22 .•
, .o
100 . 0
21.2
,. 1
17 . •
17 . •
60 . 2
9.7
69 . 1
100 . 0
6 .•
1.2
,. 2
6.,
87 . l
17 .'
TAIN,.( XX◄. FIMILIIS O..a11,,, •• IT Pa111u Ocewi,n,o■ 0-- Hli\D o, HouHNOlO , . 0. ■0INI" o, Mou s,
01 r.,-.; Ai.so Ow ■us Ru•o•T••· Mona, .. , &IIO FAMILIU Rll" O ■ fl ■ i G..aou OIi hue• PATtN
...
~IAI,.
Au
Enn1
lilo ■ TG&Gf
Ow••••"•"
Co ■ DITION
FA11111 l. I ll.•• •• •.:. •• •• • •••
0-., • .. .••.•• • ••..• •. •••
Rt•tt ■ •••• • • • ••.
• • •••• •.
SQuATTI ■• •• • • • • ••• • • •• • •
TOTAL
ALL
All41
10,771
,.,20
6.8'8
Hol,,at1Tl4H ■ o•••• •••• ••••
.,
0.•111 Rfll'CMtTIH -■ HMII •••
F'AMILIIS Rlll'OltTIH Guoc ■ 00
T1tuc ■ PATCN •••••••• •• •••
~
LUI
,.,,,_ su,u
l&CNl&N
eu,-
0Utt1C
O•u
2,167
821
1,200
1'8
I . 158
SMO ■ f
Tou,1.
Guss
.....,
SPlll ■ G Wt ICTUI
WN t &T
-"'
B20
eo.
,.,18 1 , , 11 2,001
1.118
626
5'2
7'1 1, ,'6
2.093
1,
19
7
1'
6
8
91
2,
1,1162
172
,o6
806
7,816
2.0<11
1.,11
1.12,
100
,1
64
100
IQ)
'"
WISlfftN
(.I.STUii
Couo11
CoTTOJI
Jltt I Tl
'lOO
1,•95
I 11
...
"°' "°' ...
N1t.11tO
IMI Tf
Nfl..ltO
164 1.,•6 1. 2YI
111
16 1
'3
102 I, 11 2 1.0,2
60
29
...
I
2,
...
•
......
89
•I
1,06"
661
~98
I0ij
1.0,2
981
100
•2
100
,1
100
100
100
68
62
21
100
1'
,.l"C.,.,
AIJ.
fAMtL tll, . • •••• •• • •• • • •• •
°"'"···················
••• • ••• • ••••••• • ••
At ■ TI ■
5ou .. , , ••• ■
••••• ••• • •• •••
Hat.l.111a.N ■ •••••••
o..... Rt,ou, ..
• •• •. •
~-
Moltf&MII • • •
F'MIIL t lS ffll'O ■ TIN 6HGI ■
T ■ ucc P.riTCN •••••••••••••
,s
.' ."
•7
116
100
'6
6,
""
21
' .
,1
B
9'I
81
6
I
1
'6
I
1
68
1,
,2
81
.
l
64
"
Digitized by
17
...
~i
2062
··-
..
66
78
18
13
81
Google
'i
e,
2
--79
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
128
TA ■Ll
XX-8.
o,
FAWILII!! CLAS!,11"110 9'f' P1t1!SfNT OCCUPATION
OA Fuw;
Hl!AO
o,
1-tOUS!MOlO AND 0WNfltSMII' 01" HOUSE
hluct1:
ALSO OwNutS ROOATING MoATG,t,GU ANO FANtLllS RE"OIIITING G.UOEN OA
,.,,.,.,_
LUI!
..._,
L ACM I ,\II
AAus
Cur-
0UAk
Ov111
TOTAL
lifHL Esuu: 0,.NU!>HIP
MoATGAGE CoNO IT ION
••o
PATCH
SHORT GAA!SS
STATt:S
EASTUII
WfST(atil
SPA I NG WI NTEA
TOTAL
IINEU
WHEAT
89,
•52
Cono-.
CoTTON
.. HITf
NfGltO
.HI Tl!
NEGRO
9lf
37~
19"
...
""
291
6•
226
1
6
2,"
2'11
1'3
l
#ualHlr
•.571
1,997
2.•99
•l
l.•87
61i0
~
36
138
2
HowlSTIEAOIIII,.,,,,,.,,.,,
,.
19,
6
15
1,81•
831
970
1
12
6
...
...
0.NUS RtPOn IIIG MollTGlHS,,,
1.098
151
185
670
36"
306
29
l
T11uc• P•TCN,, •••••••••••
3,810
l,•71
'°"
1,129
825
'°"
1,2
,.
FAMIL lfS,,, •• ••••, •• ,, •••
Ow•u:111 •••••••••••••••••••
R111TlR ••••• ,., ••••••••••
Sou.11,1111 ••••••••••••••••
100
!CD
100
69
100
•l
5ll
100
21
78
1
100
. ..
...
...
ALL
FAWIL ll!S., •• • • , . , , •• • , , • •
OWN!lt •••••••••••••••••••
Rl!NTflll ••••••••••••••••••
Sou.t.TTER, •••••••••••••••
F•-•uts Rl!ll'OltTING
GA ■ DIN
35"
•36
"°
9
1
o•
39
202
...
. ..
1
...
••
18
282
238
100
22
78
100
16
P,rc,,u
..._,
HowlSTIADll. •. •• •• • •• • •.
0WNllS R[,-OUINQ Mo•TU,H5.,.
F.u,1u1s Roo•r1 ■ G GAIIDU o•
hue• PATCH •• , , , , , , , • • • ,
Tu1.l XX-C.
••
••
." ."
l
2
100
r
q6
100
51
~3
~
3
1
I
1
...
"
23
,2
81
81
81
...
...
83
99
99
62
92
33
78
...
...
...
811
...
...
.
. ..
60
97
I
99
Fawtt,ll5 C&...1ss,,,,o ,,. P1tf!5(NT OCCUPATION o, Hl!AO o, HoUSl!HOt.D 1010 ()wN(IIS"li, 0" Hous1
F.uo•; At.so 0WNIIIS RlPOltTIN& MoATGAGf5 UD FAMILIIS REll'OIITIIIG G.UDlN OR hue ■ Pnc"
o•
NON-AG• I CUl TUA AL WoAWl!.ltS
Rt:AL ESUTl 0WNUSNII'
••o
~.,
MOIITGAGl
CoNOITIOII
TOTAL
. , .....-
ALL
l ACHI All
A•l!AS
OZARK
FA.MIL llS, ••, •• , , , , . • • • • • •
,~1
O•Nllt ••••••••• ••••••••••
RENTI!• •••• ,,,. •,,,,,,.,.,.
,Sj
SQuATTt•·•··•····••·····
I-IOMESTI! AO!• •••• ••,..,•,,,.
28
2
0wNl•S REPO•T1NG Mo•TGAHS,.,
"'
l~t;
LAWE
STATES
cu,-
Ovut
SHOlltT GIIASS
$1'11111G
TOUL
N£Glt0
13
q
9
2
37
21
16
11
5
•6
77
100
100
100
100
100
!CD
'6
30
68
8
1
1-((IITt •• , •• • •, •,.,, •• •• •,. •
SQUATTER, •• •.,• •• ,••
HowlSTlADlllt,. •, • •,., •• • •
69
'
'
0.11111 Rtl'OITI NG MoRTGAGIS •••
38
FMIILlfS ~lll'OltTIIUi GUDIII OIi
T•uc■ PATCN, ••••••••••••
68
72
26
100
100
2•
71
27
21
•9
ALL FAMIL IIS., •• •• • •• •• •••• ••
o.,
WNI TE
32
10
21
l
1•9
TNAII
N!GAO
103
31
70
2
"
'Lisa
W"1 Tl!
[ASTIRN
Cono ■
181
62
102
1,
2
378
26
WlSTfAN
CoTTON
luakr
59
l•
•2
3
FAMIL tU Rtll'OlltTIII& GUDl!N 00
l•uc ■ PATCN •••••••••••••
o.., •...................
...
WHt:AT
WI NTIEA
WHt:AT
71
}
•
17
6
•3
11
108
18
59
90
2
6
Pere,nt
,.
100
15
100
82
83
2
69
l
36
23
6"
30
17
3
•2
90
82
n
PIICIU.
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEMEMTARY TABLES
THI.I 0'1-A. fMIILIIS Rlf'Olt11N 0.Nl ■ SNIP
0,
S.1c1i,t1D Ct.ASSIS
Noo•TUG CNATTIL YolTGAQtl
Au
CM.UTlLS A ■ I
CM.UTIL IIIOltTUCIS
"
129
0,
ltVtSfOC• UD f,..ILIII
, ••••• , Occu .. .u,o• ~, 1-flAO o• FAMtLY
Occu,nto•t
LAU
TOTAL
APPA-
ALL
LACNIUI
A ■ IO
Oza••
10,771
2,167
l, 738
CutOvu
Gaus
5NOIIIT
STATES
"''"··
Cono111
Sf' ■ 1t1G jl1111TU
(.UTU ■
r-0no111
WNtAT
WNtA1
WMITI
NUltO
·3, 31~
1,311
2,007
800
16"
l, 1ao
1.1791.,9,
l, l:'2
19,
2,130
733
7'."I
8117
'91
ll2
928
l. "•7
731
65
1.202
29•
30
161
181
6
361
39
1
362
66
711
1,ll07
770
637
10,
6
108
"'
100.0
100.0
100.0
TOTAL
WN1 Tl!
Ml!UO
,.,..,,.r
ALL
fAIIIIL l(S ••••• • •., • • • • • • •,
FAMILIES RtLl'O ■ TIJUi
OAl ■ Y Co•t .••.•.••••••••
OTN( ■ CATTLE ••••••••••••
•.~
1.966
1.221
39,
60•
!All
303
HoGS,., ••••• , , , . , , , , , , , ,
ANO G0ATS,,,,,,,,,
l ,C')l!
237
$MUP
3,082
3,,28
1•2
PouLnY •••••••••••••••••
,.983
1 ,'38
""
627
1.93'
101
16!
llo••
510cc ••••••••••••••
72
m
U4~
72g
f.U.ILUS At,-OIITING; CMATTlL
flo1tTGAGES..,, •• , . , •• , , , , .
1,3•6 1,2~9
29
••2
i
23
22q
181
21
172
329
19
''
' "o
Percent
il<L F .... IL IIS ••••• , ••• ,, ••• • • •
100.0
100.0
100.0
'6.•
3t_q
11.,.
17. 2
100.0
,2.,
F.1.111LIIS R,:111on1 ■ G
DAt ■ T
Cows ••••••••••••••
0TMEI C.1.TTL(, •••• , . , . , , ,
llolhc 5T'OC•• •,,,, • • •,,,,,
~OGS,., • . , . , , . , , , , , , , , . ,
S"lllll ANO GoATS.,,,.,,,,
POULTIY,,,,., 0 , , , , , , , , 0 0
fAMtLII! 1:1,111o•Tt•a CNATTIL
Wo■ Tt4GIS, •• •, •,,, •• ••• ,
•2.6
18.3
28.6
32.8
18.2
21.9
•8.8
,,.6
"·'
"·'
71.0
y;, 1
•9.1
39.8
,.9
6".2
l~.O
•• 7
9.•
Q2."
3. 2
3,'
l~.5
2.,
100.0
lOJ.O
100.0
36.8
,2.R
Jo,6
2.6
lf,,9
2F,.9
O.•
'2.8
I. 7
13-9
26.6
1.,
au,,q
8.0
3.6
,,_9
,6.0
22.2
66.i
½.l
.,.1
10.l
70.~
l6.•
l.8
70. I
77.6
3.1
'\9.9
.,.1
17,,
I.~
I• .0
23.8
n.6
00,2
,e. 7
ll. 7
13.1
3. 7
o,q
===========· =--~---_- --TA-■ I lJCl-8.
fAMILIIB AIPOUl ■ G 0.-N(ISNIIII 01' S,,1c1,irc Cl.ASSES o, LIYIITOC• AND FAMILIES
R1111a ■ TING CMUTIL ~ITG,AGll, IT ParsUT 0Ccu,u10• o, HUD o, F..... ILY
CN.UtlLI &•D
OIAT11L lloUIAGII
TOTAL
lPPA-
ALL
LACNI AN
& ■ (Al
o,u.
,09
ALL f.&.MILIIS ••••••••••••••••
fAtllLllS qa,01r1•s
D&IIY
0TNll CAT TL I •••••••••••••
eo., .............. .
llo••
Sroc11 •••••••••••••••
Hoc.s •••••••••••••••••••••
S,,11P ••o Goa rs .•.••••••.
POUL TIY, • •. ■,,,, •• , , • . , , ,
3, '!04
1,733
1,018
3l9
2. 786
'l62
2, 70l
278
3,897
1,223
fAMILlll RooaTt ■ I CNATTIL
M(NtT.AGII,,,. •, • ••• • •• ,.,
881
6o
•18
2IO
2,9
167
32
587
1,81•
l.••·
l,12,,
1,•70
l.18•
171
l ,6,1
89,
291
919
1'9
68"
701
811
,11
126
82•
17
16
92
10
1•8
129
1'16
18
128
26
1
I
13
177
'I()
235
190
811
90
176
10
193
188
89
Percent
ALL fAMILIII, ••••••••. ••• •• ,
fANILIII RlPOlt11 ■ 1
OAIIY
■ •••••••••••
0TNII CAT TL I.• •• • •••• ,, ••
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0 100.0
~00.0
100.0
79.6 76.•
62.0 78.l
81 .o 90.6
6,. 3 63.8
9.• 14,l
91.0 92.1
82. 7
•6.1
71. 7
71.6
8.2
70.1
60.5
66. 7
66.0
6".6
O.l
82.l
69. 7
6o.9
eo., ...
s,oc •...............
72.3
l7 .9
68.5
6o.9
37 .8
HOGI •••••••••••••••••••••
SNllP A ■ I GoATS,.,,,.,,,,
POUL TIT.• ••••••••••• , ••••
'9.1
6.1
8~. i
59.2
82.2
82.l
.,.2
,0,9
l2,8
6.3
76.0
fAMILl(S ~f'OITINli CNAfllL
WolltTC.AGIS,,,.,,,,,,.,,.,.
36.6
6.1
21.2
Wo••
22.8
•. o
78.8
•-9
90.0
91.2
Digitized by
00.0
100.0
3.•
66. l
l0,6
Google
100.0
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
hl!ILE XXI-C.
FAWILll!S RU'OATING 0wMtltSklLI'
o,
SLl'l!ClfllllO Cl..,US!.S
Ru•OATIIIG CMATU.L MonG•~fS,
l!IY
o,
LIVESTOCW:
ANO fAMtLIES
P1tfSfNT OCCUl'ATIO• o·F Ht:AO OJ" FAMILY
Now-A.a•icuLTUUL WOltl<EltS
CMATTf.LS
.,, . ,._
uo
CHATff.L MOATG,\GfS
LAU
$TATES
LACH I AN
Cur-
0ZAIIIC
Ovu
SMOIIT Guss
We no•
Ea,,, ••
SP'• I NG 'II' I NT!JI I--Co_T~T-O_•_+_ _
Co_T T_o_•_
ToTAL
IHfU
WHU,T
WtUTE
MfGltO
lhun
1
fitilfGRO
#lUlbtr
ALL F.t.WIL I ES ••••••••••••••• •.•
"7
F AWi LI ES lh;PQATING
OAI RY Cows •••••••••••••••
100
OTHER CATTLE,,, •• , , , , , , • ,
Woruc:
... Go,,, ..........
STOCK, •• , , , , , , , , , , , .
HOGS ••••• , •••••••••••••• ,
18
28
71
59
181
103
32
71
27
72
19
2
""
•I
•1
12
I
12
8
17
2
9
13
12
6
1
1
9
18
29
31
21
II
'
POUL TltY ••• , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
170
'
30
"l
1
30
F AMIL l(S RE POAT INGi CHATTEL
MoATGAGES,.,,,,,,,,,,.,,,
32
2
lF.
9
S01HII'
I
•'
I
7
'
1
'
1
8
23
108
•
3
2
Perc1nt
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.0
,. 2
5.0
12. 7
0.9
32.2
3.•
10.2
35.6
18.8
6.6
18.5
lO.'
'l().8
22. 7
16.,
1.9
8. 7
"-9
1.0
29.1
,. 7
'·"
9.9
8. 7
,.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
16. 7
•.6
0.9
2.8
16. 7
FAM1L1f, RE,.OltTING
01.1•1 Co•s .•••.••••••••••
0TNER CATTLE . . . . . , ••• ,. , ,
IIORIC Sroc• •••••••••••••••
HoGS.,,,, ••• , •• , . , , . , . , , ,
St<HP ,.ND GoAT! . . . . . . . ., ,
POUL TlltT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,
FAWILll!S Rf,OltTING CHATTl!L
MoJtTGAGl!5,,,.,, •• •• ,., ••,
"·"
7 .2
1.1
I.•
7 .0
5.6
'""
12.,
"°· 3
32-"
----- -----
28. 7
2.8
--TABLE XXI-D. F,.MILIES l?f,OIHIHG Qw11fl:tsl'l1, Of S,fClflf.D CLASSES OF LIVESTOCIC AHO FAMILIES
RtPOATIIIG C1t.1.TTf.L W()ATGAGES,
"'
PAISEIIT 0CCUPAT 1011 OF
Huo
FAMILY
OF
UNEMPLOTf D
...
CHATTELS
CHATTEL MOATGAt..ES
ToH,L
ALL
...,,,._
LOE
SNoAT
STATl!S
cu,-
Guss
bf,1.5
LACHI AN
0ZUI(
5, '58Q
609
1.017
l.'Bll
'582
I.I~
207
?.57
181
52
316
51
115
132
23
""32
6e9
178
56
31
5"
6
191
33
OvfA
TOTAL
WESTERN
$!'A I NG WIN TEA
WHEAT
WHEAT
EASTEU
CoTTQN
CoTTOH
WtuH
Nt.:.Jto
WHITE
NE GAO
1.(1()6
'62
118
920
775
272
19
2,
Nu.ber
ALL FAMILIES,,,.,, •••• , , , , , , , ,
FAl,IILIES REPOATIHG
Q.t,1 AY Co•s •••••••••••••••
OTHER CATTLE. . . . . , , , , ••• ,,
WORM STOCK •• , , , , , . , , , , , , ,
'"
237
69
,;.,
138
13
21
11
,1
19
5
95
113
18
3"9
"''
13
'
32
l"8
167
35
•11
"
19
1"8
6
275
6o
73
20
17
11
10
HOGS •• , •• ,, •••• , , , ••• ,, ••
SHl!EP AND GoATS., ••• , , , . ,
Poul TIIY ••••••••••••••••••
1. 798
1"8
12
275
i;,...lllf5 RfPO,HUG CHATTH
M()ATGAGlS,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
22"
9
ALL FAMILIES,,,, •• , . , , , , , , , , , •
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
21.0
3.8
•.8
12.8
1.0
17 .,
5.5
3.0
,. 3
0.6
18.8
22.8
l. 7
8.'
9. 5
I. 7
32.0
11.,
8.•
2•.6
2. 3
3. 7
8.0
0.9
29. 7
9. 3
2,.0
"· 2
I. 3
2".9
27.0
1.9
6."
ll.2
1.8
3". 7
29. 7
8.9
1.3
2.'
19.1
0.8
3',5
3.2
9.6
1,. 7
7. 3
3.6
0.8
¼
"""
133
Percent
FAMILIES REPQl:tT1NG
HOGS.,., •••• , . , , •••••• , ••
SHE.Ell AND Goa.rs ••••••••••
Poul TIil, •••••••••••••••••
33.•
29. 7
8.5
5.6
2". 3
2.0
.,.2
f'AMILll!S REPOATIIIG CHATTEL
Mc)ATGAG!..S,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
•.2
1.,
OA1AY Cows •••••••••••••••
0THflt CATTLE,,,,,,,,,,,,,
JIOltlC STOCK,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,
,.o
"·"
2.1
11.0
Digitized by
3.5
16.1
o."
""· 1
1.8
L•
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
,..... nu.
CoMPAIIION 0, S111 OI , . . . . O,t ■ ATID IT FAIIIILIIS RtC.IIYllli R1L11' WNO
Wl.11 Fa.111, .. 1 ■ J11 ■ 1 19,- ••• o, Au. Fa.wa 1 ■ SAMt Cou111Tt11, 19,::)
.,....
Ac■ ts 1111 Fu11
LAU
Wl:STUN
....,.,
Euu1111
Wiant ■
CoTTON
COTTOII
100. 0
100.0
100 .0
,.,
10 . 2
100 .0
2.•
11.2
100.0
19 . 8
1.8
cur-
0ZUIIC
Ovu
,_ ., ,_11,.. w.c,1.,.,
10-19
20-49
ACOII •• •••• ••••• •• ••••••• ,,
&CIII •• 0 • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • .
!j()-99 ACltS •• 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
100-17• AC . . 1 ••••• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • 0 • 0 0 0 0
17~2'9
260--499
5<Xr-999
1000
ACIII. ••• •. • • • •. • • •. • • • • • •
ACIIIS . •. • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
&Cllll •••••••••••••••••••••
OIi - ·
'6 .9
... . o
l•. 7
8,9
,1.6
17,9
(
aca1, •...••••.•.•••.••
1. 8
All
TOTM.,. •• ••••••••••••• •• ••••• •• ••• ••• ,
0
..
,
100 .0
18.4
19.2
TOTA&. ••• •••• •••••· • •••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •• • •
U■ HI 10 1ca11 •••••••• • ••••••••• -••
u..... 10 ...... .. .. .. .............
10-19 •<•11 ......................
2(>..-49 AC.II.I • ••• •.•• ••• ••• •• ••• •••
,<)--99 ACtllt ••••••••••••••••••••••
100-17• ACl(I ••••• •• • • •• • •••• • •• •.
17~2'9 ac•11 • ••••••••••••••••••••
2(,0.-<199 .t.Cl(t ••• • •• • • • ••. • • • • • • • • •
,oo-ggg ac:111 •••••••••••••••••••••
1000 DI MOIi AC ■ II ••••• •• • • ••• •• • • •
~
. ,,.,
7.2
100,0
1.9
2.0
18.,
100 .0
100.0
7
11.,
1.,
20.0
•.9
110.9
"·'
l•.8
2.6
l
,0.0
1,. 2
,.6
l•.l
( ,.o
100.0
1.8
•-9
17. 7
2'1.l
,0,9
6.1
I
9,6
• .8
3•.1
28. 7
16.,
,3.,.o7
29.2
ls.,
100.0
•.9
11.,
•8. 0
17 .6
7. 7
!"·"
20.•
,a
,S7
Au F•-• 19,i! ... ... .. .. .... ....... .. .
•u. s. ca ..us
11.•
"·'
19.•
19.•
11130
,1.'
,1.
9.,
...... ,
21 .,
6.8
,,.I
16. 7
,. 7
(
,..,....
IUO.c,
8.1
11.8
27.2
2',9
17 . •
•
$NOit GltAH
Sn111a
STATII
LACNIUI
1181
o, A, ■ ,cut..ruar, t950
Taal n:111. CattACITY ,oe Sev-Su,ttoeT
Of' FAMtLIII R1cru•1111 "1L11,,
IY RIIIIIKI •• OP•• Cou ■TIY, YILLAM OIi Tow ■
c.,acu,
TOTAi.
Au
•. ,...,....
Cotf ■ TIT f•tLIII,.
l ■CUAkl••• •••••• •
c.............. .. ....
v,a,o■
LtcNIU
Oza ■■
7,070
1,261
5,809
••••• 1,2'0
LACI
STUii
C.r-
°"'"
a-1T
r•a••
5'••·· •••n•
IIMtAT
Wtll.AT
1,092
2'11
851
979
106
87'
1,051
'81
79
86
85
6' 1,oe,
772
78'1
010
89
521
2'16
·- ,.,._
HI
0011
-...
.....
•Ofl
s.• .-..,..
n Rll•NKI
.
"'''°"·····
, .-..............
Cono•
Corro"
Wtt1h
■ tPO
lht1T1
CUT
lOC 1,69,
297
18
82 1,666
17
,,
9'8
,16
52
""'
61
10
51
28
•
91,
516
07
12'
5'1
278
62
216
•2
11
,1
W1TNNT IUPI ►
•• ,79
[Attr• ■
lftnt••
.,.
795
167
628
•1••0
n,
'"
4'8
175
19'1
"",.
::illO
,>7
~.7•5
100
2'I
76
"'''°"·····
261
12
'6
29
2'I
6,
2'I
8
29
VtllO ■•••••
1,01,
6"
118
m
lOII
288
192
1'
270
1118
TOW fAIULIII • • • • • ••••• 1,U2
100
21
79
2'
2'6
116
,c)2
1416
8
17
86
12,J3
61
17
186
199
•2
157
157
•l
116
'
7
15
20
27
2'
27
21
1'9
07
'96
96
19
l,C,
"
VILi.di fMHLJII
cu......... .......
WlfN atNtl ►
ltTNOIIT •-•►
lacu•••··········
eu-a
............
··-.........
........
~.:189
"'6
:m
1,119
In■ IWI ►
"
105
10
w, ........ .
976
69
179
~
15'1
10
,0
78
168
26
60
•16
Digitized by
qq
5'5
299
Google
1011
:11,
"
SIX RURAL PRORLF.M AREAS
132
T AIL[ XXIY.
S f.JC,
Ew, LO'f' l,,lfNT STAT US AN O USUAL OCCul' ATI Ollf o, UNf W,OL OTEO Hu,o s
R(CflYIIIG R(LIH ANO CoN S IOUfO C ,U'UL ( Of
o, FA.WILIEI
sn,-su,,ou
TOT AL
.,,.-
L AU
SNOJtT G,tUS
S TAT(!
W(STU III
CoTTON
E ASTER "
Au
L A CH! AN
Cur-
bf.A S
0Z .UIC
Ovt•
WHf .U
WH(U
WH1 Tf
NtUO
lfH I Tf
NtGlltO
lf.S • • ••• , • • • ,, .
100,0
100 . 0
100.0
100 .0
100 .0
100.0
100.0
100 .0
100 .0
o,. su , -su,,0111 r.
80.5
84 .8
78 . 1
84.0
86.0
85 , 4
76 . 8
ao.5
61.2
7 .6
6,4
,.o
4, 0
3.8
8.8
14 .0
11.3
17.8
72 . 9
7B , 4
73, I
80.0
82.2
76 . 6
62.8
69 . 2
43,4
41.8
37 . 2
16. 3
20.9
1.6
3.0
62. 4
60 . 5
27.0
33, 5
0.4
1.'
34 , 4
25 . 0
18.6
6.4
1.6
7 .8
63 .8
62. 3
31.7
30.6
0.1
1.4
qtLB
24 . 2
20 . 9
20, 7
17 . 7
4. 3
13.4
2.4
0,6
2, . 3
18 .0
}.2
14 . 8
3. ,
3. 8
20 . 4
12 . 8
1.6
11.2
5, 0
2. 6
31.1
5.6
0. 7
4,9
4,0
16.0
1.8
0.3
1. '
o.,
38, 7
1.,
0.8
0 .7
1.0
16.2
}. 4
1.2
2.2
1.2
37 .4
6. 4
0.6
,.8
6 .4
52 , 4
13 . 9
1.3
12. 6
12. 8
42.1
o.~
4 ,9
14.6
,.,
42,9
12. 7
1.0
11.7
, .1
23.0
5, 4
0.1
,.3
, .4
21.'
8. '
4,2
13. 7
6.'
1.6
36 , 2
13.1
,. 5
11. 6
4. 9
1.8
24,6
11 . 2
6.1
2' , 7
12.1
7.0
21.9
17. 7
1.2
26.1
3, 8
8 .2
12. 2
6. 3
0.8
•o .t. o ENP'LOY U • • •
AL L O THERS .. , . ... .
2. 9
,.9
0.9
4, 7
3, 7
13 , 9•
1. 5
3,4
2. '
4, 8
1.6
,.o
0 .6
2,4
8.2
,.9
2. 8
2. 3
I tillCAl",t,ILt o, S1v-Sul"l"OR T
F AMtll l S WI TN Ff. MALI
Ht ADS, • • •• •• , , , ,, , , .
f ANIL IIS WITN M,t,U
HE AD S,,,,, , , , . , •• • • •
19.,
1,. 2
21.9
16 .0
14 . 0
14.6
23.2
19.,
38 , 8
6. 7
,.o
,.2
3.9
3,,
3. 2
7,9
6.o
22 . 4
12 . 8
10.2
16. 7
12.1
10.,
11.4
1,. 3
13. ,
16.4
!TOI
Au F ..... IL
Cu•All..f
~
Rllil.
•11u1•
CoTTON
F AMI Ll(S WITH Fou u .
Hf.AO!., • •• , . ,,,, , ,.,
F AM IL I U
WI TH WALE
Hf.t.01 , . , , , , . , , , , , , , ,
E. lilll LO Tl!O iilA L( Hu, os,
Ju .. t 193" .... .. .... .
F.t,JtMflt.,,,,., , . , ••••
Owlil f llt ••• • • • ••• • •• •
hu•T
ANO C1tOPll'ER
Fuw LAIOll fR , . , • • •••
OTHO 0CCUl' ATIO NS , • •
u,u... ,LOTfO
JU N(
42.'
16.8
2,. 7
0. 5
1.8
3,5
17,4
1.8
1.'
MALl Ht.t.05,
193",,, ..... .. .
USU ALL T F U MU • • • • • •
O WN (lit •• • • • •••• • • ••
Tu, ,. .. , ANO C ROl'l"fllt
USU ALL Y FARM L ,t, I ORU
USUALLY No..-AGlt I CULTUR AL WoRNER , ,, , . ,
l ,t,IOR ER , . , , , • • , . , ,
Ml! CH,t,till lC • • • • , , , • • ,
fA CTOJIT U O R A I L-
K 1 ti110 o, Nc)RIC FOR WHICH
LAIC E
S TATES
Cu tOvu
80 . ,
}'1.9
100 . 0
84.8
11.,
100.0
78 . 1
18.•
100.0
84.0
6'1.2
100 . 0
86.0
45,9
100,0
s,.4
40. 8
100 .0
76.8
27 , 4
100. 0
80.,
38, 7
100 .0
61.2
32,,
Al l
hus
ALL
S HO R T Gu,ss
Wuao
. ..... .,_
LACH I AH
0Z Altll;
loTAL
FAMILY WAS Quui,1 1 0
Cono•
5 1"1111 NG
WJttA T
'fltNT[R
WHfAT
WHIT(
Nt u o
E.t.STlltN
CoTTON
WHITI
Nt lRO
f ANILllS, • ••• • • , , • • • •• •• •• , , ,
AILE o, Su ,--Su l"l"ORT • • • • • •• •
f .t.RM 0f'llt AlOlt, ., , • •, . • • •• , . , .
Q.U DlN l"LOT WI TH
01"UATOII
OTHER (Nl" LOYMUIT • • • , , , . ,
0THU Ewl" LOYMf.NT • •• , • • • •• , . , .
I NCAl"AI Lf o , S u , -SUl"l"Olt'T . , , , ••
100 .0
,0 . 6
1,. 0
19.,
6'1.6
2. 7
15. 2
4" . l
1,. 7
21.9
11. 2
8.6
16 . 0
22 . 7
17 . 3
14 . 0
21. 7
22,9
14,6
3".8
14 , 6
23.2
p .1
,0 , 7
19.,
11.8
16, 9
38 , 8
F.t.NILll S WITH WALE H(.t.DS • • , • • • • ,,
C Al" AI Lf Of SH F-S u, ,.on • •• • • • • •
fAltw O"'l RATOlt • • , , •• ., • • ,. , • • •
0PJ'ltATOlt
,.t.ltDIN P'LOT "ITH
OTNU lMP'LO Y»fNT,. , ., , • •
0THf.R f MP'LOTMf .. l , , • • • • • • • , , ,.
I HCAl"ABLE o, S t LF- SUll' l"OIIT • • • ,, ,
8,. 1
72 . 9
32. a
98.6
78,4
17. 1
89.8
73, 1
92 , l
80.0
62 . 4
92. 7
82 . 2
44 , 8
88 . 0
76 . 6
37 , 9
78 . 0
62.8
26.8
82. 7
69. 2
3' , 4
tt:5.tt
11.,
28 .4
11.7
12.8
,9. 7
1.6
10.2
42, 4
13, 2
16. 7
11.0
6.6
12.1
21.8
1,.6
10 . ,
21.1
17.6
11 , 4
31.1
4, 9
1,.2
9. 7
24 . 1
13.,
7. 7
9.8
16 , 4
FAMILIES WIT l'I ftNALl Ht:.t.OS, • • • • ••
C AP'AILl o, S u,-Su_.P'OltT,, • •• , • •
F AIIM 0P'tll ATOlt • •• , •••• , • , • , , , •
0 P"ERATOR
GAIIO( N P'LOT
OlftU (WLOYlilUIT • • •• • , .,
0THU E W LOT Wftilll , • • ••• , . , •• ,,
IJCC Al" A<: OP' StLF- 5U l'P'OltT , , . , , .
14.3
7. 6
2.0
11.4
6. 4
0.4
10.2
,.o
0. 9
7.9
4,0
1.8
7. 3
3. 8
1. 2
12 .0
8.8
2. 9
22 .0
14 ,0
0 .6
17 . 3
11.3
3,3
'I0.2
17.8
6.6
2.2
}, 4
6.7
•-9
1.1
5.0
1. 7
2. '
,. 2
0.2
2.0
3,9
0.9
1. 7
3.'
o.~
,.,
3,6
9.8
1.9
1. 3
6. 7
6.0
4, l
7, l
22. 4
Co
-
-
-
"""
3, 2
'9. 8
2',9
6 1N THE OPINION o, LOC AL R( L IH 1.UAIC (lltS .
Digitized by
Google
APPEND IX I
Figures
D191tized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURES
135
A - AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
5 -
FIGUIIE I
NATIV[ VCOtTATtON
Average Annual Precipitation and Native Vegetation - 'rlat1ve V"eQetation reflects the
ootential c.apecity of the 'llirgin soil for agricultural and for forest production. trlote
that the eastern boundry of the Short Grass region does not fol I.,. a I ine of eq,,al
pt"ec.ipitalion. but crosses two precipitation zones: It adv~es frcn sbout the 18 inch
I ine in North Dakota to the 24 inch I ine in Texas, where, because evaporation is l'IUCh
greater and the rctinfall 1110re torrential, more rainfall is required to insure the sane
Mk>Unl of available 1110isture.
SOORCE:
Baker, 01 iver E.. A Graphic Sunrnary of American Agriculture, U. 5. Department of
Agriculture. Miscellaneous Publication "umber 105 t.-ashington, Government Printing
Office, !lay, 19311.
Digitized by
Google
z
►
u
w
:::>
a:
~a
w
l&J
... J:
...
DI IL
::,
~
:::>
C)
·iC
i ti
§
I- C
i!
~2
t~
:i .
~I
12
e
<
::>
" "
:z:
.
.
i !!
"'
:!
Ii
~~
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
Digitized by
ii
I!,~
,u
II~
Google
••
.,rt~·,-.._
--..._
I ~,
i \
---4
\,
I
•
•
01f£G_
I
10_..~
I
i
{
i
!
N~
'
I
I·
\
,
en
!
I
C:
•
-•-1
;
.
... ~
At._\,
._
·-r-·
I
I·
UT.a
,,11
;
.i--- --
;
;
co;c.
'1' ·-·-!;·-·
[Is_
•
\
I
0
AR1z
;;:;·
~
{
I
·- -.,..
•
SOIL EROSION SERVICE
AREAS WITH MAJOR WINO EROSION PROBLEM
'\
I
I
·--....
_·--1.i.
I
•
I
US. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
F IG~E 11 1
.....
I
i
""'""'
~
~
:I:
""-a:
➔
►
"'....
..,
~
C,
c::
,.,
u,
::,0
' ·, ·--.,__r
;
CJ
0
~.......
(i)
LEGEND
C:Z:) SLIGHT WINO EROSION
-
SEVERE WINO EROSION
...
':!!
~
I
IL
0
~
w
w
0::
a..
0
Ol"l
'-
0)
(/)-
~
<{
I-
a: (/)
u..z
z
ct""'
I-
...I<{
...I
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
.
L
"'"
.,"C
K
g
2
~
g
! li
iil
2
~
::,
V)
V)
..,z
u
::,
V)
~
.J
>
0
K
g
i 0
2 5
i i
Google
Dltm ~I
Digitized by
FIIUU
'
LAND IN HARVESTED CROPS
Increase in Acre8ge, 1919-1929
,.,,
.,,.,,c::
t""
t'llll
:.a:
~
...
31
>
.
XI
~
'""'
c:,
.,
C:
0
co·
f"II
""
;;:;~
en
CT
'<
CJ
0
UNrT[O STATES NET INCREASE
~,.......
1,190,000ACRES
~
IU,
-Wf
Each dot ,epn,s.nts
5,000
OF AOIUCULTUM
ocra
_. . . -0,---
-
~
FIGURE
....
VI
~
0
FARMS REPORTING TOTAL VALUE OF PRODUCTS UNDER $1,000
Percentage of All Farms Report,ng. 1929
en
"""'
><
::c
C:
::i::,
>
c:-'
-,::,
~
0
l"UCINT
[mllnd.r/0
~
10
3:
JO lo
.a
~
~
-
•
..,,. •o
,o,. ,o
.-•o,.
. ,o,.eo
-•o-10
0
AU. ,AAMI UPOtlTING 'IALUl
o, '1100UCTS
""
~
~
(';
0
a~
U.S. Du.urNOfT
o, AGIIICULT\JRl
NCO .
17111
c:-'
(illill 10,.
~zo,.,o
<O
;;:;·
0:,
9UMNJ MAGIUCULT\JML U:ONOMIO
>
>
en
w
-->
:::,
Q:
C,
"'<
"'a:<
..,
~
0
s
C
...- ...u
a:
~
i...
2
SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURES
Digitized by
141
~
z
Q
~
~
..,
~
t
~
;:
...z
~
~
~
Google
Digitized by
Google
APPENDIX C
List of Suple Counties
List of Counties Included in Each of the Six Areas
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
COUNTIES SURVEYED IN TBE RURAL PROBLEN AREAS
145
COIITIEI s••YEYED II TIE ··••L ,101LEN ••EAS
Short
Arbuu
ltadiao■
le.t.llC~
Jackso■
Ir••• Winter Wheat Area
e.c.
Coloredo
,_
Seeray
box
Ch117eane
Yiaa
~
Pike
Bled-
I ·.
Peatreu
Tirgi ■ i•
West
fir1i ■ ia
SbeNU
Cb117e■ne
llebrealle
Or■i.er
New Nuico
llffrJ
Jackson
Rusell
Webster
Okla'Texu
RooMYelt
Union
Ciarro■
Dall•
Rudall
Roberti
Wyoaiac
C ■t•Ovw
Lake StatH
W.atwn Cotto11 Ar11
.,...
Alco■a
ltichigu
AI,er
lroa
lalkeu:a
Aitkin
Beltr•i I J
Crow Wiq
Kiueaot ■
Wiacoui■
/
ChoctllW
OlrlaboN
Till■an
✓
Davson
Texu
Jones
San Patricio
Willi-n
Wood
7
Oconto
Ouida
Wubbur■
Short
lru■
t,..,-J
S,r 1111 Wheat ArH
Phillip■
Nebreu:s
Nortb Dakota
SouU Dakota
Prairie
U-s
Barke
Grut.
!ako■
lardi•
Tripp
E11t ■r11 Cotton hit
Alabl
D
Dallas
Liaut.cm.
Arkusu
Ca1.ho11u
Geor,ia
Meriwether
Lo■ i1ia■a
lti11islippi
llort.b Caroli•
So.th C-liu
Mor,••
Titt
Richhnd
Union
Leflore
ltoaroe
Ano■
Prultli■
Sater
Marlboro
'
Digitized by
Google
I '-'
i
SJX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
LIST OF COUNTIFS IN THE SIX RUR4L PROBLEM 4Rf4S
Appalac~ian-Ozark 4rea
Ark ens as
Boone
Carroll
Crawford
Franklin
,Johnson
'1a<lison
'1arion
~cwton
Searcy
Stone
Washilll(ton
•~eorl!ia
l>arle
Fannin
'1etcal fe
'1onroe
'lorgen
:-luhlenberg
Ohio
Owsley
Perry
Pike
Powell
Pulaski
liookcaslle
~owan
liusse U
Wayne
Whitley
Wolfe
Gilmer
Habersham
L11111pkin
1/abun
Toltlls
Union
While
Illinois
Frankl in
Sardin
ffMlillon
Johnson
Pope
Saline
Willia11son
Kenlncln·
.\dai~
Al Jen
Rell
Breathitt
llutler
Caldwell
Cartl'r
Casey
Cla_y
Clinton
Crittenden
CUD1berland
F.dmonson
F.lliotl
Est.ill
Floyd
Grayson
f~reenup
Harlan
Hopkins
.Jackson
Johnson
Knott
Knox
Larue
Laurel
L•wrence
Lee
Leslie
Letcher
Lincoln
"lissouri
eoll i nger
Ca..den
c~rter
Crawfor,t
Dent
Douglas
lron
Madison
Ore~on
Reynolrls
~t. hanc,ois
Ste . f;enevieve
Shl\nnon
Taney
Washi oglon
Wayne
North Carolina
Alexander
Al I eghany
A~he
Avery
lluncorobe
llurke
Caldwell
Chath1111
Cherokee
Clay
Grahu
Haywood
Henderson
Jeckson
McOowell
MACOn
Med i50n
Hi tchell
'1oore
Randolph
Swain
Transylvania
li•ta11ga
Iii lkes
Yall<'.ey
Oklshou
Adair
/;herokee
Livilll!'.ston
llehware
:-!cCreary
"legoffi n
Martin
'1eade
Latimer
Pustuoataha
Meoi fee
Tl!nnessee
Anderson
Benton
Rledsoe
Blount
llrad ley
C1U11pbe II
Cannon
C4rter
Claiborne
Clay
Cocke
Coffee
Cu,.berland
Decatur
r.e l,alb
Fentress
Fr,rnkl in
Grairlj,(er
C,rundv
Hambl~n
Hancock
Hawkins
Hickman
Houston
Hu10rhreys
Jack'ion
Jefferson
Johuson
Lewis
McMinn
Macon
Marion
Marshall
Maury
'1onroe
Horgan
Overton
Perry
Pickett
Polk
Putnaa
Rhea
1/oane
Sequatchie
Sevier
Scott
Smith
Stewart
Sullivan
llnicoi
Union
Van Buren
Warren
Washington
Wayne
White
Wi LI ia11son
Virginia
Albemarle
ALieghany
Amherst
Appomattox
Bed ford
Eotetourl
l!uchanan
Caapbell
Carroll
Crai2
Culpeper
Floyd
Franklin
rates
Grayson
Green~
Henry
LP.e
'1adison
'1ontgo11ery
~elson
Orange
Page
Patrick
flepp•h•nnock
Rotekbridge
hussell
Scoll
S.yth
Spotsylvania
Stafford
Tsuwell
Wise
West Virginia
llarbour
Boone
Hraxton
Calhoun
Clay
Ooddridge
Fayetl~
Gilmer
r.rl\nt
Greenbrier
Hl\llpshire
Hl\ncock
Hardy
Harrison
,Jackson
Kanawha
Lewis
Lincoln
Loi(an
'1cDowel l
'1•rion
'hson
Mercer
Miner&!
'1ingo
Monongalia
Monroe
Horgen
Nichohs
Pendleton
Pleasants
Pocahontl\S
Prest.on
Putnu
lialeigh
RAndolph
Hitch ie
Roan~
S111111'1er9
Taylor
Tucker
Tyler
Upsh•1r
WAyne
Webster
Wetzel
Wirt
Wood
Wy011ing
Digitized by
Google
LIST OF
COIINTJF.S
IN THE SIX RURAL PROBLE.'t AREAS
147
Lake Stat,, Cllt-Over
"ichigaa
Antri ■
Alcoae
Alger
AlpeDI
Bar-ca
Ben1ie
Charlnoi•
Cheboygan
Chippewa
Clere
Crawford
Delta
Dickinson
~et
Gladwin
Gogebic
Grand Traverse
Boughton
Iosco
Ro~n
Schoolcrlft
llextord
Iron
hlkulca
Keweenav
Lake
Lace
Leel11nau
l'leckin~
ltanistee
l'luquette
11eson
P1enoeinee
!'lid land
!'lissaukee
ltontaorency
Newaygo
Oge■ ew
Onton11gon
Oscod11
Otsego
Presque Isle
Minnesota
Aitkin
Beltr•i
Carlton
Cass
rteerw11ter
Cook
Crow Wing
Hubbard
Itasca
Koochichine
Lllk"
Lake of the lloods
Pine
Roseau
St. Louis
Wisconsin
Ashland
Bayfield
Burnett
lloaglaa
Florence
Forest
Iron
LenelAde
Lincoln
!'lerinette
Oconto
Oneida
Price
Rusk
Sawyer
Taylor
Vilas
Washburn
Sprin9 WhHt Area
"onhna
Blaine
Carbon
Carter
Cascade
Chouteau
Daniels
Dawson
Fallon
hrgus
G11rfield
Glecier
Golden Valley
Hill
.Judith Resin
Liberty
McCone
l'lusselshell
Petrolem
Phillips
Pondera
Pr11irie
Richland
lloosevelt
Sheridan
St il I vat.er
S..eet Grass
Teton
Toole
Tre11sure
Valley
Wheatland
llibaux
Yellowstone
Nebraska
!\ox llutte
D11wes
,·
•. lOUX
llorth Dakou
"'111115
Barnes
Benson
Billi112s
Roll ineau
Bow.en
Rurke
Burleii:h
C11val ier
Dickey
Civirle
lh1"n
Eddy
F.-,ns
foster
Gnlden Valley
Grant
Hetti"teer
Kidder
Log11n
McHenry
Nclntosh
McLean
l'lcKenzie
Piercer
!'lorton
!'lountrail
Nelson
Oliver
Pierce
ll•sey
llenville
Rolette
Sheridan
~loux
Slllpl!
St ark
Stuts■ en
Towner
lf•lsh
Ward
Wells
Wiilia■ s
South C~lcnta
Anostroni:
Rennett.
llrovn
llrul~
Buffalo
Butte
C11■pbell
Corson
n....ey
E.d■unds
Fall River
Faulk
Gre,gory
Ha11l<011
Hardi111t
Hughes
Hyde
Jackson
Jonf!s
Ly■ ID
McPherson
!'leade
!'lelleUe
Perkins
Potter
Shannon
Spink
Stanley
S,,lly
Todd
Tripp
lialworth
llashabaueh
lt•shineton
Zieb11eh
ltyo■ ing
Converse
Goshen
Niobrora
Pl11tte
Weston
Winter Wheat Area
Colorado
Ados
Arapohoe
Baca
Rent
Cheyenne
Crowley
Do11glu
F.l bert
El Pa59
Huerfano
Kiova
Kit CorMn
Las Ani•as
Linr.oln
l,og•n
'1organ
Otero
Phi II ips
Prowers
Pueblo
Sedgwir.k
Washington
W"ld
Yu■ e
Kensas
B8rber
Borton
Cheyenne
Digitized by
Cl11rk
C011anche
tecatur
Dickinson
f:o,.•rds
Ellis
Ellsworth
Finney
ford
Gove
Google
118
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
Wlnt ■ r
Kansas (Cont. I
Grahn
Grant
Gray
Greeley
Huilton
Harper
Harvey
Haskell
Hod~e.an
Kearny
King■ an
Kiowa
Lane
Lincoln
I.oian
:"1c herson
Marion
MeRde
Mitchell
~orton
Ness
Norton
Osborne
OttRwa
Pawnee
Pratt.
~ewl ins
Reno
Rice
li'ook<;
Ru"h
Russell
Saline
Sedi1fick
Seward
Scott.
Sheridan
Shenian
St.afford
Stanton
Steven?.>
Su11ner
Tho11es
·1rego
llellace
Wichita
Nebraska
Banner
Chase
Cheyenne
Pewson
Deuel
Dundy
Frontier
Furnas
Gosper
H•ycs
Hitchcock
ijoward
Keith
Ki11hall
Morrill
Perkins
Redwillo1,
Sher11an
Wheat Area
Nev Mexico
Chaves
Colfa;,c
Curry
De Baca
Eddy
Guadalupe
Hording
Lee
Mora
Quay
Roosevelt
San 11iguel
Torrance
Union
OklahOlla
Alfalfa
Beaver
Blaine
Canadian
Ci ■ arron
Custer
rewey
Ellis
Garfield
Grant
Harper
Kay
Kingfisher
Major
Noble
Texas
Wood
lioodward
Texas
Andrews
A1"11st.rong
Bailey
Carson
Castro
Cochran
Dallaa
Deaf S.ith
J:ouley
Ector
Gaines
Gra.·1
Hansford
Hartley
Heaphill
HutchinMn
l.ipsco■b
Moore
Ochiltree
Oldhu
Par■er
Potter
Randall
Roberts
Sher■an
Yoaku■
Wy011ing
Lara■ ie
Western Cotton Area
Texas
Anderson
Angeline
Austin
Bestrop
Ree
JlPll
Jlo<;que
Bowie
Brazos
Burleson
Caldwell
C1111eron
Camp
Cass
Cherokee
Childress
Coleman
Collin
Collingsworth
Colorado
Coryell
Cottle
Crosby
Dallas
Dawson
Delta
Denton
De Witt
Ellis
Erath
Falls
Fannin
hyetle
Fisher
Foard
fort !lend
Franklin
Freestone
Gonz•les
C.rayson
Gregg
ririmes
Guadalupe
Hall
Hamilton
Hardeman
Harrison
Haskell
Henderson
Hidalgo
Hill
Hockley
Hopkins
Houston
Howard
Bunt
.Johnson
Jones
Karnes
Kauf11an
Knox
La11ar
La■b
Lavaca
Lee
Leon
Limestone
kive Oak
Lubbock
Lynn
McLennim
Madison
Merion
M•rtin
Mila■
Mitchell
Mon¾lo11ery
Morns
Nacogdoches
Navarro
Nolan
Nueces
Panola
Polk
Rains
Red River
Robertson
Rockwall
Runnels
Rusk
Sabine
San Augustine
San Jacinto
San Patricio
Scurry
Shelby
S■ ith
So■ervell
Starr
Stonewall
Taylor
Terry
Titus
Travis
Trinity
Upshur
Van Zandt
Walker
Waller
Washington
Wharton
Wheeler
Wichita
Wilbarger
Willia11son
lfi.lson
llood
OklahC111a
Ber.khmi
Bryan
Caddo
Choctaw
CoHnche
Cot.ton
Creek
Garvin
Digitized by
Google
LIST OF COUNTIES IN THE SIX RURAL PROBLFM ARF:AS
1'19
-WHtern Cotton ArH
OklahoH (Cont.)
Gr•dy
Greer
H•nion
H•skell
Hughes
Jackson
Jefferson
Le Flore
Love
HcChin
McCurtain
11clntosh
11e.rshall
Husk::fee
Okfus ee
Olrualgee
Pott11Wot011ie
R'Jier Mills
Seainole
Sequoyah
Stephens
Till.an
Waj[oner
lluhita
Kiova
Lincoln
Eu tern Cotton Aru
Ahb••
Autauga
Barbo11r
Bibb
Blo•t
Bullock
Butler
Calhoun
Ch•bers
Cherokee
Chiltoa
Cboctav
Clarke
Clay
Cleb ■ ne
Coffee
Colbert
Cottecllll
Coosa
CoviftC'to■
Creuli•
C■ll-
llale
Dallas
De Kalb
El ■ore
Esc•bi ■
[tov•li
h:,ette
J"rankli ■
Ge■ eva
Greene
Nale
Nenry
llousto■
Jackson
Lu ■r
Lawrence
Lee
Li ■estone
Lovndes
!'!aeon
HAdi,;on
Hareogo
Harit)n
l'!arshall
:-fonroe
Montg011ery
Horgan
Perry
Pickl!ns
Pike
Lauderdale
Randolph
Russell
St. Clair
Shelby
Suater
Talladega
Tallapoosa
Tuscaloosa
llalker
Washiagto■
Wilcox
Wi ■ston
Arkansas
A11hley
Bradley
Calhoun
Chicot
Clark
Clay
Clebar■e
Cleveland
Coluabi1
Conwey
Cr ■ ighe ■d
Critte■de■
Cron
Dallas
~eslia
Drev
P■ulkur
~laad
Grut
Greene
llapstead
Hot Spriae
Howe.rd
Independeace
h.■r4
Jackso■
Jefferson
Lafayette
Lawrence
Lee
Lincola
Little River
Logan
Lonoke
Hiller
Mississippi
Monroe
Hontgoury
Nevada
Ou•chih
Perry
Phillips
Pike
Poinsett
Pope
Pulaski
Randolph
St. Francis
Saline
Scott
Sharp
Union
Van Bven
libite
lloodruff
Yell
Geor11ia
Baker
Baldvi■
Banks
Barrov
Bartov
lien Hill
Bleckley
Bulloch
Burke
Butt ■
Calhoun
Capbell
Candler
Carroll
Catoosa
Ch1tooa:1
Ch at ta.hooch ee
Cherokee
Chrke
Clay
Clayton
Cobb
Colquitt
ColU11bia
Coweta
Cravford
Crisp
Davson
De Kalb
Dodge
tooly
Do;1hs
Ear:,
Elbert
E■anuel
Evans
f•yette
floyd
Forsyth
Franklin
Glascock
Gordon
Greene
Gvinnett
Hall
Hancock
Haralson
Harris
Hert
HMrd
Henry
Houston
Digitized by
Irvin
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jenkins
Joheson
La■ar
Laurens
Lee
Lincoln
HcDuffie
Hacon
Madison
Morion
Herivether
Miller
Mitchell
Nonroe
Hont.11011ery
!1orgon
Murray
Nevton
Oconee
Ogelthorpe
P•ulding
Peach
Pickens
Pike
Polk
Pulaski
htn•
Quitun
RnnJolph
Rich■ond
Rockdale
Schley
Screven
Spalding
Stephl!nS
Stewart
Suater
Talbot
Taliaferro
Toylor
Telfair
Terrell
Tift
Too■hs
Treutlen
Troup
Tarner
Tviggs
Upson
Walker
Walton
Warren
Washington
Webster
Wheeler
Google
150
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
Eutern Cotton Area
Georgia (Cont.)
Miitfield
liilcox
Wilkes
llilkinson
llorth
Louisiana
Avoyelles
Bienville
Bossier
Caddo
Caldwell
Calahaula
Claiborne
Conc'lrdia
I'e foto
East Carro 11
Evangeline
Franklin
Grant
,Jackson
Lincoln
Marlison
~ore house
~etchitoches
Pointe Coupee
Ouachita
Rapides
Red River
llichland
Sabine
St. Landry
Tensas
Union
Vernon
WAshington
Webster
West CIIJ"roll
Winn
Cllll"ke
Clay
Coaho•a
Covington
De ~to
Franklin
George
Grenada
Hinds
Holaes
81111phreys
Issaquena
Union
Walthall
W..rren
Washington
W:rse
Wester
Wilkinson
Winston
Yalobsisha
Yazoo
Plissouri
Itawuha
Dunklin
Jasper
Jefferson
Jefferson Davis
Jones
Ke•per
Lahyette
La•ar
Lauderdale
Lawrence
New !1adt'id
Peaiscot
Jlorth Carolina
Anson
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
C1111berland
Luke
f'ranklin
Lee
Leflore
Lincoln
LowndPs
M11dison
Gsston
Rdifllx
Harnett
Hoke
Iredell
Johnston
Lee
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Marion
Marshell
Monroe
Montgo•er,
Neshoba
Newton
Noxubee
Oktibbeha
Panola
Pike
Pontotoc
Prentiss
Qui tHn
Rowan
Union
York
Tennessee
Rutherford
Rardl!IIU
Sa■pson
Hardin
Bayvood
Benderaon
Lake
Lauderdllle
Lawrence
McNairy
Madison
Scotland
Stan.l,y
Union
Warren
Si ■psoo
S.ith
McCon,ick
Plarlboro
Newberry
Oconee
Orft~ebure
Pick1ns
RichlllDd
SIi.lode
Spartanbnrit
Sllllter
Carroll
Rankin
Sunflower
hllahatchie
Tate
Tippah
Lee
Lexington
Chester
Crockett
Dyer
hyetie
Gibson
Scott
Sharkey
Attala
Benton
flol ivar
Calhoun
Carroll
Chickasaw
Choctaw
Claiborne
Dorchester
F.dgefield
Pairfield
Greenville
Greenwood
Baapt.on
Kershaw
Lancaster
Laurens
North911Pton
Polk
Riclmond
Robeson
AdllllS
Allite
Dillon
11ontgo■ery
Mississippi
Alcorn
Calhoun
Cherokea
Cbesterfi eld
Clarendoa
Colleton
Darlington
South Carolina
Abbeville
!iken
Shelby
Tipton
1isho■ ingo
Allendale
Anderson
B1111berg
Tunica
Barnvell
Digitized by
Google
APPENDIX D
Methodological Note
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
HOUSEHOLD SCHEDULE
153
~ETHODOLOGICAL NOTE
Identification of the Areas
The "Problea .Areas" which are the subject of this report were
brought to the attention of the Federal F.ergency Relief Ad■ in
istration by the ■onthly recurrence of high relief rates. Preli■inary study of these and neighboring areRs indicated that
certain per■ anent co■binations of factors were associated with
the large proportion of fa■ilies receiving relief in certain
rural areas. Six such areas were identified and studied. The
areas and the criteria, other than high relief rates, by which
they were deli■ited were:
1. The Lake States Cut-Over
a. Poor soil
b. Short growing season
c. Relatively S11dl percentage of land in fans
d. Decadent l1JJ1tbering, woodworking and copper
■ining industries
e. Une■ploy■ent in iron ■ines and in industry
generally owing to technological i ■prove
aents
2. The Appalachian-Ozark Area
a. Mountainous terr~in
b. Little arable land-soil generally poor
c. Large proportion of faras of self-sufficing
or part-ti■e type
d. Decadent lU11bering and woodworking industries--also abandoned coel ■ines in ■ any
counties
e. A dense population-rapidly increasing due
to a high rate of n11tural increase and lack
of eaploy■ent opportunities elsewhere
f. A distinctive culture based on agriculture
plus other e■J)loy■ent, now in a period of
change owing to loss of non-fara e■ploy■ent
,. The Short Grass-Spring Wheat Area
a. Wheat-growing in a region of low and variable precipitation
Digitized by
Google
154
SIX RURAL PROBLFH AREAS
b.
4.
The
a.
b.
5.
The
a.
b.
c.
6.
The
a.
b.
c.
Area roughly coincident with that in which
the natural vegetation was "short grass"
Short Grass-Winter ~beat Area
'WhMt-groving and other arable agriculture
on an extensive scale, vi th large invest■ents in power ■achinery, in a region of
light and variable rainfall
Area delineated by natural vegetation "shortgrass II line-an indication of rainfall, evaporation and soil type
Western Cotton Area
Cotton farming
Over-expansion of cotton far■ing and surplus
of population due to i .. igration
Crop failure due to drought in western part
of area
Eastern Cotton Belt
Cotton far■ ing
A syste11 of fa.r■ ing which grew out of the
plantation syste■ based on Negro slavery
Disruption of traditional syste■ of agriculture due to loss of foreign markets and
low prices of cotton
Se I ect ion of the Sa111p I e Counties
The counties selected for.intensive study were picked to represent insofar as possible in a li■ ited sample the range of conditions prevalent in each area. Census t-abulations and county
relief data were utilized and the final selections verified by
infor■ed persons in State Agricultural Colleges and State F.aergency Relief Administrations. The factors, in addition to relief rates, considered in selecting samples in each area were,
briefly, as follows:
1. Lake Stat.es Cut-Over .Area,
a. Percentage of land .in faras
b. Percentage of gainful workers e■ployed in
agriculture, lumbering and woodworking industries, and ■ining
c. Geographic location
d. Percentage of population rural
Digitized by
Google
METHODOLOGICAL NOTE
15~
2.
The Appalachian-Ozark Area
a. Percentage of faras-self-sufficing
b. Percentage of gainful workers employed in
■ ining and in ■anufacturing
c. Geographic location
d. Percentage of population rural
The Short Grass--Spring Wheat Area
a. Percentage of far■ land in wheat
b. Average annual precipitation
c. Geographic location
d. Percentaee of population rural
4. The Short Grass--\inter k~eat
Saae as for Spring 'Wheat
5- The ~estern Cotton Area
a. Percentaee of far11 land in cotton
b. Percentaee of population rural
c. Percentage of fara tenancy
d. Percentage of rural population :Negro
e. Geographic location
6. The Eastern Cotton Belt
a. Percentaee of far■ land in cotton
b. Percentaee of population rural
c. Percentaee of far■ tenancy
d. Percentaee of rural population Ne,ro
e. ·Average value of fl.I'll land per acre
f. Geo,raphic location
,.
Digitized by
Google
Sa•pllng Procedure In the Counties
A rando■ sample was taken of all resident
fMilies receiving unemployment relief and
living in the county in June 193,4. Each
county was sMpled so as to include approximately 150 cases. This was accomplished
by taking every case, every other case, or
every third case, etc., dependiJli upon the
nU11ber of fa■ilies receiving relief, This
■ethod of saapling is based on the theory
of a relatively bo■ogeneous universe in each
area,
156
Digitized by
Google
APPENDIX E
Household Schedule
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
HOUSEHOLD SCBEDUL!
159
- alO -
PDJatAI.. DaJllaDCY MUii' ADMINISTRATION
HMM\' L _ , . . _ ADMIN-'TOII
DMaON
fJ#' IIIIDUIICH AND 9nmfl!C9
--••n•••-...-
SURVEY OP RURAL PBOBLBII AIUWI
IIIJII■
_.._ ____
- ----·- ·········-····-····--·••·•···-·- --ie>
,.._
..... ,.,_
Ill
(......,a.-~.
........,,v..,.,-.,...
.. .....,, (<(.--··'
a . , ~.
(._., u - .
I. (.. ... )
I.( ...... ,
( ......
(.
0.7 ~ - - ,.
D. y _...... ___,, _,_,...,...,,. _ _ _ _
~ - - - ,.
~-..~::=:..~~-=-~:
m.
"'· Cole ____ _,_., ........
1.(...• •., - 1.(•. . . .. , , . . . . . _
,c.......,,. ________
I.(.._ .., - - .
t.( ......
Y. - 7 _, -
.... -.... -----------N... •
o..n -·············-···- - ·-···-····-·····-··•······· ··········•··
L-
1911
IIOIJ8mOLD 8CBIIDOLS
_, -
(lpooll7) :
I . ............. · - ····-··-·····················- - - - -
YL - - G f - t l -
'·'··-··'----
-
"------------
- ' - - -- - -·-----·-- - - - - D- •
~---,
.
I.Aft
v. . n
C.. • - _ _ _ _ _ __
lL 1 1 - b o r t l _ l a _:
I, I, I, t. I, I, T, I, I, 10, 11, II, II, M, II• -
.
:U.0..-Gf1. (..-..) ..... _
--.-_,
a.c._,
(._ ..) _____._
t.<-
> • ~ ... - - - -
"',. --·>. •~------- ·--1. (.. - •. ) - ~ -
..
(. . _ )
I.(.... ..
-
•
-
;. ~..-:-,
) ■ -~~=---
.. (._..) •.;.~~:::=...- - -
t.(•. .•.. ) - . W .
1.(......) -
II.
t.( .. _ .., 1. (......, . . - .
II. (.. _ .
II 11.(......, .._ _ .. _ _ _ ...,.
t. (....•.) -
Obit
111. . . .,_.,......._
I.(. _ _ ) _
(.--I·---...---·
-----(...._)Al----•
- ----·---II.(._ .. ) .._ _ ,. _ _ - -
It. 1-..,l • - - - - - - -
I. (..__)U_ _ _
. _,___
.)"= - ,__,,
nu..._..,_.,......._
I.(. • _ , _
t.(. ...•., - 1.(.. ...., - -
'-·-··>· - - -.. _...,_
,,
----,.
( ...
t.(.
..•..,
•
-_
-·, _ ,_ _ _,
IX _ _
_
_
_
_
II.
11.(.._,...., _ _ M_...,_
If. (...... ) ...., _ _ M _ _ _
1-. ...... ie,_ _ _ ...,.
II. (..-..
11.(..•••.) ~ - " - - - -
•c......)aa;:_~-- ... -"
11.(.- ...J-.----- ..
:::es---<··-->: • (....
.T•
Digitized by
-J; ....... ,. __ ).
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
160
m.
Naabll' of W'ClftSI In bouaebold <•W number of work. .):
(•) (Waful .........,
1. 10 and under 18 ,-,.. ..•.....
2. te J'Mn aad over ... ~ ..•....
<•> -•""1 pialul "°"k.,.,
1. 10 &net under 18 ,-,. ........ .
2. 18 yean and over ..
:on. o-i,.&loa., -
u...i
(---->
I.
1. (......)
<- ,_ _),
., _
,.._
-·
I. (......)
( ...... ) ,.,,. ........
(...... ) , _ e,op....
'- (......)
(
6. (.. -.)
.. (.-,)
......)
,.,,.
10. ( ...... )
11. (...... )
12. (...... )
=
(......) r,-......, h••lor.
(._) Lwabermoa, n1-...............
chopper.
7. (._)
u,..i
(......) r-..,... ( a n d - > -
(._ ..)
Ml~"!'.1
-).
II. (......)
"·
I~
L (......)
(......) llocboole (lncludlnc bullcllnc
I. (--l
(. ___ ) ,......,.
_p1o,_
(ladudlnc
fonmen, operalivet. and i.bann).
lU1'. An u7 ol ll• T• (......).
No( ...... ).
XT.
...
--
•llled In -
---·
nnplo,._ not • c-lul.ifted (lncludlnt
employ- in ruuDd bouaeJ
( ...... ) Railroad
where
( ......)
( ....•• ) ll•rt'h&nl, banks,
J>Nprlet.or .
( ..•••) Cl.ri<'&l .-urker •
•
otMI
alnman.
II. (...... )
(...... ) Servant or ..a11er.
(....•. ) l.aboffr (not. r.....,hffl., ,:luu,
lkdJ.
(..•••. ) AD other orcupationa.
17. ( ...... )
IL(......)
(......) Not -.rtalnoblo.
( ...... )
I&. (...... )
and all other meebanice).
,._
han<'kn/17
Al,_
( ......) Unetaployed.
0-,,
i..,n-,..i_...,._....,
,
<•> (.._.)
GI (.._.)
O . . . o l - .......,
_,.._,..,_or...._,
(c) (. .. _ ) 8 q _ ,
1.-----
(4)(......) B - 7
I. U..,_.,,_ ......... lat\ mortppd7
(•l DolrJ .....7.. ........
<•> Oiloor ..-7.........
(c) WOft -T.. .......
(4) B-7..................
(•) ~ ud _ .., ...
(/) Powuy7.. .............
&. Daill boaNbold u .. . _
Y• (...... ),
No( ...... ).
N o t - • - (...... ).
v....... (...... >: aumi-..... c..............>: ....... (.
-lo. . (. . ).
>: ... - ..... <.....>.
(.. .); not ......i......... ( .... ).
Y•...... (...... ); aumbor...... (.....
): no..... ( ..... );not
Y-. ..... (...... ); aumbor...... (...
); no..... ( ... ); nol-aable.... ( ..... ).
v....... (......); ............ (............. );no..... (... ); ,.., . - i.......... (..... ).
YN. ..... ( ...... ); •umber ...... ( .............. ); ao..... ( ..... ); not -.rtalnoble ...... (.. ).
to or me ol lmplemn•.......,,. for operat.ion ul preaenl land boktinp7 Y•
(..... );
Y-. ..... ( ...... ); ............ (.......
..); no..
ao...... (...... ); aot .-.rtaiublli...... ( ...... ).
a. D o . - ho" ............... o, lruck ....b, v....... (......); DO...... (...... ); nol-.rtainoble ...... (...... ).
I.
De,- boaahold ban cllatlell monppdf
7. (a) -
<•>
Y ....... ( •..... )j
DO •••••• ( ..•.. );
nut Uttrt&inable..... ( ..•... ).
Nol IIOCOrtainoblo. ..... ( ..... ).
ON,plucl ........................... ....._ N o l - - . ..... (..... ).
al Iona .. _ .................... ....._
'-lucl ....._................. ....._
(o)
N o t - . . . . . ....... ( ..... ).
(4) Aaa ID priaolpol . _ , .................................... ( ................. )
-·----------.........
( .................. ) .......................... (
DoolpMo ,_,_....lo, (a),
(c), (4) ..................... .
<•>.
........ ) ..
................ ( .................. )
...( ..................)
Digitized by
Google
HOUSEHOLD SCHEDULE
XVI. B - , - . . , i nlW
161
<"-•, .....,.,..__),
1. Before INO, Y•...•.. ( ...... ); ao...... ( .. - .. ); aot .....WIIAl>lo ..... ( ..... ).
2. Durioe INO, Y•···•··<·•····); no...... ( ...... );"°' -noble ..... (....•).
I. Duria1 1931:
'- Du.ri.na ln2:
1.
Durioe ,en,
v •...... {. ..... }; no ..... ( ...... ); not ucerl&ln&ble ...... ( ..•.•• ).
v •..... (...... ); no ....•. (....•• ); DOI uoert&inable. •••. ( .•••_)_
Y•······<······>; ........ ( ...... ).
I. VMue of rdief' received du.rtna: June ltu:
Direct relief ... •·················-·······Woril relief ... I .......................•...
7. If relief i1 plud by an a,pac:1 ouYide 1h11 ooun.t.y. apecll:, ...aer------····-----···············
X \'II,
a.a.on. fOC' houarhold
-old
reoefvtna: relW..:
I.
.) lfrod cl
u..W. to won.
2. (. ... ) Head afi.ou-,hokl able to •·orlr. but unable to Ind wort.
3. ( ..
Head at bouM't,old abW' to work but unwilliq to work.
4.
5.
I.
7.
( .
(
.)
{
.)
(. .... )
w..-
Head of houat•hold worlr.in1 for
but iat"Ome luullciat.
Hrad of houaehold l011t wpp~nwntary oeeupallon.
Lo. ol jub by ~mber ol bouaeho&d o&ber t.baD bead.
Crop lall•rr-
1. (..... ) Fara.lac on poor land.
I. ( ... ,.) Fann t.oo 1aall.
10.
. .. ) Poor ma■ ..eme■ t ol Iara., bual,..._
JI.
.. ) Poor lll&Mp'DM'nt ol houwhold.
12
) Lo.Nor u ■ u•ual Hpe-n- ~•du.elve of 15)
13 f
) T•naat or eropper hou.ehold dJ•plaNd fro• ..,l-Nlt.ut&I employment. due to Ndurtloa In erop ..,,..._ uader A.A.A.
H
) Tenaal or uopper IM,uaehold diapl&r-ed for other reMOM t.ban unct. 11.
16
... J t,:..e,pney e.penae for medical and dental •rvlca.
16. ( ..... ) Other (apttify) .
. ...................... .
XVIII. Cta.'lsifiraUoa ol t.ou.hold eccordin1 t.o pro.per-ta for rehabllltaUon:
1. ( ..... ) Huuaehold will need eonllnual lnandal . . Ina.nee and IIOate supervl.Jon bec&UN ol:
{eJ I. ( ... . J Permane-nt dlabllll'.f'. 2. ( .... ) Oki .... I. (...... } Widowhood.
pa,,rily (ap11elfy)
(ltl 5
J Incapable.
e. ( .... )
.. ( .. - .. ) 0tw 1..,_
...............••..•.••..•.•..... ···················-··-·-··
J,,..po11-.lble of family .upport. (apeelfy ut.ure ol laeai-elt.y or hft..
aponaibilit.y) .
2. ( ..•.•. ) Houaehokt •·Ill neNt eon•t.ant. eupen-iaion aad t.emporuy llnaocial . . tat.Anoe.
l.. ( ..... ) Houaebold wlU nee-c1 temporary aid amt &emporarf .upervi.aion.
4.
.} Homehold .-iU need only .,._porar'.f' ,...ief.
6. ( ..... )-Hou.huld •ill ncied &emporary 1'9iiaf' but. ehl~y repleniahmeat. ol •pital.
XIX. la huuaehold qualiled lo opt'rat•:
1. ( ... ) Commertlal farm (fn,m •hlch moat produda are IIOld).
2. ( .... ) 8ubeiatence fann (mo.t. ol pruducta conaumed at. home).
1- ( ..... ) 8maU plot. M put~ aubai•t.ence only, aupplemented by other emplo,-..t.
4. ( .... ) roren worllen and amall plot .. partial eut.idnor.
I. (
.. ) If none ol 1.at &bo\·e apply, apeclfy what. boueellold LI bNI quallled to do······-····-·-······---·-----
I. (..... ) Kot -,able ol rehabilitaUon.
······················ .. ·············································•···············----
R.Puon
Digitized by
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
162
-... --
XX. So"'"" of lnformaUon:
I.
<•> .,_, ,_c1e..........................
...............
....,..
--
.....
·····-··········---1-------
(.) a-c1e,- INCL. .........••..•....•.....
D. Yan Ul oou.1117 .................... .......... .
······················--- -----············--·--···
Ill. S.booUoe................•.....•....•............. ···•·······•••·•••••••·•···· ·························- c.. .. - ...........•.•.•.....
IV, Color and naUYlt1 ........•........ .......... ····••·····-··············
V. N11t.lonalil7 .... _. ___ .•............•............ ···•·············-·········
------f---·····--··-······· -····•······•··············
-···············•-0·•-- ·-·····-.......H.•....... ···-··············-··-
Vl. MoriW -•·••··············-·· ..................................... .
VII. l!u ol bood. ....••.......•......••••.•.••.•••..........•.........••.......................................•...........••.•......... ···•··················-··
VIII. Ap ol bood. ........................................................................................... ··········•······ .. ···•····· ......................- ••
IX. Ap MUI ....................................... -•·························· ··-·····•···••········· .... .....•...••...•............ ·······················-·
X. ol bomohold .. -· ··--········· ••········· ························•··· ·············•·•············ ........................... ·························-·
XI. Compaatioll ol ..,_hold................... ........................
. ....................... •··•······•···•-•·••·····- ····•···•··············-XJJ. Worlr.er11 ..... ______________ .......... -······ ...................................................................................... ·••····················-·
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
OoeupotioD...•••..•....•.•••••.•• __ •.••••.... ······•·····••··•·····
-··•·······•··· ·······•·•·•···············
·········••··•········-·-
HOlldionllto ......... ················ ·•······· ·•····················-- ···························· ·······················•···. ················•·····••·•
Land, u.-k, etc.... ........... ............ ............................
. ............................................. .
llelW blotory•...............••••.••••••.•.••......•.....•...•...........•...... _......•.•....•.......•......•.•.•...••.•....•.
a...,m for 1'111.W.. ······•·······- .................................... .
S.lulhilHo&lon.•........ •·••····-- •••..•.•..
XIX. Quali1lcatfoa......................... .......... .
........
··-·······-·-·-·······················--····································································-············································
-·········-··-····························································•···············································································----
-------······················-···•··•·····························-··············································-······-·······························
---------···········-········································••·••·-----
-•----••••n••-------•..
•••••••H•••-••••••••••••••••••••••••••••--••--•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••----------
Jluo, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _
Digitized by
Google
APPENDIX F
Liat of Reterencea
Digitized
byGoo~le
Digitized by
Google
LIST Of REFERENCES
1. Anderson, W.. and Zoo, Raphael, "Social and Econ011ic Effects of Past Land Developeaent 11 , Land Ott ltzatton tn Jltnnesota, pp. 56 - 73, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 193,4.
2.
Capbell, John C., f'lu, Soutlu,rn Rtfhlalll:Ulr and Its lo,qland,
New York: Russell Sa,e foundation, 1921, 405 pp., illus.
,.
Clayton, C. P. and Nicholls, W. D., Land Ottltzatton tnLaurel Count11, lentuck11, U. S. Dept. of Aariculture, Tech.
Bul. No. 289, 19,2, 100 pp.
4.
Coff■an,
olis:
L. D. Om., Land Ottltmtton tn ltnnesota, MinneapUniversity of Minnesota Press, 1934, 289 pp., illus.
5.
Dodd, W■ • E., f'/u, Cotton ltnfdoa, New Haven, Connecticut:
Yale University Press, 1919, 161 pp., illus.
6.
Hoffso.er, Harold C., Rural Probl811 Areas Surve11, Dallas
County, Alab•a, (Typewritten on file, Research Section,
FERA, Washinet011, D. C.)
7. Kirkpatrick, E. L.,
Hural Proble• Areas Surve11, Regional
Report on the Lake States Cut-Over Area, (Typewritten on
file, Research Section, FERA, Washineton, D. C.)
8. Yance, Rupert B., Haan o.oaraph11 of tM South, A Stud.II tn
Ref tonal Resources and BUllall Adaquacu, Chapel Bill, N. C.:
University of North Carolina Press, 1932, 596 pp., illus.
9.
Vance, Rupert B., Reatonal Reconstructton: A llau Out for
tlu, South, New York: foreign Policy Association, and ChRpel
Bill, N. C.: University of North Carolina Press, 19~, 31 pp.
10. Wehrwein, George S., "A Social and
Sub-■arginal
F.cono■ic Progra■ for
Areas of the Lake States", Journal of forestru,
XXIX (19,1), 915-924.
165
Digitized by
Google
SIX RURAL PROBLEM AREAS
166
11.
liiehrwein, George S., and Parsons, Kenneth B., Recreatton
Agricultural Experillent Station, University
as a Land Use,
of Wisconsin, Bul. 422,, 1933, 32 pp.
12.
Zoo, Raphael, Tt111ber Growtn~ and Lotttnt Practtce tn the
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bul. No. 1496,
1928, 64 pp., .illus.
Lake States,
13.
7on, Raphael, and Garver, R. D., Selecttue Lofftq tn the
Northern Hardwoods of the Lake States, U~ S. Dept. of Agric11lt11re, Tech. Bul. No. 164, 1930, 46 pp.
14. United States
Depart■ent
of Conerce, Bureau of the Census,
ftfteenth Census of the Unt ted States: 1930.
Populatton,
GoverD11ent Printing Office, ~ashington, D. C., 1932.
15.
Econo11tc and Soctal Proble•s and Condtttons of the Southern
Appalachtans by the Bureau of Agricultural Econo•ics, Bu-
reau of Home Economics anrt Forest Service, Miscellaneous
Publication 205, Government Printing Office, Washington,
D. C., 1935, 181 pp.
16. Protress Report Kansas State Planntnt Board, 1'opeka, "Kensas, 19j4, 188 pp., illus.
17. Nicholls,
ft.
D. and Hawthorne,
Income of Ji'arTl fMt l tes
ff. \., far11 Nanate11ent and
tn Laurel County, Kentuc"lly, Ken-
tucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Bul. 305, 1930, pp.
223--283, illus.
18. National Resources Board Report, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1934, 455 pp., illus.
19.
Rettonal Problems tn Atrtcultural Adjustment,
20.
Report of the Cont t tee on the Upper Konontahel a Valley,
U. S. Dept.
of Agriculture, A.A.A., G-31, Government Printing Office,
~ashington, D. C., 1935, 101 pp.
west Virginia, U. S. Dept. of Interior, 1934, 136 pp.
Digitized by
Google
LIST
21.
or
IEP!l!RC!S
•• larold C•• lllu-al Probl• bwas s.rv.11. Norg•
eo-ty. Georai•. (T:,J,ewit.lea ca file. Rese~ Sectio■•
m.&. ltasllinctoa. D. C.)
22. 0.it.ed St.ates Depart.at of Cc e ee • ...._ of U.. Ceasa.,
,,,,._ C.•sea., Prelilliw, Report• 19J;.
23.
U.it.ed States Depariaatofr..
ee • ..._ofU.. Casa.,
rtft...U CallaaofU. hl&ad Si.&ea: 1930. jfrlc:aU.,...
GoveuweaL
Prillllll Office. hslauctc-.
k. lofts, n • • 1aro1• •
1"2-
.._.,loll _. .._.U UaUoa la , 1 . _
ftlra ao.sellolda Jl9cel•laf
st.it.ate ........
D. C••
.n......
•u.ef.
Ahl
■
a.I..•· 1. m.
Polyt.edaic laJaiy ]9!;.
Digitized by
Google
@FedFRASER