View original document

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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W . N* DOAK, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
ETHELBERT STEWART, Cammlulontr

BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES)
M
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS) ................ ODD
E M P L O Y M E N T AND U N E M P L O Y M E N T

r |-|-

SERIES

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTER
OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
APRIL, 1930
J. FREDERIC DEWHURST
and ROBERT R. NATHAN
Industrial Research Department
Wharton School of Finance and Commerce
University of Pennsylvania

MARCH, 1932

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON * 1932

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C«

-

-

Price 5 cents

Preface
This survey is the result of the second of a series of studies on
unemployment made by the industrial research department of the
University of Pennsylvania. The first survey was undertaken in
April, 1929, in an effort to collect statistical data showing the unem­
ployment conditions in the city at that time, and also to establish a
base for measuring changes talring place between certain periods of
time. It is only by first obtaining adequate material to work with
that the true conditions can be determined and efforts ^extended
toward correcting the situation. Unemployment is an important
problem and, because of technological changes, it is rapidiy becoming
a major social burden. On account of the significance of the problem,
numerous other investigations have been undertaken by this depart­
ment and many more will follow.
The most desirable method of making such a survey would be to
make a house-to-house canvass of the entire city, but as this was out
of the question, the next best method was undertaken. That was to
select representative areas of the city as samples and to make a com­
plete canvass of these scattered sections. At the time the first survey
was being contemplated, it was learned that the bureau of compulsory
education was also planning to undertake an unemployment survey.
To eliminate any duplication of effort, the two agencies decided to
cooperate in the survey, the data to be collected by the bureau of
compulsory education and the analysis to be handled by the depart­
ment of industrial research.
Much credit is due to Mr. Henry J. Gideon, supervisor of the
bureau, for his kind cooperation with this department and for his able
supervision of the work done by his staff. The 94 attendance officers
who covered the sample areas deserve considerable credit for their
efficient efforts in filling out the questionnaires in addition to their
usual work. Special acknowledgment is also due to the following
attendance supervisors for their intelligent supervision: Elizabeth W.
Davis, district 1; Nelson Ogden, district 2; Joseph A. Snee, district 3;
Samuel E. Van Houten, district 4; Albert W. Whitaker, district 5;
Joseph W. Temple, district 6; Carson G. Hansell, district 7; H. Forest
Kerbaugh, district 8; Leah A. Gingrich, district 9; and James Marks,
district 10.
m

Contents
Page

Summary__________________________________________________________
Chapter 1.— Scope and method of the survey_________________________
Economic character of Philadelphia______________________________
Method employed in this survey_________________________________
Representativeness of the survey data____________________________
Chapter 2.— Unemployment in Philadelphia----------------------------------------Extent of unemployment________________________________________
Regional differences in unemployment____________________________
Racial differences in unemployment______________________________
Unemployment and occupational status__________________________
Unemployment compared with income___________________________
Unemployment and economic status_____________________________
Unemployment in families of different size________________________
Unemployment classified according to age and sex_________________
Reasons for unemployment______________________________________
Time lost by the unemployed since the last regular job____________
Chapter 3.— Unemployment in school districts of Philadelphia__________
District 1______________________________________________________
District 2______________________________________________________
District 3______________________________________________________
District 4______________________________________________________
District 5______________________________________________________
District 6______________________________________________________
District 7_____________________________________________________ District 8_____________________________________________________ _
District 9______________________________________________________ _
District 10_____________________________________________________
A ppendix.— Part-time unemployment data__________________________ List

of

1
7
7
8
10
17
17
19
21
24
26
27
29
33
35
37
43
43
46
47
48
49
51
52
53
55
56
60

Charts

Chart 1.— Schedule used in survey__________________________________ _
Chart 2.—Index of factory employment in Philadelphia (1923-1925=100) _
Chart 3.— Location of school blocks selected in each school district_____
Chart 4.— Per cent of persons in each school district unemployed part
time and full time because of inability to find work and per capita
income________________________________________________________ _

9
12
15

44

BULLETIN OF THE

U. S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
n o . 555

WASHINGTON

m a r c h , 1932

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTER OF UNEMPLOYMENT
IN PHILADELPHIA IN APRIL, 1930
Summary
This survey was made in April, 1930, and included 171 selected
school census blocks scattered throughout the 10 school districts of
Philadelphia. A total of 36,665 families were visited by the attend­
ance officers of the Philadelphia School Bureau of Compulsory Educa­
tion and in them 160,208 persons were counted—an average of 4.4
persons per family. The number of persons usually employed was
69,884— 43.6 per cent of the population of the families enumerated
and an average of 1.9 wage earners per family. The enumerators
were thoroughly familiar with their respective territories because of
their year-round contacts with the inhabitants. Only one call was
made at each house in the specified blocks, and in those homes where
all members were absent no count was made. From numerous com­
parisons and interpretations of the data, there is evidence that this
sample is representative of Philadelphia, although it is probable that
the enumeration of gainfully occupied persons was not entirely com­
plete because of failure to make “ back” calls when all members of
the family were absent, and presumably at work at the time the call
was made. These omissions would probably not result in an under­
statement of the number unemployed, but might result in an under­
statement of the number employed. The percentage of unemploy­
ment calculated on this basis might therefore be somewhat higher
than if an absolutely complete enumeration of the population residing
in these selected areas had been made.
In April, 1930, unemployment was found to be 44 per cent more
severe than in April, 1929. The previous study1 revealed 10.4 per
cent of all wage earners in the enumerated families as being unem­
ployed, while, according to the present survey, 15 per cent of those
usually employed were jobless in April, 1930. No effort was made
in April, 1929, to determine the extent of part-time unemployment
in the city. This item was included in the current study, and it
was found that, aside from the fully unemployed persons, 5.2 per
cent of the working population were partially idle. Applying the
percentages of unemployment, in this sample, to the 889,837 wage
earners in Philadelphia, as reported by the 1930 census of population,
1 By J. Frederic Dewhurst and Ernest A. Tupper. U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bui. No. 520;
Social and Economic Character of Unemployment in Philadelphia, April, 1929. Washington, 1930.
X

2

UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

would indicate that there were 133,475 wage earners in Philadelphia
entirely without jobs and 46,271 others engaged in part-time work in
April, 1930. Of this number of totally unemployed persons, 83.6 per
cent, or 111,585, were idle because of the fact that they were unable to
find work. Almost the entire increase of unemployment between
April, 1929, and April, 1930, was due to this one cause—inability to
find work. In 21.2 per cent of the families visited, one or more
members were totally unemployed, while 8 per cent of the families
reported partially idle members.
Just as the survey results show an increase of unemployment from
April, 1929, to one year later, so the Federal Reserve Bank of Phila­
delphia factory employment index indicates a fall in employment
during the same period. The changes in that time in both the em­
ployment index and the survey findings are quite close and tend to
substantiate each other. The Federal reserve index has continued
to fall since April, 1930, when it stood at 97.9, and in December,
1930, it had dropped to 83.5, and in January, 1931, to 79.2, denoting
a further increase of unemployment since the time the survey data
were collected. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. undertook a
study of unemployment among the families of its policyholders in
December, 1930. Its results showed 24.9 per cent of its industrial
policyholders in Philadelphia as being total unemployed and an addi­
tional 24 per cent partially idle. Using the factory employment index
from April to December, it was found that there was a rather close
relationship between the results of this study and of the one made by
the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. The Metropolitan enumeration
showed far more part-time unemployment than was found in this
survey. The results of the special census of unemployment made in
January, 1931, in 19 large cities by the United States Bureau of the
Census further substantiate the percentages found in this survey.
At that time 23.8 per cent of the gainful workers in Philadelphia were
out of a job, able to work, and looking for a job, while an additional
3.9 per cent of the persons having jobs were on lay-off, without pay,
excluding those sick or voluntarily idle. Interpreting these findings
it is important to remember that the Metropolitan survey covered
only industrial policyholders (of the wage-earning group), while the
census enumeration included all persons with gainful occupations.
For comparative purposes, officials of the United States Bureau of
the Census sorted out from their April, 1930, data the information on
the 166 blocks used in the 1929 survey. Unfortunately, a few changes
and additions were made and 171 blocks are included in this study.
There were also several cases in which the boundaries of the school
blocks were confused and this confusion invalidated absolute compari­
sons in many sections. Nevertheless, all but three of the districts
were comparable and these comparisons proved of some value. The
census data for April, 1930, revealed 11.7 per cent of those usually
employed as being without work in contrast to our results of 15 per
cent, while 8.1 per cent of the wage earners in the census analysis
were unemployed and in class A,2 as compared with 12.2 per cent in
our survey who were idle because they were unable to find work. Thus,
a comparison of the census returns and the survey findings dis­
closes a rather wide disparity, with the survey revealing greater
2 Class A consists of those persons out of a job, able to work, and looking for a job,

SUMMARY

3

severity of unemployment. As indicated above, this disparity may
be due to the fact that the census enumeration covered all persons
in these blocks while this survey, through inability to make “ back
calls/7 probably failed to enumerate all of the workers actually
employed at the time of the survey.
Great variations in the intensity of unemployment were found in
the various sections of the city. The districts were ranked according
to severity of unemployment in April, 1929, and in April, 1930, both
full-time and part-time unemployment being considered, and also
according to the census returns. District 3 in South Philadelphia
reported the largest proportion of wage earners fully unemployed in
each analysis, and ranked second in severity of part-time unemploy­
ment. One block in this section showed nearly 40 per cent of those
usually employed as being entirely without a job. At the opposite
extreme, district 1 in West Philadelphia had the lowest percentage
of full-time unemployment in each analysis and nearly the lowest
proportion of part-time unemployment. The Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co. study also showed the largest and smallest percentages
of unemployment in South and West Philadelphia, respectively.
With few exceptions, the better residential sections reported the
least unemployment and the poorer sections indicated the heaviest
unemployment. The variations were not so great between the dis­
tricts in April, 1930, as in April, 1929, showing more equal distribu­
tion of unemployment in periods of general inactivity.
Comparisons of unemployment among different racial groups reveal
striking variations in the severity of the problem. As for color, the
proportion of unemployment among Negroes was much higher than
among whites. Of the Negro wage earners, 16.2 per cent were
unemployed and unable to find work in contrast to 11.5 per cent of
the white persons. In district 3, over one out of three Negroes
usually employed were without jobs and unable to find work, as
compared with 18.7 per cent of the whites in the same predicament.
Just twice as large a portion of the Negro wage earners as of the
white workers in district 10 were unable to find a job—21.8 per cent
and 10.9 per cent, respectively. The part-time analysis revealed
4.7 per cent of the Negro workers unable to find full-time work and
3.3 per cent of the white workers partially jobless on this account.
The attendance officers were instructed to classify the blocks ac­
cording to racial, economic, and occupational status, and the results
of the racial analysis showed that those blocks with a predominant
foreign-white population had the highest proportion of unemploy­
ment. The blocks with a native-white population reported 12.3 per
cent of full-time and 4.8 per cent of part-time unemployment, while
the colored blocks had 16 per cent and 3.9 per cent, respectively,
and the foreign-white blocks showed 19.1 per cent and 7.6 per cent,
respectively. Thus it appears that while unemployment is more
severe among Negroes than among all white persons, the foreignwhite persons alone reported higher percentages of unemployment
than did the Negroes.
The occupations of the unemployed persons were classified by the
enumerators under three heads—manual, clerical, and executive
work. As expected, unemployment was most severe in the manual
group, less in the clerical class, and the lowest proportion was re­
ported in the executive class. In the districts where a larger than

4

UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

average proportion of the unemployed were in the clerical and
executive groups, total unemployment was less severe than in dis­
tricts where nearly all of the unemployed persons had held manual
jobs.
As previously stated, the enumerators classified the blocks accord­
ing to the occupations of the residents, and a study; of this classifica­
tion substantiated the above results. This analysis showed 5.9 per
cent of full-time and 2.1 per cent of part-time unemployment in the
predominantly professional and executive blocks; 8.8 per cent and
2.3 per cent, respectively, in the blocks with clerical and trade
workers; 12 per cent and 7.6 per cent, respectively, in the indus­
trial and trade areas; and 17 per cent and 5.4 per cent, respectively,
in the blocks where a majority of the wage earners are occupied at
industrial jobs. These results show unemployment to be consid­
erably more severe among industrial and manual workers than
among those engaged in clerical, professional, and executive occupa­
tions. This revelation is also borne out by the fact that district 1,
with a large executive and clerical population, reported the lowest
proportion of unemployment, while district 3, with its inhabitants
engaged mainly in manual and industrial pursuits, showed the largest
percentage of unemployment.
The only data available on income distribution in the different
parts of the city were furnished by the Cawl survey of the winter
of 1927-28 published by the Philadelphia Public Ledger. A com­
parison of the income information from this source with the unem­
ployment results shows that there is an inverse relationship between
income and unemployment. Districts 1 and 8, which reported only
7.9 per cent and 12.5 per cent of unemployment, respectively—less
than all the other districts—revealed the highest incomes per capita
also—$750 and $690, as against $558 for the city. On the con­
trary, districts 3 and 7 had the lowest per capita incomes and the
highest proportions of full-time unemployment. The relationship
between income and part-time unemployment is not as marked as
between income and full-time idleness. The lower income groups
hold positions subject to much unemployment, and they are least
able to bear the burden.
Another method of showing the heavy incidence of unemployment
on those of lower incomes is the comparison of severity of unem­
ployment and economic status. The enumerators classified only 13
blocks as having a population of “ medium to high” economic status,
and in these units 7.3 per cent of the wage earners were totally
unemployed and 2.8 per cent were partially unemployed. The 67
blocks in the “ medium” group reported 13.6 per cent of full-time
and 4.5 per cent of part-time unemployment, while the 91 blocks
classed as “ medium to low” revealed 18 per cent and 6.5 per cent
of full-time and part-time unemployment, respectively. These re­
sults were to be expected and merely help to prove the results of
the comparison of income and unemployment, for income and
economic status are symbolic of similar conditions.
An analysis of unemployment among families of different size
reveals a direct relationship between these two sets of data—more
unemployment among larger families. District 3, which reported
23.4 per cent of full-time and 7.9 per cent of part-time unemploy­
ment, also reported an average of 5.2 persons per family—both severity

SUMMARY

5

of unemployment and size of family exceeding all other districts.
Four of the five districts indicating smaller families than found in
the city as a whole also showed smaller percentages of unemployment
than the entire city. While all families have an average of 1.9
wage earners, the 7,763 families reporting some unemployed mem­
bers had an average of 2.7 wage earners per family. Only 9.2 per
cent of the families having one person usually employed indicated
that wage earner as being^ idle, whereas over 50 per cent of the
families containing five to nine wage earners reported at least one of
their members out of a job. It was found that of the families hav­
ing full-time unemployed members, 28 per cent reported all of their
wage earners as being idle, while of the families with some partially
unemployed members, 38 per cent indicated all wage earners as
doing part-time work. Only 16.3 per cent of the families with one
to six members had some jobless members, while 35.4 per cent of
the families of more than six persons were affected. With the
exception of 1-member families, which reported heavy unemploy­
ment, the proportion of wage earners unemployed increased definitely
with the size of the family.
Although females suffered less unemployment from inability to
find work in April, 1930, than did males, the variation between the
two was less at this later date than in April, 1929. At the time of
the earlier survey 23.4 per cent of those unable to find work were
females, while in the later study, females made up 25.5 per cent of
that group. According to the census of occupations, 27 per cent of
all persons gainfully occupied are females, thus indicating that females
experienced slightly less unemployment than males at the time each
survey was made. The 1930 census returns reveal this disparity
more strikingly, for in their data only 21 per cent of the unemployed
persons were females The opposite tendency was shown in the parttime results, 29.6 per cent of those unable to find work being females.
Comparison of the survey results with figures from the census of
occupations indicates that unemployment was more severe among
wage earners under 21 years of age than among working adults.
While 15 per cent of all gainfully occupied persons are under 21 years
of age, it is found that 23.3 per cent of those unable to find work
were in that age group. According to the census, 11 per cent of the
male workers and 25 per cent of the female workers are under 21
years of age, while 19.2 per cent of the unemployed males and 36.2
per cent of the unemployed females were in that class. The parttime analysis reveals similar tendencies, but less striking variations.
As expected, a larger percentage of the unemployed persons in
April, 1930, than the year before gave “ inability to find work” as
their reason for being without a job. In April, 1929, 75.2 per cent
of the unemployed and 7.8 per cent of all wage earners could not
find work, while one year later 83.6 per cent of the unemployed and
12.2 per cent of all wage earners were idle for this cause. Of those
partially unemployed, 86.6 per cent were unoccupied because they
were not able to locate a regular job. Sickness caused 9 per cent of
the full-time unemployment; superannuation accounted for 3.9 per
cent; indifference, only 1.8 per cent; and the other 1.7 per cent was
explained by various other reasons. It can be readily seen that the
great increase of unemployment during the year between the two
surveys was mainly due to the economic cause of “ inability to find

6

UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

work.” An analysis of reasons for unemployment by occupations
shows that a larger portion of unemployed manual workers were idle
because of economic conditions, while in the executive and clerical
groups, illness resulted in rather large proportions of unemployment.
The duration of idleness was found by asking for the number of
weeks each unemployed person had lost since his or her last regular
job. It was found that 55.5 per cent of those fully unemployed had
been without regular work for over three months, 26.4 per cent for
over six months, and 9.1 per cent for more than a year. The parttime analysis revealed shorter duration of unemployment among
those partially idle, with 45.7 per cent, 22.3 per cent, and 6.1 per cent,
respectively, for the above periods. Any definite relationship of
duration and severity of unemployment seemed to be lacking. The
time lost by persons unemployed on account of superannuation and
sickness was naturally greater than for those unable to find work.
Of those out of work because of superannuation, 50 per cent had not
held a regular position for over a year, while, of persons idle on account
of sickness, 28.9 per cent had lost over a year, and only 5 per cent of
those unemployed because of inability to find work had been idle
for the same time. A similar tendency prevailed among the parttime unemployed.
Not only was intensity of unemployment less among females, but
it was also found that duration of unemployment was shorter among
them. Whereas 57.5 per cent of the unemployed males had been
without a regular job for over three months and 5.6 per cent for over
a year, among females only 47 per cent and 3.3 per cent, respectively,
had been idle for similar periods. Nearly the same disparities existed
among those partially unemployed. According to the racial analysis,
it was found that Negroes suffered much less from duration of unem­
ployment than did unemployed white persons. As expected, it was
found in both the full-time and the part-time studies that the time
lost since the last regular job by executives was much longer than
the time lost by clerical or manual workers. The average duration
of unemployment among adults was far in excess of that among
persons under 21 years of age, and within each age group it was
longer for males than for females.
A complete analysis of the findings according to the various factors
mentioned above and also a resuml of conditions in each district are
given in the following pages.

Chapter 1.—Scope and Method of the Survey
Economic Character of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, according to the 1930 census returns, is the third
largest city in the United States, being exceeded in population only
by New York City and Chicago. In 1920 there were 1,823,799
persons in the city, while in 1930 the population totaled 1,950,961,
an increase of 7 per cent in the last decade. The increase in the
population is occurring at a decreasing rate, for there was a 23.6 per
cent increase from 1890 to 1900; 19.7 per cent from 1900 to 1910;
17.7 per cent from 1910 to 1920; and only 7 per cent in the last 10year period. This decreasing rate of growth is representative not
only of Philadelphia, but also of the country as a whole. Greater
Philadelphia has a total population of well over three and one-half
million persons.
The city is important as an industrial, financial, and distribution
center. In addition to its importance as a port, numerous large rail­
road terminals are situated in or near Philadelphia to handle the
increasing trade of the city. Similarly, Philadelphia has become a
large financial center and one of the 12 Federal reserve banks is
located here. A great diversity of industries is to be found in and
around the city, the textile group being the most important.
According to the United States census of occupations, of the 819,000
gainfully occupied persons living in Philadelphia in 1920, 388,696, or
47.5 per cent, were engaged in manufacturing and mechanical indus­
tries. The next largest group of employees were occupied in “ trade,”
there being 110,579 persons, or 13.5 per cent of the gainful workers
in this class. Thus it can be seen that nearly half of the people
depend directly upon industry for their maintenance. It has been
estimated that nearly one-third of all assessed valuations in the city
are in industry. Since 1920, according to the biennial census of
manufactures, there has been a relative decline in the importance of
manufacturing as compared with other industries. There has been
a marked decrease in the number of establishments and in the number
of wage earners, as shown in Table 1.
T a b le

1.— Manufacturing industries in Philadelphia, 1914 to 19271
Year

1914.......................................................................
1919.......................................................................
1921.......................................................................
1923.......................................................................
1925.......................................................................
1927......................................................................

Number
of estab­
lishments
8,454
9,064
6,788
6,399
5,636
5,860

Number
of wage
earners

Wages

251,286 $138,249,000
281,105 326,792,000
226,042 270,466,814
273,980 356.437.915
246,680 332.414.915
243,608 334,810,843

Value of
products
$784,500,000
1,996,481,074
1,537,327,972
1,998,749,780
1,937,414,991
1,861,501,951

i U. S. Biennial Census of Manufactures, 1914, 1919, 1921, 1923, 1928, and 1927.

Further comparisons from the biennial census of manufactures
reveal the fact that Philadelphia’s industries, as compared with those
7

8

CHAP* 1.— SCOPE AND METHOD OF SURVEY

of other cities, have experienced a greater relative decline in im­
portance. From 1919 to 1927, employment in manufacturing indus­
tries declined 13,3 per cent in Philadelphia, as contrasted to the 7.1
per cent drop for the United States as a whole. Although the local
decline was not so great as that which occurred in the lower New
England or Middle Atlantic States, it was considerably more than
that felt in the East Central States. Some of the large midwestem
cities and Southern States showed increases in the same period.
On account of the great diversity of industries in Philadelphia, it is
probable that the decline of industrial employment has resulted in a
rise of employment in the other types of occupation. Much of this
drop can be traced to technological changes in industry. In the face
of the recent falling off of the manufacturing industries, this type of
economic institution, nevertheless, still holds a position of primary
importance in Philadelphia.

Method Employed in This Study
With but a few minor changes in the blocks used and in the questions
asked, the current survey is similar to the one taken exactly one year
earlier. All of the field work was taken care of by the bureau of
compulsory education of the board of public education, and the
analysis of the data collected was made by the industrial research
department of the University of Pennsylvania. Close contact
between these two agencies was maintained in order to avoid, as much
as possible, any misunderstanding by the one group of the work done
by the other.
The bureau of compulsory education is vested with the responsi­
bility of insuring attendance at school of all children within school-age
limits. The entire city of Philadelphia is divided into 10 school dis­
tricts and within each district there is a supervisor who is responsible
to the director of the bureau. There are 115 attendance officers em­
ployed for constant field work, the number in each district varying
from 9 to 12. Of these 115 persons, 55 have had at least a normalschool course or some college training. A total of 94 of the 115 officers
were used in the survey. Since their usual function consists of visit­
ing all the homes in their sections having school children, it is apparent
that the officers are thoroughly familiar with their respective terri­
tories. Each year during April and May a census of children of school
age is taken by the bureau, and during the past two years this census
and the unemployment enumeration were taken simultaneously.
After careful consideration by the persons in charge, 166 school
census blocks 3 were selected from the 10 school districts, and these
units, mostly in total and a few of the large ones in part, were enumer­
ated for the 1929 survey. The blocks were scattered throughout the
city, and an effort was made to get a sufficient number of blocks in
each district to be representative of the inhabitants of that territory.
Unfortunately, because of some misunderstanding about the numbers
of the blocks and their locations, five blocks used in 1929 were dropped
and 10 new ones, were added. While it is felt that the sample is just
as representative in April, 1930, as one year before, these variations
3 School census blocks are not similar to “ city blocks,” for one of the former usually includes two or more
of the latter.

9

METHOD EMPLOYED IN THIS STUDY

eliminate the possibility of absolute comparisons between the two
years, although proportionate comparisons are still of value.
Cards (see Chart 1) were furnished to the attendance officers and
one was filled in for each house in the selected blocks. When the house
was found to be unoccupied or all of the members were out, this fact
was specified on the cards, and no return calls were made. The
enumerators were requested to fill in complete information on each
card, but as will be found in the analysis, some of the questions were
not answered on some cards and these were treated as “ unspecified” ;
the number of such instances, however, was not large. Some time
after the count was taken, questionnaires were sent to the districts and
each attendance officer was requested to specify the economic, racial,
and occupational status of each of the 171 blocks. The analysis of
these classifications proved to be of primary importance.
Dist.

Block

White

Col.

Number

Remarks:
In family

Employ­
able

Unemployed
Full time

Part time

Residence
Directions: Card should be made for each family in the block. Make entry below double rule for
each member of family 16 years or over who is employable but now unemployed.
Sex
M.

Age

F.

Occupation

Reason for unemployment
Number of 1. Illness.
weeks lost 2. Superannuation. 3. Inability to find
work.
since last
Under 21 or Man­ Cler­ Exec­ regular job
4. Indifference.
21
over
ual
ical utive
5. Other (specify).

CHART I.—‘SCHEDULE USED IN SURVEY

The schedule as shown here is slightly different from the one used in
the April, 1929, survey. In that study the family relationship of each
unemployed person was requested, but as this information was not
then used, it was decided to pliminate that question in the later
survey. The occupational classification used in the 1929 schedule
was the same one used by the bureau of compulsory education in its
annual census and was much more complete than the one used in
April, 1930, which included but three classes—manual, clerical, and
executive occupations. The most important change made in the
schedules was the inclusion of data on part-time unemployment in the
more recent survey. The same questions were asked about the
part-time as about the full-time unemployed persons.
The attendance officers were instructed to specify as unemployed
only those persons who were usually employed and "who were idle at
the time of the enumeration and desirous of obtaining a regular
position. Part-time unemployed persons were considered as those who

10

CHAP. 1.— SCOPE AND METHOD OF SURVEY

were occupied at a job, but were working less than their customary
full week. All persons who were regarded as retired and not actively
seeking a job, and those permanently and totally disabled, were not
classed as being unemployed. An employable person was defined
as one of working age, able to work, and usually employed. Persons
of working age seeking their first position were also included in this
group.
Duration of unemployment was not measured by the number of
weeks lost since the last work done by the unemployed person, but
rather by the number of weeks lost since the last regular job was
held. Although a man had not had regular work for a year or so, he
might have done an odd job or two very recently, and to measure the
duration of unemployment from the time of this odd job, it was
believed, would result in an inaccurate presentation of the facts.
Duration of part-time unemployment was measured by the number
of weeks lost since the last regular full-time job. In transcribing the
number of weeks into months, for analytic purposes, every third
month included five weeks.
Although data on part-time unemployment were added to the
current study, there were numerous other details which would have
proved valuable but were not included because of various limitations.
The time involved in filling out the schedules had to be taken into
consideration and an effort was made to allow for the collection of the
most important facts in a minimum space of time. This was primar­
ily the reason why no questions were asked about the occupations of
employed persons. Another factor which restricted the collection of
certain information was the necessity of maintaining the good-will
relationship which already existed between the attendance officers
and the public. For this reason, no data on family income were
requested, and the ages of wage earners and even specific .ages of
unemployed persons also were not included in the questionnaire.
Definite knowledge of all ages, which most persons are hesitant to
give, would have proved interesting in analyzing the problem of
unemployment among “ older” workers.
Following the completion of the field work, the cards were turned
over to the department of industrial research and the tabulation
was begun. Each schedule was carefully coded and then the informa­
tion was transferred to tabulating machine cards, one for each family
and also one for each fully or partially unemployed person. Tables
were made of the analysis of each block and each district and finally
were combined into city totals. Then analyses were made of unem­
ployment according to different factors. The coding, punching, and
tabulations were thoroughly checked and every precaution was taken
to assure the accuracy of the survey.

Representativeness of the Survey Data
As was previously pointed out, the selection of the school census
blocks used in the study was made only after a careful study of the
characteristics of each district and with the cooperation of the
attendance officers and supervisors. Within each district, an effort
was made to include blocks which would represent all types of inhab­
itants in that area and in the same proportion that each type bore to
the total population of the district. The number of families included

REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SURVEY DATA

11

in the survey from each district is in nearly the same proportion as the
total number of families in that district is to the total number of
families in the entire city.
Table 2.— Number of families and persons included in unemployment survey
District

Number
Number Number Number of persons
of
of
of census
usuallyblocks families persons employed

No. 1____ ________
No. 2_____________
No. 3_____________
No. 4_____________
No. 5___ _________
No. 6_____________
No. 7.____________
No. 8____ ________
No. 9.....................No. 10-........... .........

13
15
12
18
20
15
22
10
18
28

3,894
3,654
2,493
3,880
4,455
2,714
3,237
5,195
4,532
2,611

16,677
16, 757
13, 028
17, 338
20,125
10, 439
15, 435
21, 221
17,866
11,322

7,050
7,207
4,837
7,801
9,451
5,032
6,418
9,466
7,757
4,865

Total-----------

171

36,665

160,208

69,884

In the 171 blocks included in the survey, 36,665 families were visited
and information from that number was made available. The number
of persons enumerated in these families totaled 160,208, and of these
individuals 69,884 were found to be employable. The population per
district varied from 10,439 persons in district 6—a very small area—
to 21,221 persons in the large and mostly residential district 8, while
5 of the 10 school districts had from 14,000 to 17,000 persons included
in the survey. Although the total population of each section is not
available, it is believed that the survey sample of each district is
representative of that district and that the combined samples repre­
sent a fairly accurate cross section of the city.
Unfortunately, at this date, only a part of the data from the 1930
census has been made available—total population figures, the number
of gainful workers, and some unemployment returns having already
been published. The census officials separated the 166 blocks which
were used in the 1929 survey and a distinct analysis of unemployment
in these units was made. In comparing the census and the survey
results, it must be noted that in the former the 166 blocks were taken
in total, while 171 blocks were enumerated in the survey and a few of
these were taken only in part. Seven of the 10 districts are absolutely
comparable in these two sets of data because similar blocks in these
sections were enumerated in the total. As far as territory is con­
cerned, the 166 blocks used in the 1929 survey and the 1930 census
release cover nearly the same section of the city as do the 171 blocks
used in the 1930 survey. Of course, the population in these 166
blocks, as reported in the census results, was in excess of that of the
171 survey blocks because of the larger area covered and also because
every house must be enumerated in the census, whereas only one
call was made by the attendance officers.
The proportion of unemployment found in the 166 blocks used by
the census proved to be exactly the same as for the entire city. Simi­
larly, the percentage of population usually employed was not very
different in these areas from that in the city as a whole. In the
sample territories 44.6 per cent of all persons were usually gainfully
occupied, while 45.6 per cent of the entire city’s population were
68400°— 32------ 2

to

CHAP. 1.— SCOPE AND METHOD O STJBVEY
P

CHART 2.— INDEX OF FACTORY EM PLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA (1 9 2 3 -1 0 2 5 = 10 0)

REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SURVEY DATA

13

usually employed in April, 1930. These two measures tend to estab­
lish the 166 blocks as representative of the city and, as was previously
shown, there is a fair degree of similarity between these 166 blocks
and the 171 survey units.
The collection of the data for this survey took place during the last
two weeks of the month of April, 1930. There is little question that
employment was not “ normal” at that time, for a period of business
depression had set in many months before. Although there was some
seasonal activity at the time, nevertheless from all indications the
severity of excessive unemployment was being felt in many quarters.
According to the index of employment in manufacturing industries in
Philadelphia, as shown in Chart 2, the index had fallen below 100 in
March, stood at 97.9 in April, and has continued to fall since that
time. Thus in interpreting the results of the survey, it is necessary
to remember that, in general, employment and business activity were
below normal and in the midst of a continued drop at the time the
data were collected.
For other comparisons it is necessary to revert to the policy used in
the 1929 survey of making 1930 estimates on the basis of the 1920
census. The average size of the families in Philadelphia has shown
a definite decrease since the start of the century. The average number
of persons per family in 1900 was 4.87; in 1910,4.73; and in 1920,4.53.
It is probable that the decrease in the past decade was at a decreasing
rate, but at just what rate it is difficult to determine. Assuming the
same drop as occurred in the previous decade, the average size of
Philadelphia families in 1930 was 4.33 persons. Applying this average
to the total population, there were 450,799 families in Philadelphia
in April, 1929. The average number of persons per family included
in the survey was 4.37.
The proportion of white persons and of Negroes is extremely diffi­
cult to estimate because of the uneven migration of the latter. Negro
population in Philadelphia increased 56.5 per cent from 1890 to 1900;
34.9 per cent in the next 10-year period; and 58.9 per cent from 1910
to 1920. In 1910 only 5.5 per cent of the population of the city was
colored and 10 years later the proportion was 7.4 per cent, a 35 per
cent increase. Assuming the same increase for the past decade, then
10 per cent of Philadelphia’s population in 1930—195,096—were
Negroes. This figure can not be accepted with as much certainty
as the above estimates, but it must do in the absence of more definite
information.
T able 3.— Comparison of families and persons in unemployment survey with

entire population of Philadelphia

Item

Families..........................................................
Persons_____________________ ___________
Persons per family......................... ..................
Persons usually employed....... ........................
Persons per family usually employed________
White persons................................. .................
Negroes______ _____ ____________________

Census
(some are
estimates)

460,799
1,950,961
4.33
889,837
2.0
1,755,865
195,096

i Includes 1,357 persons for whom color was not specified.

Unemplc>yment
survey
Number

Per cent

36,665
8.1
1160,208
8.2
4.73
69,884 .......7. 9 "
1.9
140,880
8.0
9.2
17,971

14

CHAP. 1.— SCOPE AND METHOD OF SURVEY

A comparison of the survey data with some of the actual and esti­
mated census figures in Table 3 is of interest in regarding the repre­
sentativeness of the sample. A summary analysis reveals the fact
that the sample represents slightly over 8 per cent of Philadelphia's
total population and families. The fact that only 7.9 per cent of the
gainful workers had been reached, while 8.1 per cent of the families
and 8.2 per cent of the population were included, might indicate the
fact that the attendance officers had missed families with high pro­
portions of the members usually employed. This discrepancy is
probably better explained on the ground that the census classification
of gainfully occupied persons is more inclusive than the survey's
group of “ employable,” or those usually employed. The fact that
the percentage of population included exceeds that of the number of
families would indicate that, if anything, the large-sized families had
been emphasized. The elimination of lodging houses in the survey
and the differences in the classifications, as outlined above, are helpful
in explaining the variations. The same tendency prevailed in last
year's study, when larger proportions of the population and the
number of families than of the wage earners were enumerated. Of
course, there is the question whether a “ one-call” survey misses the
families in which all the members are gainfully occupied.
The outstanding disparity revealed in Table 3 is the seemingly
more than proportionate share of colored persons enumerated in the
survey. Whether this is an actual condition or whether the estimated
colored population of the city is too low can not be definitely decided
until the census returns on this group are available.4
It is definitely known that Philadelphia is made up of a heterogeneous
population and the aim was to include a proportionate sample of each
group in the survey. It was not deemed advisable to determine the
race or the economic status and other such information from each
family. In so far as such data would be valuable and as the attend­
ance officers and supervisors were well acquainted with their respective
territories, the characteristics of each block were requested from the
enumerator and the results are presented in Table 4. As a close
investigation will reveal, every type of population is included in the
block classifications.
Table 4.— Racial, occupational, and economic character of 'population in blocks
included in survey, by districts
District No.—
iiern
Number of school census blocks...................
Racial characteristics:
Native white______________________
Native and foreign white__________
Foreign white____________ _____ ___
Native and colored, foreign and colored..
Colored..................................................
Occupational status:
Professional and executive.—................
Clerical and trade.... ............... ..............
Industrial and trade. __.........................
Industrial............... -.............................
Economic status:
High to mftdinm_ _
_
Medium^
Medium to low.............. ........

1

%

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Total

13

15

12

18

20

15

22

10

18

28

171

8
3

5
3
4
1
2

2

13

5
3
1
1

17

10
2

1

15
3
6
3
1

76
16
40
23
16

2

2

1

13

10

5
13

4
11
13

6
15
26
124

2
9
4

6
6

9
9

1
8
19

13
67
91

2
4
4
2
3
7
6

3
8'
4 .....
6
5

4
2

..... .....

4
4

2

17

7
13

15

21

2
1
1
6

8
10

13
7

15

4
18

3
4
3

1

4According to census data just released the Philadelphia colored population in 1930 totaled 219,559,
which figure would make the survey sample more representative.

REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SURVEY BATA

15

Of the 171 school-census blocks, the attendance officers classified 76
as predominantly native white, 40 foreign white, and 16 as having
predominantly a colored population. The remaining 32 blocks con­
tained a combination of foreign and native white, or white and colored
persons. In the classification according to occupational status, 124

CHART 3 — LOCATION OF SCHOOL BLOCKS SELECTED IN EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT

of the blocks contained persons holding industrial jobs, 26 consisted
of industrial and trade workers, 15 had predominantly clerical em­
ployees, and the other 6 blocks were settled by people engaged in
professional and executive positions. Thirteen blocks were placed in
the high-to-medium economic classification, 67 in the medium group,
and 91 as having a population of medium to low economic status.

16

CHAP. 1.— SCOPE AND METHOD OF SU RVE Y

Although these results might be questioned on account of the
relative meanings of the classes, nevertheless the wide distribution in
each analysis sheds further light on the representativeness of the
sample. The thorough acquaintance of each attendance officer with
his or her territory gives added weight to the value of these block
groupings. The similar training and experience of the officers would
tend to make for a uniform interpretation of the classes from one
district to another. In view of the above findings, it is felt that an
adequate cross section of Philadelphia’s population has been included
in the survey sample.
An examination of Chart 3 shows the wide geographic distribution
in the city of the 171 school-census blocks. Each blackened area
represents one of the blocks included in the survey. Not only are
these units widely scattered throughout the city, but the blocks are
also widely distributed within each district so as to give an accurate
sample of each section of the city. The large darkened areas are rep­
resentative of loosely settled territories, while the smaller blocks are
more densely populated.
In these various comparisons and presentations, an effort has been
made to justify the sample as being representative of the city of
Philadelphia. The block selections were the result of careful investi­
gations and the above findings seem to warrant their acceptance as a
satisfactory sample. The next chapter shows the results of a com­
plete analysis of unemployment in these selected 171 blocks,

Chapter 2.—Unemployment in Philadelphia
Extent of Unemployment
As was pointed out in Chapter 1, the sample is a rather satisfactory
representation of the city of Philadelphia, and as such the conditions
discovered in these areas can be said to be typical of the city as a
whole. Some error is involved, however, because of the fact that the
enumerators made but one call, and possibly a larger percentage of
the houses whose residents were not enumerated were without unem­
ployment than of those enumerated. It is believed, however, that
the error involved in applying the percentages of unemployment in
the sample areas to the population of the entire city will not be large.
There were 36,665 families enumerated in the survey, and of these,
7,763, or 21.2 per cent, were found to have some members wholly
unemployed and 8 per cent reported part-time unemployment.
Many of the families had both part-time and full-time unemployed
members, but it is conservative to state that at least one-fourth of the
families visited were found to have some wholly or partially jobless
members. Of the 69,884 wage earners included in the 171 blocks,
10,448, or 15 per cent, were without jobs, and 3,648, or 5.2 per cent,
were working at part-time jobs. Thus, fewer than four out of five of
Philadelphia’s working population were fully employed in April, 1930.
According to the census releases, there were 889,837 persons in
Philadelphia in April, 1930, who were usually gainfully occupied.
Applying the percentages from the survey sample to the working
population of the city, it is found that 133,475 were totally without
work and 46,271 were employed part of the time in April, 1930. In
the 1929 survey, 10.4 per cent of those usually employed were out of
work and assuming that there were the same number of wage earners
in April, 1929, as in April, 1930, the number of unemployed on the
former date was 92,543. This means that there were nearly 41,000
more persons unemployed in April, 1930,#than one year previously.
In the earlier study 75.2 per cent of the jobless were unable to find
work and in the later survey 83.6 per cent. Therefore, the persons
who were unable to find work in April, 1929, totaled 69,592 and in
April, 1930, 111,585, so that the entire increase in unemployment was
due to this cause—purely an economic one. This application of the
survey results to the city as a whole might be questioned, just as the
representativeness of the sample can be, ana therefore the above
totals are not presented as facts, but rather as estimates.
An examination of Chart 2 in Chapter 1 shows that factory em­
ployment in Philadelphia, at the time the survey^ was taken, was
abnormally low. This index had fallen from 103.8 in April, 1929, to
97.9 a year later. Assuming that the index of factory employment is
representative of all employment, some interesting comparisons are
possible. If there were 889,837 wage earners in April, 1929, and
92,543 of these were unemployed, then 797,294 were employed, rep­
resented by 103.8 on the Philadelphia factory employment index.
According to the index for April, 1930, namely 97.9, there were only
751,796 persons employed, or there were approximately 138,040 per­
sons unemployed in Philadelphia on the latter date. As expected,
this estimate is higher than the one based entirely on the survey
percentages, for a factory employment index is undoubtedly more
sensitive than an all-occupational employment index.

18

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

Another comparison of interest can be made with the results found
by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. in an unemployment study
made among its policyholders during December, 1930. Of the 27,656
wage earners included, 24.9 per cent were unemployed full time and
24 per cent were employed only part time. The Philadelphia factory
employment index had dropped to 83.5 in December, 1930, and using
the 133,475 unemployment estimate for April, there would have been
over 248,000 unemployed in December, 1930. As stated before, a
factory employment index is highly sensitive and therefore is to be
accepted with caution in such comparisons. If the Metropolitan
Life Insurance Co. results were applied to the 889,837 wage earners,
there would have been 221,500 wholly unemployed persons in Phila­
delphia last December. Since the sample of that survey is relatively
small and composed only of the families of industrial wage-earning
policyholders, it may not be very representative. Nevertheless it
seems to substantiate, somewhat, the 133,475 estimate for April,
1930. The part-time results from the Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. report are far in excess of those found in this study. The enu­
merators in April, 1930, found only 5.2 per cent of part-time unem­
ployment, while the December report showed 24 per cent of all wage
earners working part time.
As stated in Chapter 1, the United States Bureau of the Census
separated from the 1930 enumeration the 166 blocks used in the 1929
survey, and the results of that compilation and of the 1930 survey
are shown in Table 5:
Table 5.— Comparison of census results in 166 school-census blocks and 1980
survey results in 171 school-census blocks

District

Number Popula­
tion
of blocks

Per cent
Unemployed—
of popu­ Unemployed—all
Class A
lation i
reasons
or “ inability
Gainful or of per­
to find work” 2
workers sons enu­
merated2
usually
employed Number Per cent Number Per cent
1930 census results for sample area

No. 1.........................
No. 2.........................
No. 3........................
No. 4................. .......
No. 5___ _____ ____
No. 6.........................
No. 7........... .............
No. 8____ _________
No. 9__......................
No. 10.......................

13
13
12
18
20
14
22
10
18
26

17,750
17,514
16,232
30,230
23,508
12,472
22,662
17,209
19,785
46,687

8,355
7,752
6,350
13,336
10,813
6,179
10,425
7,390
9,026
20,317

47.1
44.3
39.1
44.1
46.0
49.7
46.0
42.9
45.6
43.5

501
997
1,168
1,546
1,283
918
1,601
748
1,089
1,835

6.0
12.9
18.4
11.6
31.9
14.9
15.4
10.1
12.1
9.0

359
725
706
1,178
884
666
1,089
578
781
1,109

4.3
9.4
11.1
8.8
8.2
10.8
10.4
7.8
8.7
5.5

Total________

166

224,049

99,943

44.6

11,686

11.7

8,075

8.1

1930 unemployment survey
No. 1.........................
No. 2.........................
No. 3.........................
No. 4...... ..................
No. 5...... ..................
No. 6.........................
No. 7.........................
No. 8...... ..................
No. 9.......................
No. 10...... .................

13
15
12
18
20
15
22
10
18
28

16,677
16,757
13,028
17,338
20,125
10,439
15,435
21,221
17,866
11,322

7,050
7,207
4,837
7,801
9,451
5,032
6,418
9,466
7,7574,865

42.3
43.0
37.1
45.0
47.0
48.2
41.6
44.6
43.4
43.0

557
1,063
1,133
1,079
1,456
990
1,312
1,181
986
691

7.9
14.7
23.4
13.8
15.4
19.7
20.4
12.5
12.7
14.2

464
850
941
892
1,190
812
1,115
920
789
565

6.6
11.8
19.4
11.4
12.6
16.1
17.4
9.7
10.2
11.6

Total...............

171

160,208

69,884

43.6

10,448

15.0

8,538

12.2

i 1930 census results for sample area.

2 1930 unemployment survey.

REGIONAL DIFFERED CES

19

The two sets of data shown in the table are not comparable so far as
the absolute figures are concerned, since 10 new blocks were added and
5 old blocks dropped in the 1930 survey and also because all blocks were
taken in their entirety in the census and not in the survey. District
10 is somewhat out of line, with the census reporting about four times
as much population in the entire 26 blocks as did the attendance
officers in parts of those 26 and 2 additional blocks. This district
contains some very large school-census blocks which were covered
only in part by the attendance officers, and this fact was not known
when arrangements were made for the Census Bureau to tabulate
separately the 166 blocks. District 4 likewise shows a large dis­
crepancy, while district 8 returns show a higher enumeration for the
survey than for the census in supposedly the same blocks. Probably
this is due to some mistake in the block locations and definitions. It
was expected that more persons would be included in the census
because of the one-call method of this survey and the fact that more
territory was covered in the former, but the variations are too great
for comparison on an absolute basis.
As far as the variations between the districts are concerned, district 3
has the largest percentage and district 1 the smallest percentage of
unemployment in both sets of data. Likewise most of the other dis­
tricts have the same or nearly the same rank in intensity of unem­
ployment in each study. The proportions of unemployment differ
widely in the two analyses. In the census data, the percentage of
unemployment in Class A—those persons out of a job, able to work,
and looking for a job—-was found actually to be the same for the 166
block sample as for the city as a whole. Thus while the estimated
number of persons unemployed in the city on account of “ inability
to find work” was 111,585, based on the survey, the census reports
71,156 as being out of work and in Class A. Class A and “ inability
to find work” are not synonymous classifications, but are the closest
groups in each series for comparative purposes. This analysis
indicates that unemployment may not have been so severe for the
city in April as the survey sample denotes. It is interesting to note
from Table 5 that the actual number unemployed in Class A was
nearly equal to the number in the survey unable to find work.
P roba bly there was a tendency for the houses missed in this survey
to contain families where everyone was employed, as indicated by
the fact that the census results showed a much larger population and
a larger number of persons with gainful occupations in these sample
areas, but approximately the same number of unemployed persons as
were shown by the present survey.

Regional Differences in Unemployment
Unemployment figures for each of the 1> school districts dis­
0
closed the fact that there were wide variations in the extent of unem­
ployment in the various areas of the city. ^Likewise, great differences
were found in the blocks within the districts, and their presentation
would show even greater inequalities than district analyses.

20

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
T a b l e 6.— Unemployment in school census districts of Philadelphia

District

Families having Number of persons— Persons unemployed
unemployment
(all reasons)
Number
of families
inter­
Usually
viewed Number Per cent
In
families employed Number Per cent
Full-time unemployment

No. 1................ ........ ............. .
No. 2_____ ____________ ____
No. 3______________________
No. 4______________________
No. 5________________ ____No. 6______________________
No. 7_______________ _____No. 8______________________
No. 9___ __________________
No. 10_____________________

3,894
3,654
2,493
3,880
4,455
2,714
3,237
5,195
4,532
2,611

445
762
783
809
1,060
729
966
917
764
528

11.4
20.9
31.4
20.9
23.8
26.9
29.8
17.7
16.9
20.2

16,677
16,757
13,028
17,338
20,125
10,439
15,435
21,221
17,866
11,322

7,050
7,207
4,837
7,801
9,451
5,032
6,418
9,466
7,757
4,865

557
1,063
1,133
1,079
1,456
990
1,312
1,181
986
691

7.9
14.7
23.4
13.8
15.4
19.7
20.4
12.5
12.7
14.2

Total................................

36,665

7,763

21.2

160,208

69,884

10,448

15.0

Part-time unemployment
No. 1.........................................
No. 2................... ..................No. 3__.............. .......... ...........
No. 4........................................No. 5........................... -............
No. 6 - ..........................-....... No. 7_________ _____ -......... No. 8...................... ............ .
No. 9................... .....................
No. 10........ ..................-....... Total___ ___________

3,894
3,654
2,493
3,880
4,455
2,714
3,237
5,195
4,532
2,611

242
239
294
124
303
320
364
393
369
299

6.2
6.5
11.8
3.2
6.8
11.8
11.2
7.6
8.1
11.5

16,677
16,757
13,028
17,338
20,125
10,439
15,435
21,221
17,866
11,322

7,050
7,207
4,837
7,801
9,451
5,032
6,418
9,466
7,757
4,865

288
314
382
146
364
381
434
493
448
398

4.1
4.4
7.9
1.9
3.9
7.6
6.8
5.2
5.8
8.2

36,665

2,947

8.0

160,208

69,884

3,648

5.2

Table 6 shows that district 3 was hardest hit, with 23.4 per cent of
full-time unemployment, while district 1 shows only 7.9 per cent.
It is interesting to note that these districts occupied the same extreme
positions in the 1929 survey. Wide variations were also revealed in
the part-time unemployment figures, with deviations from 1.9 per
cent in district 4 to 8.2 per cent in district 10. Six of the 10 districts
had a lower proportion of unemployment than the 15 per cent for the
city. In three districts the figures were within 1 per cent above or
below the city average. The severity of unemployment was felt less
in the medium to high class residential sections of West Philadelphia,
Germantown, Chestnut Hill, Logan, and Overbrook, while the heavi­
est unemployment was found in the districts bordering the Delaware
River, especially the crowded area south of Market Street and east
of Broad Street. One block in district 1 showed less than 3 per cent,
while another block in South Philadelphia revealed 40 per cent of
unemployment. These figures represent the extreme conditions in
all blocks included in the survey.
In an effort to determine the variations of the districts from 1929
to 1930 and from full-time to part-time unemployment, the districts
are ranked in Table 7 according to severity of unemployment. The
percentages for the districts from the 1930 census data on the 166
blocks are also included in this table.

21

RACIAL DIFFERENCES

Table 7.— Rank of districts according to per cent of unemployment

District

1929 surveyfull-time
unemployment

Per cent
No. 1...... ..................
No. 2_................... .
No. 3__...................
No. 4__...................
No. 5.................... .
No. 6____________
No. 7_____________
No. 8__.....................
No. 9_____________
No. 10.......................

5.3
11.6
18.9
9.9
9.5
14.8
14.6
6.9
6.3
10.3

Bank
1
7
10
5
4
9
8
3
2
6

1930 survey
Pull-time unem­
ployment
Per cent
7.9
14.7
23.4
13.8
15.4
19.7
20.4
12.5
12.7
14.2

Rank
1
6
10
4
7
8
9
2
3
5

Part-time unem­
ployment
Per cent
4.1
4.4
7.9
1.9
3.9
7.6
6.8
5.2
5.8
8.2

Rank
3
4
9
1
2
8
7
5
6
10

1930 census
(sample area)—
unemployment

Per cent
6.0
12.9
18.4
11.6
11.9
14.9
15.4
10.1
12.1
9.0

Rank
1
7
10
4
5
8
9
3
6
2

It is apparent from Table 7 that each of the 10 districts was affected
in relation to the others in nearly the same order in 1930 as in 1929.
Only district 5 shows a marked increase in relation to the others.
In comparing the district ratings between full-time and part-time
unemployment in 1930, a greater disparity is shown than in the
comparison of the full-time figures for the two years. Likewise, the
districts line up in the census figures with nearly the same ranking
as in the survey. In the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. study of
unemployment for December, 1930, the city was divided into four
sections and South Philadelphia was reported to have the most un­
employment. The map in Chapter 1 shows that district 3 is in
South Philadelphia, and that district reported the heaviest unemploy­
ment. West Philadelphia had the lowest percentage of unemploy­
ment and district 1, which held the same position in the survey, is
in that section. The figures for North Philadelphia were nearly as
low as for West Philadelphia. Districts 8 and 9 are in that section
and they both had relatively^ small proportions of unemployment.
The Frankford area had a high proportion of unemployment and
districts 7, 10, and part of 6, are included in that area.
A close investigation shows that there was less dispersion among
the percentages of the 10 districts in 1930 than existed in 1929, and,
therefore, that in a period of depression all classes suffer more equally
from unemployment. In normal years the burden of unemployment
falls almost entirely on the laboring and lower income classes, while
in periods of general inactivity the higher income classes are also
strongly affected. There are still great variations in different areas,
on account of occupational, racial, and economic differences, as will
be seen in the following analyses.

Racial Differences in Unemployment
An investigation of unemployment conditions among Negroes as
compared with white persons disclosed much greater unemployment
among the former. Though a few Mongolians were listed, their
number was not sufficient to warrant separate classification and they
were regarded as unspecified. A larger percentage of the persons
enumerated in this year’s survey than m last year’s study are colored,

22

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

and the relative proportion appears to be more representative. In
both full-time and part-time figures there was over 40 per cent more
unemployment among the Negroes than among white workers. In
contrast to this figure, 1929 showed the Negro unemployment to
exceed that of the white persons by approximately 75 per cent. This
change again denotes the more even spread of unemployment in hard
times.
T a b l e 8 . — Number

and per cent of white persons and of Negroes unable to find work

District

All races

Negroes

White persons

Unable to find
Unable to find
Unable to find
Number
Number
Number
work
work
work
usually
usually
usually
em­
em­
em­
ployed Number Per cent ployed Number Per cent ployed Number Per cent

No. 1_________
No. 2_________
No. 3_________
No. 4_________
No. 5........... .
No. 6—. .............
No. 7...............No. 8_________
No. 9___ ____ No. 10_________

6,775
5,027
4,535
5,599
7,438
3,287
5,935
8,789
7,728
4,512

433
662
848
525
819
507
979
842
786
493

6.4
13.2
18.7
9.4
11.0
15.4
16.5
9.6
10.2
10.9

247
1,958
258
2,137
1,931
1,731
449
661
(l)
308

30
164
87
356
354
305
132
75

12.2
8.4
33.7
16.7
18.3
17.6
29.4
11.3

67

Total____

59,625

6,894

11.5

9,680

1,570

21.8

7,050
7,207
4,837
7,801
9,451
5,032
6,418
9,466
7,757
4,865

464
850
941
892
1,190
812
1,115
920
789
565

6.6
11.8
19.4
11.4
12.6
16.1
17.4
9.7
10.2
11.6

16.2

69,884

8,538

12.2

1No Negroes usually employed.

From Table 8 it can be seen that in 8 of the 9 comparable districts,
unemployment was more severe among the Negroes. As in 1929,
district 2 was the one exception to this condition and it is difficult
to know exactly to what this might be attributed. In district 3 over
one out of three Negroes usually employed were unable to find work.
District 7 also showed a striking severity of unemployment among
the Negro wage earners, with 29.4 per cent suffering from inability
to get a job. The most pronounced contrast existed in district 10
where just twice as large a percentage of Negroes as white persons
were unemployed for this cause. In the part-time analysis (see
Table 1 in the Appendix, where all of the part-time tables are
presented) there was a range from less than 1 per cent of partial
unemployment in district 1 to 8.8 per cent in district 10 among the
Negroes, as compared with a range from 1.4 per cent in district 4 to
6.2 per cent in district 3 among the white wage earners.
This disparity of unemployment between white persons and
Negroes can be attributed mainly to the differences in their occupa­
tional and economic status. The type of work done by Negroes is
mostly manual or domestic, and it is generally conceded that there
is a large turnover in these types of occupations, particularly the
former. Thus it is to be expected that the floating unemployed
population among the Negroes would be greater than among the white
workers. Furthermore the lack of education and the general occupa­
tional characteristics of the Negroes help to explain the heavier
unemployment among them.
A further presentation of the variations in unemployment among
different races can be made by comparing the results of Table 4 with
the percentages of unemployment in different blocks. As was

23

RACIAL DIFFERENCES

previously pointed out, the enumerators were asked to classify
each of the survey blocks according to their racial characteristics.
Table 9 shows the severity of unemployment in all blocks as classified
by the enumerators. Of the 171 blocks included in the survey, 76
were classified as having predominantly native-white occupants and
in those blocks only 12 per cent of the wage earners were jobless.
The 40 blocks which were classified as foreign born showed the most
severe unemployment, 20 per cent. It was also found that the 23
blocks of mixed colored and white population had a higher per­
centage of unemployment than the city as a whole, while the 16
blocks with predominantly colored inhabitants showed a slightly
lower average than did the entire city. The 16 blocks classified as
native and foreign white had only 13.8 per cent of unemployment.
It seems that the native whites suffer the least from unemployment,
foreign whites shoulder the heaviest burden, and the Negroes have
slightly less of a burden to carry. Nearly all the foreign whites are
employed at manual labor or factory work, both of which are sensi­
tive to general business conditions. Their lack of education is even
more pronounced than among the Negroes.
Table 9.— Comparison of unemployment by racial characteristics of blocks
Native white

District
Num­
ber of
blocks

Native and foreign
white

Per cent of
unemploy­
ment
Num­
ber of
blocks
Full Part
time time

Per cent of
unemploy­
ment
Num­
ber of
blocks
Full Part
time time

No. 1. ..........................................................
No. 2............................................................
No. 3______________________ __________
No. 4....................................... ....................
No. 5____________________ ___________
No. 6_____________________ ___________
No. 7......................................... ..................
No. 8________________________________
No. 9............................................................
No. 10..........................................................

8 13.6
2 13.0
13 18.9
5 8.3
17 12.8
15 12.8

8.2
2.8

3 16.9

3.9

6.6

3 15.5

Total......................................................

76 12.0

4.3

16 13.8

8

7.0
5 14.8

3

8.2

1.2

3 9.1
3 16.2

2.0

.4
5.5
3.0

4 11.6

2.3

1.7

5.5

Native and colored,
and foreign ana
colored
No. 1„ _ .......................................................
No. 2............................................................
No. 3................ ...........................................
No. 4............................................................
No. 5............................................................
No. 6............................................................
No. 7............. ..............................................
No. 8......................... — .............................
No. 9..........................................................
No. 10..........................................................

4
4

21.6

2.1
6.6

1

12.1

1.5

3

14.3

5.1

Total..................................................

23

16.5

3.5

2 9.7
1 13.6
2 19.3
6 17.3

17.7

6.3
3.9

2.6

2.7

8.9

4

Per cent of
unemploy­
ment
Full Part
time time

10 24.0

18.4

5.4
8.7

3.5

6 15.5
5 22.0
7 21.1
1 20.2
1 11.7
6 17.0

2.9
9.6
4.1
23.5
13.4
15.6

4.8

40 20.0

8.4

Colored

2

Foreign white

All races

2.9

13 7.9
15 14.7
12 23.4
18 13.8
20 15.4
15 19.7
22 20.4
10 12.5
18 12.7
28 14.2

8.2

5.7

171 15.0

5.2

7.9

10.4

5 14.6
2 16.3
4 14.5
2 29.0

1.7
5.7
6.7

1

8.1

16 14.6

6.2

4.1
4.4
7.9
1.9
3.9
7.6

6.8
5.2
5.8

From the part-time figures shown in Table 9, it is found that the
foreign whites show the heaviest part-time unemployment also.
Less than 3 out of 4 of the foreign born were working full time in

24

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

April, 1930. Just as in the full-time analysis, the part-time figures
show this type of unemployment to be heavier among Negroes than
among native whites. Thus we can summarize the part-time un­
employment situation by stating that the foreign born show the
highest proportion of part-time workers, while the Negroes have a
slightly higher and the white persons a much lower proportion than
the city percentage of part-time unemployment.

Unemployment and Occupational Status
A comparison of unemployment according to various occupations
was made more difficult by the fact that occupations were deter­
mined only for those who were unemployed and not for all wage
earners. Nevertheless, the available data are sufficient to show that
there are conspicuous differences in the intensity of unemployment
in the different occupational groups. In the occupational analysis
only three classifications were used—manual, clerical, and executive.
As in the case of racial and economic classifications, the enumerators
were asked to state the predominant occupational status of the persons
in each block. A comparison of this information with the severity
of full-time and part-time unemployment in the 171 blocks is presented
in Table 10. Nearly three-fourths, or 124, of the blocks were specified
as industrial. In this group it was found that 17.2 per cent of the
wage earners were wholly unemployed and an additional 5.6 per cent
were working but part of the time. In contrast to this, only 5.9 per
cent of full-time and 2.1 per cent of part-time unemployment were
found in the six blocks classed as having a predominantly professional
and executive working class. In blocks described as clerical and
trade, and also in those indicated as industrial and trade, the unem­
ployment was less severe than for the city as a whole. In the former
group only 8.5 per cent, and in the latter but 11.6 per cent, of those
usually employed were out of work. The part-time results showed
quite a discrepancy between these two classes, with more than three
times as much part-time unemployment in the latter as in the former
class. Just as in many other part-time analyses, the discrepancies
seem to be of doubtful significance.
T a b l e 10.— Comparison of unemployment with occupational characteristics of blocks
Professional and
executive

District

Clerical and
trade

Per cent
of unem­
Num­ ployment Num­
ber of
ber of
blocks
blocks
Full Part
time time

No. 1—........
No. 2______
No. 3.......—
No. 4______
No. 5______
No. 6______
No. 7______
No. 8.......—
No. 9______
No. 10_____

4 5.1

Total-

6 5.9

2 6.6

1.4

2.7

4
2
2
1

Industrial and
trade

Per cent
of unem­
ployment Num­
ber of
blocks
Full Part
time time
5.5 1.9
13.4 2.3
13.2 3.5
3.4

1 19.4 4.4
1 7.5 3.0

Per cent
of unem­
ployment Num­
ber of
blocks
Full Part
time time

2 9.6 10.7

7 12.8 5.8

4 7.6
2.1

Industrial

1.6

1 12.1 1.5
5 9.1 5.3
11 13.5 10.0

15 8.5

2.2

26 11.6 6.7

3
13
10
17
13
15
21
6
13
13

All occupations

Per cent
of unem­
ployment Num­
ber of
blocks
Full Part
time time

Full Part
time time

10.7
14.9
26.1
15.5
16.9
19.7
20.5
16.2
13.9
17.2

7.9
14.7
23.4
13.8
15.4
19.7
20.4
12.5
12.7
14.2

4.1
4.4
7.9
1.9
3.9
7.6
6.8
5.2
5.8
8.2

171 15.0

5.2

2.9
4.C
9.0
2.2
2.8
7.6
6.9
7.6
5.9
9.2

124 17.2 5.6

13
15
12
18
20
15
22
10
18
28

Per cent
of unem­
ployment

25

OCCUPATIONAL STATUS

In districts 3, 6, and 7, where the unemployment was more severe
than in the other districts, nearly all of the blocks were industrial in
character. In contrast, districts 1 and 8, with the lowest proportions
of unemployment, had some blocks in each class. District 1 was
classified as having 8 of its 13 blocks in the two higher occupational
groups and also showed the lowest proportion of unemployment
among all the districts. Districts 2 and 4 were exceptions to the
general rule, for nearly all of their blocks were in the industrial class,
while each district disclosed a smaller percentage of unemployment
than was reported for the sample as a whole.
Although there is no available information on the number of wage
earners in the manual, clerical, and executive classes, there is an
occupational distribution for Philadelphia in the United States census
of occupations for 1920. A careful study was made of this census
material and all of the jobs were classified into the three major groups
mentioned above. Of course, the results can not be taken as abso­
lutely accurate, for there may be differences of opinion as to within
just which of these classes a certain job falls. From this investigation
it was found that of the 819,000 gainfully employed persons in Phila­
delphia in 1920, 70.5 per cent held manual jobs, 18.1 per cent did
clerical work, and 11.4 per cent occupied executive positions. In the
survey, of the 9,991 unemployed persons for whom occupations were
specified, 88.6 per cent had manual jobs, 9.8 per cent did clerical
work, and only 1.6 per cent were executives. A comparison of these
two sets of figures accentuates the previous findings. Thus while
7 out of 10 wage earners in Philadelphia usually do manual work,
nearly 9 out of 10 of the unemployed were in tms class. Although
nearly 1 out of 5 usually employed have clerical jobs, less than 1 out
of 10 of the unemployed belongs to this classification. An even greater
disparity is found in the executive group, with 11.4 per cent of all
wage earners in this class and only 1.6 per cent of the unemployed
workers usually engaged in executive work. Most of the manual
workers are in the lower income and economic groups and, as will be
shown later, there is an inverse relationship between income and
economic status and unemployment. Therefore, it is logical to sup­
pose that there would be more unemployment among those workers
in manual occupations, and the results pointed out above confirm
this theory.
T a b l e 11,— Number and per cent of unemployed persons, by customary occupations

and by districts

District

No. 1..............................................
No. 2..............................................
No. 3..............................................
No. 4___ ___ _________________
No. 5_............................................
No. 6..............................................
No. 7..............................................
No. 8..............................................
No. 9..............................................
No. 10............................................
Trtta-1______

Unemployed persons in specified customary occupations
Number
oi un­
employed Manual
Clerical
Executive
Unspecified
persons
in all
occu­
pations Num­ Per Num­ Per Num­ Per Num­ Per
ber
cent
ber
cent
ber
ber
cent
cent
364
557
883
1,063
1,133 1,011
1,079
971
1,456 1,178
883
990
1,312 1,164
950
1,181
865
986
691
580

65.3
83.1
89.2
90.0
80.9
89.2
88.7
80.4
87.7
84.0

126
114
74
75
148
50
100
147
95
50

22.6
10.7
6.5
6.9
10.2
5.1
7.6
12.5
9.7
7,2

56
6
3
15
20
11
4
30
13
5

10.1
.6
.3
1.4
1.4
1.1
.3
2.5
1.3
.7

11
60
45
18
no
46
44
54
13
56

2.0
5.6
4.0
1.7
7.5
4.6
3.4
4.6
1.3
8.1

10,448 8,849

84.7

979

9.4

163

1.5

457

4.4

26

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

Table 11 shows the distribution of the unemployed persons in each
occupation for each district, and for the sample as a whole. As
expected, the variations between districts are numerous and wide.
In district 1 only 65.3 per cent of the unemployed persons had had
manual occupations, while 90 per cent of the jobless in district 4
had held such jobs. The percentage of clerical workers among the
unemployed likewise showed marked variations—from 22.6 per cent
in district 1 to 6.5 per cent in district 3. The disparity in the pro­
portion of the unemployed who are executives is also large between
the various districts. District 1 has a larger percentage of its unem­
ployed among the clerical and executive classes than has any other
district. District 3 is just the opposite, with next to the smallest
proportion of its jobless in these two groups. In this connection,
it is important to note that district 1 had the least proportionate
unemployment while district 3 had the most. District 8, which was
second to district 1 in scarcity of unemployment, was also second
in the proportion of jobless who were in the clerical or executive
classes. District 4 was somewhat of an exception, with the highest
percentage of unemployed persons in the manual class, but with a
percentage of unemployment for all reasons much less than for the
city as a whole. District 9, also with a relatively low percentage of
unemployment, had most of its unemployed persons in the manual
group.
While the above analyses are not so complete as might be desired,
nevertheless there is sufficient proof that great variations existed in
unemployment among different occupational groups. The industrial
and manual workers are the ones most affected by the unemployment
burden, while the executive and professional groups are the least
affected. The clerical and trade classes have more unemployment
than the professional-executive group, but not nearly so much as the
manual and industrial workers. It is unfortunate that the occupa­
tional results of this year’s study are not comparable with those of
the 1929 survey, as the classification of occupations was changed.
Nevertheless, it is readily discernible from a review of the last year’s
results that manual and industrial occupations showed the highest
proportions of unemployment.
In the part-time data (see p. 60) a similar but less marked tendency
as in the full-time analysis is evident, although the figures for a
couple of districts were distorted by the large percentage of persons
not specifying their occupation.

Unemployment Compared with Income
It was thought desirable, but not advisable, to determine the in­
come per family and per capita directly from the families interviewed.
Many persons are hesitant about furnishing wage information, and
it was decided not to request these data, so as to eliminate the possi­
bility of antagonism among those being interviewed. Although the
data obtained in this survey are entirely lacking in information con­
cerning income, a study of this factor has been made in Philadelphia.
In 1927-28 Dr. F. R. Cawl, of the University of Pennsylvania,
made a study of family income in the city of Philadelphia for the
Philadelphia Public Ledger. In that survey, the city was not divided
into the 10 school districts, but rather into 47 areas in which the

27

ECONOMIC STATUS

families were of uniform economic status. Although the study is
oyer three years old, it remains the only comprehensive one of its
kind for this city. There probably have been no important relative
changes in the various sections of the city as far:as income is con­
cerned, and therefore it was decided to use the Cawl survey figures.
Using the data collected by Doctor Cawl as the basis, estimates of
the average family incomes were calculated for each of the 10 school
districts. These calculations, along with average individual incomes,
and the percentages of unemployment in each school district, are
presented in Table 12.
T a b l e 12.— Unemployment and income in school census districts of Philadelphia

District

Number Average Average Average
number family
of families in family income1 per capita
income *

Per cent of full-time Per cent of part-time
unemployment
unemployment
All
Unable to
Unable to
All
reasons find work reasons find work

No. 1......................No. 2...... ..................
No. 3.................... —
No. 4......................No. o.....................
No. 6___ _____ _____
No. 7.........................
No. 8...... ................ No. 9 ......................
No. 10.......................

3,894
3,664
2,493
3,880
4,465
2,714
3,237
5,195
4,532
2,611

4.3
4.6
5.2
4.5
4.5
3.8
4.8
4.1
3.9
4.3

$3,208
2,035
2,321
2,496
2,210
2,341
1,939
2,817
2,587
2,166

$750
444
444
559
489
609
407
690
657
500

7.9
14.7
23.4
13.8
15.4
19.7
20.4
12.5
12.7
14.2

6.6
11.8
19.4
11.4
12.6
16.1
17.4
9.7
10.2
11.6

4.1
4.4
7.9
1.9
3.9
7.6
6.8
5.2
5.8
8.2

3.3
3.4
6.4
1.6
2.2
5.4
3.5
2.1
5.0
4.6

All districts___

36,665

4.4

2,440

558

15.0

12.2

5.2

3.5

1These figures are calculated from the Cawl survey (1927-28) districts.

An analysis of this table reveals a marked relation in nearly all
districts between high income per family or per capita and low pro­
portions of unemployment. In ranking the districts according to
the per capita income in each, it was noted that 8 of the 10 districts
held the same or an adjacent rank as when arranged according to the
percentages—low to high—of wage earners unable to find work.
There is almost as close an inverse relationship between family
income and unemployment as between per capita income and unem­
ployment. The three districts with the highest family and per capita
income are likewise the three districts having the lowest proportions
of wage earners out of work. Just as in the 1929 survey, district 6
was the one outstanding exception and there the income was far
above the average for the city, while the percentage of unemployment
was similarly above the city results. In fact this district ranked
third in severity of unemployment, but, at the same time, its per
capita income was the fourth highest in the city.

Unemployment and Economic Status
It has long been known that the burden of unemployment falls
more heavily on those who are least able to shoulder it. No direct
inquiries were made by the enumerators in reference to economic
status, for no definite measure of this factor is available. As stated,
questionnaires were sent to the 10 school district supervisors, asking
them to have the enumerators classify each block which was included
68400°— 32------ 3

28

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

in the survey as to its economic, racial, and occupational status. The
facts on economic status were compiled and are shown in Table 13.
Each block was specified as “ high to medium,” “ medium,” or “ medi­
um to low.” These classes are, of course, not specific, but are relative
terms as used by the enumerators and must be regarded as such.
The fact .that the enumerators were thoroughly familiar with each
block makes this analysis more valuable than if the classification had
been made by enumerators who had no contact in the blocks other
than for the purpose of taking this census.
T a b l e 13.— Comparison of unemployment with economic status of blocks
High to medium

District

No. 1............................
No. 2............................
No. 3............................
No. 4............................
No. 5............................
No. 6............................
No. 7............................
No. 8............................
No. 9............................
No. 10..........................
Total__________

Num­
ber of
blocks

Medium

Per cent of
unemploy­
ment
Num­
ber of
blocks
Full Part
time time

7 4.5
2 13.4

0.9
2.3

3

7.0

2.8

1

4.4

5.5

13

6.5

2.0

Medium to low

Per cent of
unemploy­
ment
Num­
ber of
blocks
Full Part
time time

6
9
6
8
13

10.2
12.8
25.4
9.7
13.8

6.2
4.9
10.2
1.5
4.0

4
4
9
8

14.5
12.1
10.2
13.1

67 13.1

All groups

Per cent of
unemploy­
ment
Num­
ber of
blocks
Full Part
time time

2.9
3.3
3.8
3.4

4
6
10
7
15
18
3
9
19

16.5
21.6
16.6
19.7
19.7
22.0
19.2
15.8
14.8

4.1
5.7
2.1
3.5
7.6
7.8
10.0
8.2
10.0

4.5

91

18.5

6.6

Per cent of
unemploy­
ment
Full Part
time time
7.9
14.7
23.4
13.8
15.4
19.7
20.4
12.5
12.7
14.2

4.1
4.4
7.9
1.9
3.9
7.6
6.8
5.2
5.8
8.2

171 15.0

5.2

13
15
12
18
20
15
22
10
18
28

Of the 171 blocks included in the survey, only 13 were specified
as having a “ high to medium” economic status, while 91 were placed
in the “ medium to low” group. In the former blocks, only 6.5
per cent of those usually employed were without a job in April, 1930.
The 67 blocks classed as having a “ medium” economic status re­
ported 13.1 per cent of unemployment, while there was 18.5 per cent
of unemployment in those blocks having the lowest economic status.
Thus, for the city as a whole, there was an apparent inverse relation­
ship between economic status and the severity of unemployment.
In analyzing each district separately, the same tendency was found,
except for slight variation in districts 2 and 3. District 8, with the
blocks evenly distributed in the three economic groups, and also
district 10, showed a marked similarity to the entire city as far as
the proportions of unemployment in each group are concerned.
For the city as a whole, part-time unemployment was also found to
be heavier in the lowest economic classes and lighter in the better
economic classes. As is indicated by Table 13, the disparity between
various districts is very pronounced and many of the districts do not
show the same tendency as do the figures for the entire city.
The Curtis Publishing Co. recently prepared a map of Philadelphia
on which was shown the various characteristics of different sections
of the city. Although the classification was not of one characteristic—
i. e., occupational, racial or residential status alone—yet the avail­
able data proved of sufficient value to substantiate the findings of the
preceding paragraphs. An experienced field worker made a study of

29

FAM ILIES OF DIFFERENT SIZE

each street and block in the city for the company and his findings
were transferred to the map by coloring the different areas of the city.
Each of the 171 school census blocks was located on that map and the
nature of the population in these units was recorded. The results
are presented in Table 14.
T able

14.— Unemployment in school-census blocks according to various characteristicSf as shown on Curtis Publishing Co. survey map

Block characteristics

Very best, very good, and good residential—
white________________________________
Skilled and clerical workers—very best, very
good, and good residential—white________
Skilled and clerical workers —
white_________
Skilled and clerical workers—
white and colored
_______ __________
persons_____________
Colored population_____ _______ __________
Skilled and clerical workers and unskilled labor
and foreign workers_____________________
Unskilled labor and foreign workers and col­
ored population___ ____________________
Unskilled labor and foreign population______
Miscellaneous 1__________________________
Total_____________________________

Full-time unem­ Part-time unem­
Number
ployment
ployment
Num­ of persons
ber of usually
blocks employed
Number Percent Number Percent

5

931

42

4.5

11

1.2

17
27

9,619
14,018

846
1,677

8.9

11.2

181
418

1.9
3.0

5
24

1,680
9,870

221

1,463

14.0
14.8

51
365

3.2
3.7

26

8,976

1,415

15.7

1,010

11.3

12

49
7

6,676
17,893
423

1,172
3,630
82

17.6
20.3
19.4

293
1,281
38

4.4
7.2
9.0

171

69,884

10,448

15.0

3,648

5.2

i Includes business and industrial blocks, and also some blocks undeveloped and with widely scattered
population.

The findings shown in Table 14 are of definite value in proving the
racial, economic, and occupational distribution of unemployment,
as previously pointed out. As anticipated, the blocks with the lowest
proportions of both full-time and part-time unemployment were
those occupied by a native-white population engaged in skilled and
clerical occupations and representing the best residential sections.
It can be definitely seen that unemployment is least severe among the
native whites, more heavy among the Negroes, and most severe
among the foreign bom. A much larger percentage of unemploy­
ment exists among the unskilled laborers than among the skilled and
clerical wage earners, as indicated in the table. Almost without
exception these results confirm the previous results; a comparison
between the attendance officers* analyses of the 171 blocks and the
characteristics taken from the map shows marked similarity in the
two series.

Unemployment in Families of Different Size
Of the 36,665 families enumerated in this survey it has been shown
that 7,763, or 21.2 per cent, of these families had some full-time un­
employment. This also is indicative of the increase of unemploy­
ment, since 15.6 per cent of the families surveyed in Philadelphia in
April, 1929, included one or more jobless members. There has been
a 35 per cent increase in families having unemployment and a 44 per
cent increase in persons unemployed from April, 1929, to April, 1930.
This fact denotes not only more families having unemployment, but
also more unemployed in these families. There was a total of 20,574
persons usually employed in these 7,763 families and of this number

30

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

10,448, or 51 per cent (as compared with 47.5 per cent last year), were
unemployed in April, 1930. In other words, over half of the wage
earners in all families reporting some unemployment were jobless.
An analysis of the part-time returns shows 2,951 or 8 per cent of the
families interviewed as affected, while 3,648 persons or 5.2 per cent
of those usually employed were employed only a part of the time.
It has not been determined how many families experienced both full­
time and part-time unemployment, but undoubtedly there were a
great number in which both types prevailed.
Another relationship which sheds light on the severity of unem­
ployment in families of different sizes is the comparison of the aver­
age size of a family in each district with the percentage of unemploy­
ment in that district. These figures are shown in Table 12 (p. 27),
which was also used to show the effect of income on unemployment.
Four of the five districts which have fewer persons per family than
the 4.4 for the survey as a whole showed also smaller proportions of
unemployment than that found for the entire survey. District 6 is
again the exception, having the smallest number of persons per family
and at the same time a higher percentage of unemployment than
was found for the entire sample. Aside from this district, it is ap­
parent that the larger the size of the families in any one territory,
the higher will be the percentage of unemployment in that area.
T able

15.— Number of persons in family compared with number usually employed

Number in
family

1 person...........
2 persons_____

3 persons_____
4 persons_____
5 persons_____
6 persons_____
7 persons_____
8 persons.........
9 persons_____
10 persons..........
11 persons_____
12 persons..........
13 persons_____
14 persons_____
15 persons_____
Over 15 persons.
Total.......

Num­
ber of
fami­
lies
1,052
6,245
7,216
7,296
5,557
3,740
2,380
1,446
807
496
209
112

50
34
14

11

Number of families in which number of persons usually employed was—
9

:, 282
;,894
1,458
f, 149
, 173
591
280
122

49
14
9

1

-1,773
2,582 674
2,241 ,251
1,590 ,094
1,033 783
629 547
344 345
176 189
90 119
31
59
23
15

2

2

10

6

1

2

10

11

12

316
574
445
371
259
172
111

50
28

11

8

1

2

665 475 16,914 10,509 5,103 2,348 873 287 109

31

13

The average number of persons per family was found to be 4.4
in both the 1929 and the current survey, and also in the Metropoli­
tan Life Insurance Co.'s study. In the 36,665 families enumerated,
there were 69,884 persons usually employed, an average of 1.9 per­
sons usually employed in each family, which coincides with the re­
sult of the 1929 report. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. re­
ported 1.8 wage earners per family. As was previously stated, the
7,763 families reporting full-time unemployment showed 20,574 per­
sons, or 2.7 per family, as usually employed. Since the number of
persons per family usually employed is so much greater in those
families with unemployment than for the entire population and, as
we shall find, the percentage of unemployment varies directly with

31

FAM ILIES OF DIFFERENT SIZE

the number usually employed, it indicates much more intensity of
unemployment in the larger families.
Comparison of the number of persons in each family and the num­
ber usually employed discloses, as anticipated, a direct relationship
between these two sets of data. The distribution as shown in Table
15 reveals nearly the same results as were found in the previous
survey. Only 2.9 per cent of all families have one member, while
just 1.3 per cent of the families have no workers, in comparison with
1.4 per cent of all families showing none usually employed in 1929.
In both years, in 82 per cent of all families, there were between two
and six persons. In both years, also, just 90 per cent of all the fam­
ilies had from one to three persons usually employed.
T able

16.— Number of persons in family usually employed compared with number
unemployed

Families with un­
employed workers
Number in family usually Number
of
employed
families
Number Per cent

Number of families with specified number
of persons unemployed

2

1

None__________________
1 person_______________
2 persons................ .......
3 persons______________
4 persons ____________
5 persons_____________
6 persons. ___ ________
7 persons______________
8 persons______________
9 persons______________
12 persons______________

475
16,914
10,509
5,103
2,348
873
287
109
31
13
3

1,564
2,501
1,858
1,154
450
161
57
16
7

1,564
2,059
1,237
595
204
56

1

9.2
23.8
36.4
49.1
51.5
56.1
52.3
51.6
53.8
33.3

Total...................... .

36,665

7,769

21.2

5,745

22
6
1
1

3

442
491
365
131
51

130
159
72
36

11

7
4

11
1
1

1,502

410

4

6

5

35
33
14
9

10
2
3

2
1

94

15

3

2
1

The greater severity of unemployment among families with a large
number of wage earners is strikingly presented in Table 16. Among
all the families with two or more persons usually employed there is
a greater percentage of families with unemployment than the 21.2 per
cent for the entire sample. With the exception of the three families
with 12 workers, which is too small a sample for comparison, over
one-half of all the families having more than four wage earners report
some members of the family as being unemployed full time. About 75
per cent of the families with unemployment reveal only one person
unemployed, while over 93 per cent of these families have only one
or two persons unemployed. In the part-time analysis (see p. 60)
there is also a progressive increase in the percentage of families report­
ing unemployment as the number of wage earners per family mounts.
Of the families showing part-time unemployment 82 per cent had one
person out of work and 96 per cent had only one or two persons not
working steadily.
There are several figures which show that there has been an increase
in unemployment, not only among families, but also within the family.
Of those families reporting unemployment, each had 1.34 persons out
of work in comparison with 1.24 persons in April, 1929. While the
previous survey showed that in 25 per cent of the families having
unemployment all the wage earners were out of work, the 1930 data
reveal 28 per cent of families with unemployment having all wageearners idle. In part-time unemployment, 38 per cent of the families
affected have all of their wage earners idle part of the time. Of the

32

CHAP. 2 — UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

families with full-time imemployment in April, 1930, 70 per cent had
one-half or more of their wage earners out of work in contrast to 66
per cent the preceding year, and 72 per cent for the part-time unem­
ployment. Thus in April, 1930, it is found that 14.8 per cent of the
families, against 10.3 per cent in April, 1929, were without income
from half or more of their wage earners.
As has been shown, there is a direct relationship between the size
of the family and the number of persons usually employed in these
families. likewise the unemployment is more severe in those fami­
lies with larger numbers of wage earners. From these facts it might
be expected that there is more unemployment in larger than in smaller
families, and this conclusion is emphasized in Table 17. As the size
of the family increases there is a proportional increase in the percent­
age of families with unemployment, save where the sample becomes
too small for significance. Over 50 per cent of all families consisting
of 11 to 14 persons have some unemployment, while less than 13 per
cent of one and two member families have unemployment. Only 16.3
per cent of the families with fewer than six members were affected,
while 35.4 per cent of larger families reported imemployment. Some­
what similar conditions were disclosed in the 1929 survey, except that
the percentages of afflicted families were somewhat lower throughout,
but the tendency for unemployment to increase with the size of the
family was just as pronounced. Furthermore, an analysis of families
with less than six persons, as compared with families of six or more
members, shows a marked difference in the proportion of families
affected. Since, in 35.4 per cent of all large families there were some
full-time jobless, while of the families with fewer than six members
only 16.3 per cent were reported as having some imemployment, the
proportion of large families showing unemployment is 117 per cent
greater than the percentage of small families. The 1929 survey
revealed 24.7 per cent of the large families having experienced unem­
ployment as against 12.3 per cent of the small families, a 100 per cent
higher proportion for the larger-sized families. A similar tendency is
found in the part-time results (see p. 61) where only 3.9 per cent of
families with one person were affected, and 25.8 per cent of families
with 11 members showed some part-time idleness, with a rather
definite upward trend between these two.
T able

17.— Unemployment in families of different size

Number in family

1 person__________ _________________
2 persons__________ ____________ _____

3 persons..................................................
4 persons...................................................
5 persons___ _____ __________________
6 persons...................... ................... .........
7 persons.................................... ....... .......
8 persons_____________________ _ . ...
9 persons___________ _ _
10 persons___________________________
11 persons______________________
12 persons................. ...............................
13 persons___________________________
14 persons................ ...........................
15 persons........ .................................
Over 15 persons.............................
Total....... .............................

Number
of
families
1,052
6,245
7,216
7,296
5,557
3,740
2,380
1,446
807
496
209

112

50
34
14

11

36,665

Number
Persons unem­
of per­
ployed
sons usu­
ally em­
Number Per cent ployed Number Per cent
Families with
unemployment

135
783
1,036
1,231
1,288
1,093
833
552
353
236
108
63
27

12.8

3

12.5
14.4
16.9
23.2
29.2
35.0
38.2
43.7
47.6
51.7
56.3
54.0
64.7
42.9
27.3

7,769

21.2

22
6

892
7,828
11,080
12,957
11,602
8,912
6,277
4,249
2,564
1,763
759
451
242
171

135
882
1,245
1,552
1,717
1,530
1,197
829
545
400
179
118
55
47

51

11
6

69,884

10,448

86

15.1
11.3

11.2
12.0

14.8
17.2
19.1
19.7
21.3
22.7
23.6
26.2
22.7
27.5

12.8
11.8
15.0

CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO SE X AND AGE

33

Not only are there more of the larger-sized families affected, but
the percentage of unemployed workers also increases with the size of
the family, as shown in Table 17. With the exception of 1-member
families, there is a persistent rise in unemployment with family size
as far as the data are comparable. This exception—severe unem­
ployment in 1-member families—also existed in the previous report
and was aptly explained as being due to the lack of family responsi­
bility in single persons. In both years, families of more than one
and fewer than six members showed a smaller percentage of wage
earners out of work than was found for the entire city. All families
of 6 or more persons, in comparable classes, had more unemployment
than the 15 per cent survey average. About 75 per cent of all families
enumerated in each year had fewer than six members. In 1929 there
was 9.1 per cent and in 1930 there was 12.5 per cent of unemployment
for all families of fewer than six persons. The 25 per cent of families
which comprised those of six or more members showed 12.5 per cent
of unemployment in 1929 and 19.3 per cent in 1930. In comparing
the two years, it is noted that unemployment was 37 per cent more
severe in larger families in 1929, and in 1930 the disparity was even
greater with families of six or over, which had 54 per cent more
unemployment than the smaller-sized ones.

Unemployment as Classified According to Sex and Age
A study of the amount of unemployment of males and females and
of those under 21 years of age and those 21 years of age and over
showed great similarity to the results obtained in 1929. Since “ in­
ability to find work” measures unemployment conditions more ac­
curately than all reasons, these groups were compared on this basis.
Females made up a larger portion of the unemployed who could not
find work in April, 1930, than in the previous year. They represented
23.4 per cent of this group in 1929 as compared with 25.5 per cent a
year later. Thus, the increase in unemployment fell more heavily on
the female group, but even in 1930 they did not suffer as severely as
males, for in estimates based on the census of occupations, 27 per cent
of all workers are females. This is another indication of the fact that
in periods of depression the effect of unemployment is more equally
spread among all groups. According to the Bureau of the Census re­
turns for 1930, nearly 79 per cent of the unemployed persons able to
work were males, and slightly over 21 per cent were females. These
figures also show that the incidence of unemployment fell more
heavily on the males than the survey might indicate. A different
result was found as to part-time unemployment, where 29.6 per cent of
the workers unemployed were females. Thus it is apparent that,
while lack of full-time work is less severe among females, nevertheless
a larger percentage of wage-earning females hold positions which keep
them occupied for less than a full working week.

34

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA.

T able

18.— Number and per cent of persons unable to find work, by district, sex,
and age
Sex

Age
Males

District
Males Females Total

Females

Males and Females

Under 21 years Under 21 years Under
21
21
and
and
21
years
years
over
over
years

21 years

Total

and
over

Number
No. 1................
No. 2................
No. 3...... ........
No. 4............ .
No. 5......... ...
No. 6___ _____
No. 7.........
No. 8............ .
No. 9...............
No. 10..............

337
637
726
860
619
841
656
593
388

Total___

6,323

666

124
199

224
328
192
270
255
196
168

461
836
936
890
1,188
811
1, 111
911
789
556

64
149
144
142
132

2,166

8,489

210

128
142
93
105

270
486
582
524
721
516
709
513
499
274

103
77
89
60
82

1,200

5,094

101

49

113
237
247
219

210

61
67

72
108
106
147
233
132
183
167
135
99

228
154
172

671
954
648
892
680
634
373

762

1,382

1,962

6,476

8,438

75.2
71.5
73.6
75.4
81.2
80.1
80.9
74.9
80.5
68.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

76.7

100.0

88

86

221

161

342
594

688

455
831
935
890
1,175
809

1,102

908
788
545

Per cent
No. 1................
No. 2................
No. 3...... .........
No. 4............ No. 5................
No. 6................
No. 7...............
No. 8— ..........
No. 9...............
No. 10_______

73.1
76.2
77.6
74.8
72.4
76.3
75.7
72.0
75.2
69.8

26.9
23.8
22.4
25.2
27.6
23.7
24.3
28.0
24.8
30.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

19.2
23.5
19.8
21.3
15.5
16.4
15.3
21.7
15.7
27.7

80.8
76.5
80.2
78.7
84.5
83.6
84.7
78.3
84.3
72.3

40.5
44.9
49.3
34.4
27.6
31.3
30.9
34.0
31.1
40.4

59.5
55.1
50.7
65.6
72.4
68.7
69.1
28.9
59.6

24.8
28.5
26.4
24.6
18.8
19.9
19.1
25.1
19.5
31.6

Total___

74.5

25.5

100.0

19.1

80.9

35.5

64.5

23.3

66.0

The distribution of unemployment of both sexes under 21 years of
age and 21 years of age and over was found to be, in each case, within
1 per cent oi the 1929 results. Over three-fourths of the full-time job­
less were of voting age, while the census of occupations shows that 85
per cent of all wage earners fall in this class. As 23.3 per cent of those
unable to find work were under 21 years of age, and they comprise
only 15 per cent of those holding positions, it is apparent that unem­
ployment falls more severely on the youthful workers. While 11 per
cent of all male workers are under 21,19.1 per cent of the unemployed
males are under 21 years of age. Of the females usually employed,
25 per cent are under 21 years of age and 35.5 per cent of the females
who are out of work are in this age group. While the part-time re­
sults (see p. 61) reveal the fact that the percentages of unemployment
of both males and females under 21 are greater than their respective
proportions of wage earners, nevertheless the difference is not so wide
as in the full-time figures. It is significant, therefore, to note that
workers under 21 years of age suffer more from unemployment than
older workers, but the part-time unemployment is more evenly dis­
tributed between the two age groups than is the full-time unemploy­
ment. The increase of unemployment from April, 1929, to April,
1930, was spread among the sex and age groups in much the same
proportion as the 1929 unemployment figures revealed.

35

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

Reasons for Unemployment
As stated, the severity of unemployment is more accurately
measured by the number of persons unable to find work than by the
entire number of unemployed. While the other reasons given for
idleness are important and merit some attention in studying the labor
situation, the real problem concerns those who are able and willing to
work, but can not locate a job. There are always some persons who
are kept from working by sickness or indifference, but their number
does not vary closely with economic conditions, as the figures will
show. Much interest has been manifested in the problem of unem­
ployment among persons of advanced age, but the percentage of per­
sons unemployed because of superannuation sheds but little light on
this matter. Elderly persons who were not seeking employment were
regarded as being in the retired group and therefore not counted as
unemployed, nor as employable.
In an analysis of the 10,217 unemployed persons for whom the
reasons for unemployment were recorded, it was found that 83.6
per cent of these persons were unable to find work. This reason
was found to be predominant in April, 1929, also, but not to so great
an extent, for then only 75.2 per cent of the jobless gave this cause.
The effect on unemployment of the economic depression, existent when
the 1930 survey was being taken, is emphasized by this disparity.
In April, 1929, only 7.8 per cent of all wage earners enumerated could
not find work, in contrast to 12.2 per cent one year later. Thus
while the percentage of unemployment for all reasons increased 44
per cent from April, 1929, to April, 1930, the increase of the persons
unable to find work amounted to 57 per cent. Unemployment from
all other reasons, including “ reason unspecified,” amounted to 2.6
per cent in 1929 and 2.8 per cent in 1930.
In the part-time results there was a larger percentage of unemploy­
ment due to inability to find work than in the full-time figures. Thus,
86.6 per cent of all those working only part of the time blamed their
condition on lack of work.
T able

19.-— Per cent of idle workers unemployed for specified reasons, by districts

District

Number
of unem­
ployed
persons

Per cent of idle workers unemployed for each
specified reason
Unable
to find
work1
84.7
82.8
86.7
83.6
83.7
84.0

No. 1..........................................................
No. 2__......................................................
No. 3.........................................................
No. 4. ..................................... ....... .......
No. 5.................................-....... ...............
No 6......... ................................................
No. 7.................... .....................................
No. 8..........................................................
No. 9..........................................................
No. 10........................................................

648
1,027
1,085
1,067
1,422
967
1,296
1,158
977
670

79.4
80.8
84.3

All districts2
____________________

10,217

83.6

86.0

Sickness

10.0

11.5
6.3

Super­
annua­
tion

Indiffer­
ence

2.4

2.6

1.1

2.3
1.9

Other
reasons

1.8
.8
.7
1.0

11.0
6.8
10.0

2.8

8.7
9.0

4.4
4.8
3.7
2.7
3.2
6.7
3.0
5.2

1.3
1.9
.3

5.6

9.0

3.9

1.8

1.7

8.8

9.2

1.8

1.9
1.7

1.5

.6
1.2
2.6

1.2

1Includes also such reasons as “ slack season,” “ laid off,” etc.
2Does not include 231 persons for whom the reasons for unemployment were not given.

In Table 19, the percentage of total unemployment due to each
principal reason is shown. As already stated, inability to find work

36

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

accounts for most of the full-time unemployed persons. Sickness
accounted for only 9 per cent of the jobless this year iii contrast to
14.2 per cent in 1929, although the proportion of wage earners out of
work because of illness has remained approximately the same. Only
3.8 per cent of the part-time unemployed (see p. 62) reported sickness
as the reason for their partial inactivity. Superannuation was
responsible for 3.9 per cent of the unemployment among those enum­
erated in this survey, as compared with 5 per cent in 1929. On the
basis of the number of persons usually employed, a slightly larger
percentage of unemployment was due to old age in 1930 than in 1929.
This is as might be expected, for, in case of forced lay-offs, those of
advanced age would no doubt be laid off first. A smaller proportion
of both the unemployed and the wage earners was found idle on
account of indifference in April, 1930, as against the preceding year.
Probably it is not so easy to get along without a job in hard times as
in “ normal” periods, and the pangs of hunger and the humiliation of
standing in bread lines make for less laziness among those capable of
working. Superannuation and indifference each accounted for only
1 per cent of the part-time unemployed persons. There were a few
more out of work on account of strikes this year than last, but the
proportion of jobless in this class amounted to an almost negligible
percentage of the total.
As in the previous study, there were but few significant variations
between districts in the reasons for unemployment. Districts 3 and
7, which showed the heaviest unemployment, also had a larger per­
centage of the unemployed who gave as their reason inability to find
work. There was not so wide a range between the district percentages
of full-time unemployment due to this reason as in 1929. For parttime unemployment, 95.8 per cent of the unemployed could not locate
a job in district 10, while only 74 per cent gave this reason in district
6. The relationship between severity of unemployment and the
proportion unable to find work is closer in full-time than in part-time
unemployment. For sickness and superannuation the district varia­
tions are of a random nature and show no particularly interesting
differences.
T able

20.— Per cent of idle workers unemployed for specified reasons, by occupations

Occupation

Number
of unem­
ployed
persons

Per cent of idle workers unemployed for each
specified reason
Unable
to find
work

Illness

Super­
annua­
tion

Indiffer­
ence

Other
reasons

Full-time unemployment
Manual— ................................................
Clerical............. ........................................
Executive................. .................................
Unspecified............... ................................

8,849
979
163
457

84.6
83.1
72.9
65.6

8.5
10.3
17.3
15.3

6.2
10.0

4.7

4.4

All occupations. ..............................

10,448

83.6

9.0

3.9

1.8

1.7

3.8
2.4

1.6
2.6
1.8

1.5

1.6
1.8

Part-time unemployment
Manual......................................................
Clerical......................................................
Executive______________ ____________
Unspecified....... .........................................

2,966
162
30
490

87.4
75.5
75.0

3.5
7.7

0.8
2.1

86.8 .........7
.”6"

1.8

.9

All occupations................................

3,648

86.6

3.8

1.0

1.0

4.2

1.0

1.4

7.3
13.3

20.8
3.5

7.6

37

TIME LOST SINCE LAST REGULAR JOB

An analysis of the reasons for unemployment in different occupa­
tions is presented in Table 20. A larger portion of unemployed
manual workers are out of jobs because of inability to find work than
of either the clerical or executive group. In the former class 84.6 per
cent could not find work, while 83.1 per cent of the clerical jobless and
only 72.9 per cent of unemployed executives gave as their reason
inability to find work. The proportion of jobless in each of these
three groups who are unemployed because of illness shows an opposite
tendency to the figures given for the former cause. Sickness was
responsible for 17.3 per cent of those unemployed in the executive
class; 10.3 per cent in the clerical class; and 8.5 per cent in the manual
group. Although the occupations in the previous survey were classi­
fied differently, nevertheless an investigation discloses a result similar
to the above figures, viz, that inability to find work accounted for a
larger proportion of the unemployed in occupations of the manual
type than in the professional class. Part-time figures show practically
the same conditions as do the full-time unemployment results as far as
the reasons for unemployment in different occupations are concerned.
It is of interest to note that 86.8 per cent of all unemployed Negroes,
as contrasted with 82.8 per cent of the white jobless, gave as the reason
for their plight inability to find work; but a larger proportion of the
unemployed white persons than Negroes were out of work because of
illness.

Time Lost by the Unemployed Since the Last Regular Job
A study of the length of time lost by each worker since his or her
last regular job was made in order to measure the intensity of unem­
ployment as to duration. All persons enumerated who were found to
be unemployed were asked to specify the number of weeks lost since
leaving their last regular job. All but 436 of the full-time unemployed
persons and 665 of those who were unemployed part time reported
their time lost.
T a b l e 21*—Number

and per cent of unemployed persons, by length of time lost since
last regular job

Length of time lost

All unemployed per­
sons
Number

1 day and over_____________________________________________
Over 1 week_______________________________________________

Over 1 month____________________________ !________________
Over 2 months____ _____________________________ __________
Over 3 months____ ________________________________________
Over 4 months....... ........ ............................. ...................................
Over 5 months___________________ ______ _____ _______ _____
Over 6 months................................................................ ..................
Over 7 months__________________________________________ _
Over 8 months______ ________________________ _____________
Over 9 months____ _________________________ ______ ________
Over 10 months____________________________________________
Over 11 months_______ _____________________ ____________ —
Over 1 year________ ________________________ ______ _______

Per cent

110,448
9,743
8,357
7,174
5,801
4,614
3,830
2,760
2,376

100.0

1,934
1,802
1,775
955

18.5
17.2
17.0
9.1

2,100

93.3
80.0
68.7
55.5
44.2
36.7
26.4
22.7

20.1

Per cent of
all persons
usually em­
ployed
15.0
13.9

12.0

10.3
8.3

6.6

5.6
3.9
3.4
3.0

2.8
2.6

2.5
1.4

i Includes 436 unemployed who did not specify time lost since last regular job.

Table 21 reveals the length of idleness for those who are unemployed.
Four-fifths of the total number of full-time jobless are reported as hav­

38

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

ing been without a regular job for one month, while over one-half had
lost three months, and more than a fourth had not had a regular job
for over six months. Nearly 1 out of 10 of the unemployed lost his
regular job over a year ago. In comparing this table with a similar
one in the 1929 report, it is noted that the percentage of those reporting
idleness for over six months was larger in the earlier year. In contrast
to this fact, it is found that a larger porportion of the unemployed in
1930 had been without a regular job from one to five months. An
investigation of the part-time unemployment (see p. 62) reveals the
fact that less time has been lost by the partially employed than by
those fully unemployed, with 68.2 per cent out of a regular job for over
one month and only 22.3 per cent without regular work for over six
months.
The differences in duration of idleness among the 10 districts reveal
some wide variations. District 3 had the highest percentage of wage
earners out of work and also the largest proportion out of work for
over one month. District 6, with the second highest percentage of
unemployment, also held the same rank in the proportion out of a
regular job for over one month. Outside of these two districts there
does not seem to be a direct relationship between these two factors.
In district 8, where unemployment was moderatly light, it was found
that nearly one out of every seven of those who were unemployed had
been without a regular job for over a year, while in district 3, with the
heaviest unemployment, only 6.8 per cent had lost over one year.
A much wider disparity between districts is found in an analysis of the
part-time workers, but no definite direct or indirect relationships are
conspicuous.
Table 22*— Number and per cent of unemployed persons, by length of time lost since

last regular job and by school districts

District

Number
of unem­
ployed
persons

Per cent of all idle workers unemployed for over—
One
week
94.1

One
month

Two
months

Three
months

Six
months

No. 1..........................................
No. 2..........................................
No. 3..........................................
No. 4.........................................
No. 5.........................................
No. 6.........................................
No. 7__......................................
No. 8.........................................
No. 9.........................................
No. 10........................................

557
1,063
1,133
1,079
1,456
990
1,312
1,181
986
691

88.1

79.0
70.4
86.9
79.9
78.0
83.3
80.0
80.6
83.9
76.4

67.5
59.2
79.2
69.9
66.4
72.4
64.6
68.9
72.6

66.0

55.1
47.6
64.0
57.4
55.4
55.9
47.3
60.3
58.4
54.6

26.8

96.4
94.6
92.3
95.5
94.7
91.6
95.2

Total................................

10,448

93.3

80.0

68.7

55.5

26.4

88.8

22.6

30.5
28.3
28.3
26.4
19.4
33.4
23.4
24.2

One
year
7.9

8.0
6.8

8.4

8.2
10.0

7.4
14.0

10.1

11.3
9.1

In an effort to determine any possible reasons for this dispersion
among the districts, it was decided to compare Table 19 with Table 22,
i. e., the reasons for unemployment and the time lost in each district.
When the percentages of unemployment due to illness and super­
annuation were combined, it was found that without exception those
districts with heavy unemployment for these reasons showed the
largest proportions of their unemployed as having been without a
regular job for over a year. This study of the comparison of time
lost with causes for unemployment is further carried out in Table 23.

39

TIME LOST SINCE LAST REGULAR JOB

T able 23.— Per cent of unemployed persons, by length of time lost since last regular

job and by reasons why unemployed

Per cent of persons unemployed for specified reason
Length of time lost

1 day and over. ____________________
Over 1 week_______ _______________
Over 2 weeks________________________
Over 3 weeks________________________
Over 1 month_________________ ______
Over 2 months________________ ______
Over 3 months_______________________
Over 4 months________________ ______
Over 5 months_______________ ______
Over 6 months_______________________
Over 7 months_______________________
Over 8 months
__________ _______
Over 9 months _ ____________________
Over 10 months______________________
Over 11 months______________________
Over 1 year__________________________

Unable
to find
work

Sickness

Super­
annua­
tion

Indiffer­
ence

Other
reasons

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

95.2
91.3
87.5
81.2
69.1
54.8
42.3
33.8
22.4
18.4
15.5
13.7
12.3

12.1
6.0

92.9
89.6
86.4
81.7
72.5
62.8
56.7
53.3
47.3
44.6
43.5
42.3
41.3
40.9
28.9

78.3
77.0
76.0
74.3
71.3

68.8
68.0

67.0
65.3
64.3
63.5
63.5
63.3
63.0
50.0

91.9
90.9
89.2
82.8
72.6
64.5
58.6
53.8
46.2
43.5
40.9
39.2
38.2
37.6
18.8

84.9
77.9
75.6
71.5
64.0
50.0
29.7
25.6
20.9
20.9
20.3
19.2
19.2
18.6
10.5

All
reasons

100.0
93.3
89.5
85.9
80.0
68.7
55.5
44.2
36.7
26.4
22.7

20.1

18.5
17.2
17.0
9.1

The results shown in this table bring out more clearly the fact
that those persons unemployed on account of sickness or superannu­
ation are without a regular job for a longer period than those unem­
ployed for other reasons. One-half of the persons out of work on
account of superannuation and nearly 1 out of 3 unemployed as a
result of illness have not held a regular job for over a year, while only
one out of 20 of those unable to find work have been idle that long.
Apparently, indifference is a difficult habit to shake off, for those
who were reported as unemployed because of this reason had been
without regular jobs for much longer than those who could not find
a job. Nearly the same results were found from this comparison of
cause and time lost in the previous survey. In the part-time analysis
(see p. 63) illness accounted for longer duration of idleness than did
superannuation, but the sample was not large enough to warrant
general acceptance of these figures. It is important to note, with
reference to those unemployed on account of superannuation, that
once they lose their job they find it increasingly difficult to get another,
probably on account of the hesitancy on the part of employers to hire
“ older” workers.
Recently the Bureau of the Census released the results of a study of
the period of idleness among the unemployed persons in Philadelphia
in April, 1930. Only the data for idle persons in class A were made
available and, as was previously stated, this class is comparable to
those grouped in the survey as unable to find work. The census
reported 79.2 per cent as being idle for over one month; 44.5 per cent
for over three months; 18.4 per cent for over six months; and 5.9
per cent for longer than one year. For the same periods, the survey
results were 81.2 per cent, 54.8 per cent, 22.4 per cent, and 5 per cent,
respectively. Although there are a few minor disparities, in general
the two series show a close relationship.
Variations in the duration of unemployment among males and
females and white persons and Negroes are shown in Table 24.
Not only was unemployment less severe among females, as previously
indicated, but the duration of unemployment is likewise shorter.
68400°—32------ i

40

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

Of the unemployed males, 83.3 per cent had been out of work over a
month, while only 75.3 per cent of the females had been idle for the
same period. An even greater disparity is found for those out of
work for over six months and over one year, with males showing 24.1
and 5.6 per cent, and females showing 17.6 and 3.3 per cent for these
periods, respectively. A striking similarity was found between these
results and those of the 1929 survey and also of the current part-time
facts.
T a b l e 24.—

Per cent of persons unable to find work, by length of time lost since last
regular job and by sex and race
Per cent of persons unable to find work

Length of time lost
Males

1 day and over_______ _______________

Over 1 week_________________________
Over 2 weeks__________________ _____ _
Over 3 weeks_______ ______ ___ _______
Over 1 month___________________ _____
Over 2 months____ _______________ ____
Over 3 months_______________ _______
Over 4 months_______________ ___ ___
Over 5 months___ ___________ _______
Over 6 months_____ _____ ____________
Over 7 months___ ____________________
Over 8 months...... ........... -____ ________
Over 9 months___ ___ ________________
Over 10 months.........................................
Over 11 months...... ................ ....... ..........
Over 1 year__________________________

100.0

95.9
92.4
89.0
83.3
71.7
57.5
45.0
36.4
24.1
19.7
16.4
14.5
13.0
12.7
5.6

Females

100.0
93.6

88.2

83.3
75.3
61.5
47.0
34.6
26.5
17.6
14.9

12.6

11.4
10.4
10.3
3.3

White
persons

100.0

95.4
91.5
87.9
81.7
69i 5
55. 2
42.7
34.3
22.9
19.1
16.2
14.7
13.4
13.2
5.7

Negroes

100.0
94.1
89.9
85.3
78.9

66.8

52.5
40.2
31.2

20.1

15.5
12.3
9.5
7.6
7.1
1.9

Total

100.0

95.2
91.3
87.5
81.2
69.1
54.8
42.3
33.8
22.4
18.4
15. 5
13.7
12.3

12.1

5.0

The Census Bureau release also presented an analysis of the period
of idleness by sex. Our survey results show 57.5 per cent of the males
and 47 per cent of the females having been idle over three months,
while the census reports 46.8 and 36.7 per cent, respectively, for the
same period. For over six months of idleness, the survey shows 24.1
per cent for males and 17.6 per cent for females as against 19.2 and
15.2 per cent, respectively, for the census. Thus, while the census
seems to reveal a shorter duration of unemployment, nevertheless the
relationship between males and females in both sets of data is some­
what similar.
While in the preceding analysis it was found that females suffered
less imemployment and also lost less time since their last regular job
a similar comparison of racial data disclosed different results. As
previously indicated, unemployment was much more severe among
the Negroes than among white persons. In contrast the duration
of unemployment among Negroes was less in each instance than
among the white unemployed. Just three times as large a percent­
age oi whites as of Negroes was reported without a regular job for
over a year. This disparity is partially explainable by the types of
jobs held by Negroes.
For those reported as partially unemployed, the differences in the
duration of unemployment of males and females and of whites and
Negroes do not differ greatly from the full-time results (see p. 63).
Of the part-time unemployed males, 80.3 per cent had been without
a regular job for over a month and 25.8 per cent had lost over six
months, while for corresponding periods, the female group showed

41

TIME LOST SINCE LAST REGULAR JOB

71.9 and 19.2 per cent. Nearly one-fourth of the white persons
reported as jobless had been without a regular job for over six months,
while less than 1 out of 5 Negroes showed a similar length of idleness.
Information concerning the time lost by unemployed persons in
different occupations is presented in Table 25.
T a b l e 2 5 . — Per

cent of persons unable to find work, by length of time lost since last
job and by occupations
Per cent of persons unable to find work

Length of time lost
Manual
] day and over_____________________ ______ _____
Over 1 week____________________________________
Over 2 weeks.__________________________________
Over 3 weeks___ _________ ______________ . ___
Over 1 month___________________________________
Over 2 months________________________ ___ _____Over 3 months__________ __________ ____________
Over 4 months_____ ________ ___________________
Over 5 months___
___________________________
Over 6 months__________________________________
Over 7 months__________________________________
Over 8 months__________________________________
Over 9 months__________________________________
Over 10 months______________________________ ___
Over 11 months_________________________________
Over 1 year_______________________________ _____

100.0

95.5
91.5
87.7
81.6
69.5
55.2
42.6
34.0
22.4
18.1
15.0
13.2

11.8

11.5
4.8

Clerical

100.0

93.3
89.8
87.3
79.2
66.5
53.1
40.8
32.0

22.8
20.6

18.4
16.8
15.7
15.4
5.8

Executive

100.0

94.1
91.5
86.4
82.2
73.7
59.3
50.0
45.8
39.0
37.3
35.6
33.9
33.1
33.1
15.3

Total

100.0

95.2
93.6
87.5
81.2
69.1
54.8
42.3
33.8
22.4
18.4
15.5
13.7
12.3

12.1

5.0

From Table 25 it is apparent that executives without a regular
job are subject to a longer period of idleness than unemployed per­
sons in other types of work. While one-half of all unemployed per­
sons have lost three months of regular work, the executive group
reports 59.3 per cent for this period. Likewise the proportion of
executives out of a regular job for over six months and over one
year is greater than for all occupations. The table shows that the
unemployed manual workers are out of work longer than those in the
clerical class, except for over six months, when the time for the latter
exceeds that of the former group. The same relationship exists in
the part-time analysis (see p. 63), except that most of the variations
between the occupations are wider than in the full-time results.
Table 26, by age, shows the same contrast as the racial analysis.
As previously indicated, unemployment was more severe among those
under 21 years of age, while in this table it is noted that the dura­
tion of unemployment falls less heavily on the youthful jobless. Of
those under 21, only 50.7 per cent were reported as having been with­
out regular work for over three months, 16.8 per cent for over six
months, and 2.1 per cent for over one year. For corresponding
periods, unemployed adults showed 56.2, 24.2, and 5.9 per cent, re­
spectively. The disparity in the duration of unemployment is greater
between part-time unemployed persons under 21 years of age and
those older than in the full-time analysis (see p. 64). The per­
centages for 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year idleness are 42, 16, and
3.1, respectively, for those under 21 years of age, and 53.1, 25.8, and
6.8, respectively, for adults unemployed part time. Of the entire
group, females under 21 years of age show the shortest time out of
work and adult males the longest.

42
T able

CHAP. 2.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

26.— Per cent of persons unable to find work, by length of time lost since last
regular job and by age and sex
Persons 21 years and over

Persons under 21
Length of time lost
Males

1 day and over__________________ _____
Over 1 week___________________ __ ..
Over 2 weeks__________ _____________
Over 3 weeks____ ___________________
Over 1 month________________________
Over 2 months___ _____________ _____
Over 3 months_____ _________________
Over 4 months_____________ _________
Over 5 months_______________________
Over 6 months__________________ _____
Over 7 months______ ________________
Over 8 months_______________________
Over 9 months_______________________
Over 10 months______________________
Over 11 months______________________
Over 1 year__________________________

100.0
95.2
91.2
87.8
80.5

68.6

55.4
41.0
32.2

20.0

15.3
12.4

11.0
9.3
9.1

2.6

Females

100.0

94.1
87.9
83.5
74.7
59.3
43.2
28.5

20.2

11.7
8.9
7.7
7.0
6.4
6.4
1.4

Total

100.0

94.8
90.0

86.1

78.2
65.0
50.7
36.1
27.5
16.8

12.8
10.6
9.4

8.2
8.1
2.1

Males

100.0

96.1
92.8
89.4
84.0
72.5
58.1
46.0
37.4
25.1
20.7
17.4
15.3
13.8
13.5
6.3

Females

100.0

93.6
88.5
83.4
75.7
62.9
49.3
38.3
30.2

21.1

18.2
15.4
14.0
12.7

12.6
4.4

Total

100.0
95.6
91.8

88.1

82.2
70.4
56.2
44.3
35.8
24.2

20.2

17.0
15.0
13.6
13.3
5.9

From the foregoing studies of the time lost since the last regular
job, it appears that no definite correlation between duration of unem­
ployment and severity of unemployment can be found, either directly
or indirectly. In the district study, some regions showed a direct
relation between the two factors, but some even showed an inverse
relation. In connection with causes of unemployment, it was found
that inability to find work, which accounted for most of the unem­
ployment, resulted in shorter duration of unemployment than did the
reasons which accounted for but a small portion of the unemployed.
As for sex, females showed less than the average proportion and also
a shorter duration of unemployment. The opposite condition existed
in the results of racial and age comparisons; Negroes and those under
21 years of age had higher percentages of unemployment, but were
out of work for shorter periods than were the white unemployed and
the adult jobless, respectively. Although unemployment among
Negroes and among all persons under 21 years of age was exceedingly
high, the time lost since the last regular job in these two groups was
relatively short. Likewise, the occupations which showed the light­
est unemployment indicated that the time lost was longer than the
average for all occupations. From these few illustrations it can
readily be seen that no definite relation between incidence and
duration of unemployment appears to exist*

Chapter 3.—Unemployment in School Districts of

Philadelphia

Chapter 2 presented a complete analysis of the social and economic
character and also of the extent of both full-time and part-time unem­
ployment in the combined 171 blocks of the 10 school districts of the
city. ^Although frequent references were made in that chapter to
the disparities between the various districts, it was believed that a
separate anlaysis of each district would also prove valuable. As has
already been pointed out, there are striking variations between the
districts in their racial, economic, and occupational characteristics;
all of which have different effects on the unemployment situation.
Although within each district the selected blocks show a great
diversity of traits, yet each district represents a more homogeneous
group than does the entire city and also discloses the character
of the different geographic areas of Philadelphia.
Not only is there need of an analysis and discussion of the various
phases of the unemployment problem in the entire city, but it is
necessary to determine the conditions existing in the different parts
of the city. Many of the disparities of unemployment in the different
districts can be directly and satisfactorily explained by the varying
conditions in the sections. It is definitely known that South Phila­
delphia is a densely settled area with a population of mixed racial
characteristics and of an economic and social status below that of
other sections. ^ Likewise, it is generally believed that unemployment
is most severe in just such sections. As will be seen in the analysis
of district 3, such results were obtained and corroborate this axiom.
These disclosures are helpful in planning relief for the unemployed,
particularly in periods of severe unemployment, and, as such, these
data have already proved of distinct value in this way.
Chart 4 presents a summary of the severity of both full-time and
part-time unemployment and the amount of per capita income in
each district. Chart 3 showed the boundaries of each district and
also the location of each of the 171 blocks enumerated. Several
tables in chapter 2 present definite information of variations in the
characteristics of each district and also numerous findings about the
character of unemployment in each area. In the following pages an
effort has been made to bring together all of the loose ends, and to
disclose the actual conditions in each district, with special emphasis
on points in which the various districts show great differences.

District 1
This district consists of all the territory between the Schuylkill
River and Cobbs Creek, extending south from Market Street to the
Delaware River. The western and southern #boundaries of this
district also mark the city limits in these directions. The northern
half of this division is densely populated and is a medium to high
grade residential section with little industrial development. The
43

44

CHAP. 3.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

southeastern portion is highly industrialized and the inhabitants are
of a lower economic status than those in the northern part. A large
area to the southwest, bordering along Cobbs Creek, is less thickly
populated and some of the land is used for agricultural purposes.
Thus, while this district includes various types of persons, by far the

CHART 4.— PER CENT OF PERSONS IN EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT UNEMPLOYED PART TIM E AND FULL
TIM E BECAUSE OF INABILITY TO FIND WORK. AND PER CAPITA INCOME

largest part of the population is made up of the better class in the
northern half.
Eight of the thirteen blocks in this district were specified as having
a native white population, three as having native and foreign white
inhabitants, and two as having a combination of white and colored
persons. Even in these latter two blocks the number of colored

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

45

persons was small, for only 137 colored families were enumerated in
the entire section. The block which showed the highest percentage
of unemployment in this area—11 per cent—was the only block with a
large colored population. The percentage of unemployment among
white wage earners was 6.4 per cent, as compared with 12.2 per cent
for colored persons. As for occupation, the enumerators classified
eight blocks as having professional and executive or clerical and trade
inhabitants. Two blocks were placed in the industrial and trade
group and three were totally industrial. The proportion of unem­
ployment in the blocks with professional and executive inhabitants
was 5.1 per cent full time and 1.4 per cent part time, in contrast to
10.7 per cent full time for the industrial and 10.7 per cent part time
for the industrial and trade divisions. In this district only 65.3 per
cent of those unemployed usually had manual jobs, as against 84.7
per cent for the entire sample.
Of the 171 school-census blocks included in the survey only 13 were
classed as having a high to medium economic status and 7 of these
were from district 1. The percentage of unemployment in the seven
blocks was 4.5 in comparison with 10.2 for the remaining six blocks
whose economic status was sufficiently high to merit medium-class
rating. The part-time results showed 0.9 per cent and 6.2 per cent,
respectively, for these blocks. The average family income in this
district is $3,208 and the per capita income $750, both of which are
the highest for any of the 10 districts.
From these analyses it can readily be seen that district 1 is favored
with alargely native white population engaged in professional, mercan­
tile, and clerical pursuits, and its inhabitants are receiving a higher
income on the average than are those in any other section. As would
be expected, this district had the lowest percentage of unemployment
in this survey as well as in the 1929 study and also in the census enum­
eration. Only 7.9 per cent of those usually employed were without
work, which is but slightly over half the city proportion of 15 per
cent. Nearly a 50 per cent increase of unemployment over the 5.3
per cent for April, 1929, was found this year. The part-time employ­
ment—4.1 per cent—is also under the city average. Likewise, only
11.4 per cent of the families reported some full-time unemployment
and 6.2 per cent had some partially unemployed members, while
these averages for the entire sample were 21.2 per cent and 8 per cent,
respectively. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.’s study in Decem­
ber, 1930, showed that in West Philadelphia the unemployment—both
part-time and full-time—was less severe than in any other section
of the city.
The distribution of full-time unemployment according to sex and
age was somewhat similar to that for the entire survey. In the
part-time analysis, 76.5 per cent of the unemployed in this section, as
compared with 70.4 per cent for the city, were males. Of the parttime unemployed females, 78.2 per cent were reported as being 21
years of age or over, while for the city only 67.4 per cent of the par­
tially unemployed females were in this age group. Thus, in this area,
severity of unemployment fell more heavily on males and on all
adults. In part-time unemployment, illness and superannuation
were more important reasons for idleness here than in other districts.
The duration of unemployment among the full-time jobless is closely
related to the city’s findings. Of the part-time unemployed persons

46

CHAP. 3.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

in this district, 34.7 per cent had been without regular work for over
six months and 9.7 per cent for over a year, while for the entire city
only 22.3 per cent had been without a regular job for over six months
and 6.1 per cent for over a year. The longer extension of idleness
in this district is due to the large number of professional and clerical
workers residing in this section, and, as was shown in chapter 2, the
duration of unemployment is most severe among those whose usual
occupations are of that kind.
The sample for district 1, while including the same blocks, is about
60 per cent larger in this survey than in the 1929 study. This increase
is explained by the fact that some blocks were not properly taken in
April, 1929, and had to be retaken later. As some of the enumerators
were not then available, only representative portions of these blocks
were enumerated. Nevertheless, the samples for both years appear to
have similar characteristics and both seem representative of West
Philadelphia.
District 2
School district 2 includes the western part of South Philadelphia
which is between Broad Street and the Schuylkill River. Although
in area it is not a very large section, yet it contains a wide diversifica­
tion of persons as to income, racial, economic, and occupational status.
That part of the district which adjoins Market Street and extends a
few" blocks to the south is mostly a commercial area, while along Pine
and Spruce Streets there is a wealthy residential and apartment sec­
tion which grades into a poorer population as the Schuylkill River is
approached. All along the Schuylkill River and in the extreme south­
ern area shipping and industrial activities^ predominate. The central
portion of this district from South to Mifflin Streets contains a low
economic group with a large colored and foreign-born population.
A higher-class group lives to the south of this area for some distance.
Although unemployment substantially increased in this district
from Apm, 1929, to April, 1930, the change was not so great as in
most of the other areas. In the former survey, district 2 had a higher
percentage of unemployment than the city as a whole (11.6 per cent
to 10.4 per cent), while in this study it showed a lower proportion than
did the entire city (14.7 per cent to 15 per cent). The part-time
unemployment analysis also revealed a lower average in this district
than in the whole city. The reasons for unemployment were mostly
similar to those for the entire sample, except that illness was a bigger
factor in full-time unemployment here than in any other district.
Just as the proportion of persons unemployed in this section is below
the city average, so the percentage of families affected is also below.
Only 20.9 per cent of families reported full-time and 6.5 per cent re­
ported part-time unemployment, as compared with 21.2 per cent and
8 per cent, respectively, for the total areas.
The diversification of inhabitants found in this district is shown by
the classification of the blocks by enumerators according to racial
characteristics. Each one of the five racial classes is represented in
at least one of the blocks. Five of the 15 blocks have a native white
population, 4 are in the foreign white group, and 2 are predominantly
colored. The other four are not homogeneous in race. The block
with the highest percentage of full-time unemployment (25.6 per cent)
is classed as foreign white, while the one with the heaviest part-time

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

47

unemployment has a large colored population. Only 2 of the 15
blocks were placed outside of the industrial class and those were
classed as composed of clerical and trade workers. Both of these
blocks showed less severity than the district as a unit. In classifying
according to economic status, only 2 blocks were in the high to medium
class and they showed a lower proportion of unemployment than did
the entire district. Likewise, the nine blocks in the medium group
reported a percentage lower than the entire district and much lower
than the four blocks in the low to medium class which showed 16.5
per cent of full-time unemployment. This relationship is similar to
that found in most other districts. Incomes per family and per
capita, as estimated on the basis of the Cawl survey, were $2,035 and
$444, respectively, both much lower than the city average.
The average number of persons per family was 4.8 and the average
number of wage earners per family was 2.0, both of which were above
the results of the entire sample. In this district workers under 21
years of age reported a higher than average proportion of unemploy­
ment. Whereas for the city 23.3 per cent of the jobless were under
21 years of age, 28.5 per cent of those unemployed in this area were
in that age group. Duration of unemployment was relatively less
severe in this district, with 70.4 per cent of the unemployed persons
having been without a regular job for over one month as against 80
per cent of all jobless in the sample. Likewise, in the part-time
analysis the unemployed persons in this district had not been without
work for as long as those in other parts of the city.

District 3
Extending from Broad Street to the Delaware River and south of
Washington Street to the city limits, also along the Delaware River,
this district is characterized by a densely settled population of rela­
tively low economic and social status. The area along the river is
given over to numerous shipping and industrial activities, while the
rest of the section is mostly of a poor residential character. Only 37.1
per cent of the population are usually employed as compared with
43.6 per cent for the entire sample. This fact is explained by the size
of the families, which average larger than in any other district—5.2
persons per family. According to estimates based on the Cawl
survey, the average family income was $2,321 and the per capita
income $444, both well below the city average, particularly the latter
figure.
Ten of the twelve blocks in this section were specified by the
enumerators as having a predominantly foreign-white population,
while the other two blocks had both colored and white inhabitants.
As was pointed out in chapter 2, the severity of unemployment fell
mostly among the foreign whites and, as expected, the 10 blocks in
this classification had higher proportions of both full-time and parttime jobless than were found in the blocks with mixed races. Only
two blocks were not placed in the industrial classification of occu­
pation status, and they have a clerical and trade status. Only
13.2 per cent of unemployment existed in these two blocks as com­
pared with 26.1 per cent of unemployment in the 10 industrial blocks.
Half of the blocks were placed in the medium and the other half in
the medium to low economic classes. An exception exists here, in

48

CHAP. 3.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

that more unemployment was found in the medium than in the medium
to low blocks. One of the blocks in this area had 39.9 per cent of
full-time unemployment and it was characterized as having an indus­
trial foreign-white population of low economic status.
Unemployment was more severe in this section than in any other,
in both the 1929 and the current survey, and also in the census report.
Part-time results showed only one other district with as large a pro­
portion of partially employed persons. Of the 4,837 usually employed,
23.4 per cent were totally without work and an additional 7.9 were
only partially unemployed. Only 2 of the 12 blocks had less than
the 15 per cent average for the city, while 5 blocks reported over onefourth of their wage earners as being totally idle. Over 1 out of
every 3 Negroes usually employed were unable to find work, while
18.7 per cent of the white wage earners were in this class. A higher
percentage of the unemployed attributed their condition to inability
to find work than in any other section. More than 31 per cent of the
families in this district had some totally idle members, while 11.8 per
cent had some part-time workers. For the city as a whole only 21.2
per cent of the families reported some full-time unemployed members
and 8 per cent indicated some partially unemployed. A higher pro­
portion of the full-time unemployed in this district than in the city
were out of work for over three months and over six months, while the
percentage without a regular job for over a year was the smallest—6.8
per cent to 9.1 per cent for the survey total. The part-time analysis
also revealed a high percentage of jobless who had lost over one month,
and also over three months’ time, since their last regular full-time job.
For the city, 74.5^per cent of those unable to find work were males,
while in this district 77.6 per cent of them were males, and 49.3 per
cent of the females unable to locate a position were under 21 years
of age, as contrasted with 35.5 per cent for the city.
Nearly 90 per cent of the unemployed, both full time and part time,
had had manual occupations. Unemployment in general was ex­
tremely severe in this area, with the foreign-white and colored popu­
lation sharing most of it. The males accounted for more than their
share of the jobless, as did the females under 21 years of age.

District 4
A triangular area bordered on the south by Market Street and on
the other two sides by the Schuylkill River and city line is all included
in this district. Much of the section is taken up by such nonresidential areas as Fairmount Park, the Pennsylvania Hospital for the
Insane, and Cobbs Creek Park. A large part of the population is
of a high social and economic status, particularly that residing in
Wynnefield and in the area west of Sixty-third Street. A lower
economic class is found near the Schuylkill River and for some distance
westward, particularly along Market Street and along the railroad
lines to the north. Both the proportion of the population usually
employed and the average size of the families were very close to the
results found for the entire sample. The average income per family
and per capita, of $2,496 and $559, respectively, were but slightly
above the averages for the city.
Full-time unemployment in this district was less severe than for
the city as a whole, while a lower proportion of part-time unemploy­

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

49

ment was registered here than in any one of the other nine districts.
Only 1.9 per cent of the wage earners were partially unemployed,
while 13.8 per cent were totally jobless. For the city as a whole,
8 per cent of the families reported some part-time unemployment,
whereas in this district but 3.2 per cent of the families did so. The
distribution of unemployment in this area was very similar to that
in the rest of the city in most respects. None of the part-time job­
less had held executive positions, while a very high percentage of both
the full-time and part-time unemployed persons were accustomed to
doing manual work. Over 57 per cent of the partially idle had been
without a full-time regular job for over three months, as compared
with 45.7 per cent for all districts combined.
In both the 1929 and the 1930 surveys and in the census report,
18 blocks were enumerated in this district. The population in these
blocks as reported by the census was far in excess of that indicated by
the attendance officers. Likewise, the census enumerators reported
many more wage earners and a few more unemployed persons. This
large variation can partially be explained by the fact that our enu­
merators made but one call and they also aimed primarily at getting
a 10 per cent sample of the population in these blocks and no more,
with the result that some of the school-census blocks were not taken
in their entirety.
Approximately one-fourth of the families enumerated m this dis­
trict were colored and the percentage of full-time unemployed Negroes
unable to find work was 16.2 in comparison with 11.4 for the white
persons. Both races reported very little part-time unemployment. In
the three blocks specified by the attendance officers as native white,
only 8.4 per cent of those usually employed were fully unemployed
and 0.4 per cent partially unemployed. The four native and foreign
white blocks had 11.6 per cent and the five colored blocks showed 14.6
per cent of full-time jobless. The heaviest extent of both full-time
and part-time unemployment—17.3 per cent and 2.7 per cent, respec­
tively—was found to exist in the six blocks with mixed colored and
white inhabitants. In the economic analysis, the eight blocks given
a medium status indicated 9.7 per cent of full-time unemployment as
against 16.6 per cent for the remaining blocks, rated in the medium
to low classification. In spite of the high-class residential areas in
some parts of this district, all but one of the sample blocks were
classed as having an industrial population, while the one exception
was placed in the clerical and trade group. This one block reported
the lowest proportion of full-time unemployment in the district—3.4
per cent—and no part-time unemployed. It was also classed as
having a predominantly native white population of a medium eco­
nomic status. One block in the section had 23.9 per cent of wage
earners out of work, and it had a mixed racial population of an indus­
trial and low economic rating. Two of the 18 blocks had no part-time
unemployment, while the highest was 5.2 per cent, the same proportion
as was found for the entire sample.

District 5
This district includes the part of Philadelphia between Broad Street
and the Schuylkill Eiver, north of Market Street to Allegheny Avenue.
Much of the southeastern part of this section, particularly along

50

CHAP. 3 .— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

Market and Broad Streets, is taken up by various business houses,
mostly mercantile establishments. In the extreme northern and
western parts a middle class of persons live, while in the central areas
there is a mixed population of a somewhat lower economic status.
The largest number of wage earners per family for any area was found
in this division, with an average of 2.1 persons usually employed for
each family included in this survey. The economic status as inter­
preted by the income figures based on the Cawl survey shows an
income per family of $2,210 and a per capita of $489, much below the
city average. Within the district there were wide income variations,
some being far above and others far below these averages.
In the 1929 survey this district reported a smaller percentage of
unemployment than was found for the city, while in the current report
it was found that the proportion of jobless in this area was larger than
for the entire city. While unemployment was 44 per cent more severe
in Philadelphia in April, 1930, than the year before, the increase in
this district was over 62 per cent. Of the 9,451 wage earners in this
area, 15.4 per cent were unemployed and 12.6 per cent were unable to
find work in April, 1930. Part-time unemployment, on the other
hand, was less extensive in this section than in eight of the other nine
districts, with only 3.9 per cent of those usually employed idle part
of the time.
A distribution of the full-time unemployed persons according to
reasons gave results very similar to those found for the entire city.
This was the only district in which none of the partially unemployed
stated that their idleness was due to superannuation. In both the
full-time and part-time unemployed groups, a larger portion had done
clerical work in this district than in the entire city. The duration of
unemployment for the fully unemployed was about the same as for
the entire survey, while the part-time workers lost much less time in
this area than in others. Unemployment was a bit more severe among
females and particularly heavy among adults in both sexes. For the
city, 64.5 per cent of the fully unemployed females were over 21 years
of age, while in this area 72.6 per cent of them were in that age group.
Likewise, among the jobless males and among all those partially unem­
ployed, the severity fell upon adults.
The same number of blocks as were used in the 1929 survey was
included in this study, though one replacement was made. The
investigators had covered this one block for their school census prior
to the start of this enumeration and rather than duplicate their
efforts, an adjoining block of similar characteristics was used. The
13 blocks classed as having a medium economic status reported 13.8
per cent of full-time unemployment as against 19.7 per cent for the
remaining 7 blocks placed in the medium to low class. In the occupa­
tional classification 13 blocks were indicated as industrial and 7 as
industrial and trade. The former reported 16.9 per cent and the
latter 12.8 per cent of unemployment. Only 8 of the 20 blocks in the
district were classed as having a predominantly native white popula­
tion and it was found that 13.6 per cent of the wage earners there were
without work, while the 4 blocks of a mixed colored and white popu­
lation reported 17.7 per cent. The 6 foreign white and the 2 colored
blocks showed slightly higher percentages of unemployment than did
the district. More than one-sixth of those enumerated in this area
were colored and 18.3 per cent of their wage earners were unable to

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

51

find work, while of the white persons usually employed only 11 per
cent were in the same predicament. Two blocks reported less than
10 per cent while 4 blocks reported over 25 per cent of full-time unem­
ployment. In the part-time results wide variations were also found—
1.2 per cent in 1 block to 15.9 per cent in another.

District 6
Although this district is the smallest in area it consists mainly of
Philadelphia’s most important business sections. It lies between
Broad Street and the Delaware Kiver, extending from Girard Avenue
south to Washington Avenue. All along the river front and in the
northern portion of this division extensive shipping and industrial
activities are carried on. In the central section, extending a few
blocks to the north and south of Market Street, a large wholesale and
retail commercial area is located. In the northwestern and the south­
ern parts of the district there is a population of relatively low eco­
nomic and social status. While the income per family of $2,341 was
below the city average, the income per capita of $609 was far more
than the average for the entire city. This discrepancy is due to the
small families in this territory, the average being only 3.8 persons per
family. Nearly one-half of the population—48.2 per cent—in this
district is usually employed. Probably this exceptional condition is
due to the number of single persons working and living alone in this
area.
In the 1929 survey this district had the second largest percentage
of unemployment, while in April, 1930, it had the third highest pro­
portion in the part-time and full-time analyses and also in the census
data for the 166 blocks. Of the 5,032 wage earners enumerated in
April, 1930, 19.7 per cent were totally unemployed and an additional
7.6 per cent were working only on a part-time basis. Of the white
workers, 15.4 per cent were unable to find work, as compared with
17.6 per cent of the Negroes. In the part-time analysis the racial
disparity was greater, with 8.4 per cent of the Negroes and 3.8 per
cent of the white wage earners working on a part-time basis because
they were unable to locate regular jobs. Duration of unemploy­
ment in this district for those totally without work was about the
same as for the city as a whole, but the partially unemployed persons
in this district had been without a regular job longer than those in
other divisions of Philadelphia. A larger than average proportion
of the full-time and part-time unemployed persons were from the
manual class. Inability to find work accounted for a smaller per­
centage of unemployment in this district than in any other. Relative
to conditions in other districts, in this one the males bore the burden
of full-time unemployment and females suffered more severely from
part-time unemployment. In both cases those wage earners over
21 years of age shared a larger portion of the unemployment than for
the city in its entirety.
All of the 15 blocks in district 6 were classified by the attendance
officers as being industrial and having a population of a medium to
low economic status. In the racial analysis only 2 blocks were
specified as having predominantly native white inhabitants and in
them only 13 per cent of full-time unemployment existed as com­
pared to 19.7 per cent for the district. The 4 colored blocks reported

52

CHAP. 3.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

14.5 per cent, while 22 per cent of the wage earners in the 5 foreign
white blocks were without jobs. Similarly, unemployment was
severe in the blocks which consisted of a mixed colored and white
population. In 2 blocks—one native white and the other colored—
less than 10 per cent of the wage earners were out of work, while 1
block with a colored and foreign white population reported 37.3 per
cent of idle wage earners. Seven of the 15 blocks showed over
20 per cent of full-time unemployment.

District 7
District 7, which contributed 22 of the 171 blocks used in the
survey, is densely settled by an industrial population of a relatively
low economic status. Only in the extreme western part of the district
along Broad Street, and somewhat along Lehigh Avenue, does one
find a higher-class residential section. The area included in district 7
lies between Broad Street on the east, Girard Avenue and the Dela­
ware River on the south, and Lehigh, Kensington, and Allegheny
Avenues along the north and east. Considerable industrial develop­
ment is spread over the whole section, while extensive mill operations
are found in the eastern portion and shipbuilding activities border
the Delaware. Although the incomes are small, the families in this
district were found to be larger than in most other districts, with an
average of 4.8 persons for each family included in the survey. From
the Cawl survey estimates the average income per family was $1,939
and the per capita was $407, both of which were by far the lowest
found in any district.
As might be expected from the economic and occupational char­
acter of this district, unemployment was extremely severe here,
being exceeded only by that in district 3 in South Philadelphia.
According to the census data for the 10 districts, this one was similarly
found to rank second only to district 3 in intensity of unemployment.
Over one out of five—20.4 per cent, to be exact—of those usually
employed were without jobs, and 6.8 per cent were on part-time jobs.
Only in 3 of the 22 blocks was there a smaller percentage of unemploy­
ment than was calculated for the city, while 1 block reported 31.2
per cent and 6 blocks indicated more than one-fourth of their wage
earners as being entirely jobless. One particular block in this district
showed 22.7 per cent of full-time and 24.4 per cent of part-time
unemployment, leaving slightly over one-half of the wage earners
holding regular full-time jobs. For the entire city it was found that
21.2 per cent of the families enumerated reported some of their
members without any work, while in this area 29.8 per cent of the
families had at least one member out of a job.
Inability to find work accounted for 86 per cent of the full-time
unemployment and 95 per cent of the part-time unemployment.
Only 6.8 per cent, as contrasted with 9 per cent for the city, gave
illness as the reason for their being totally unemployed. Four of
the 1,312 full-time unemployed persons and but one of the 434
partially unemployed persons had held executive positions prior to
their idleness. The average duration of both full-time and part-time
unemployment in this division seems to have been less than for the
city as a whole. Particularly was this condition true among the
partially unemployed, of whom 20 per cent had lost over three months

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

53

and only 2.3 per cent had been without regular work for over a year,
as compared with 45.7 per cent and 6.1 per cent for the city for like
periods. Among both males and females unemployment was felt
more severely by those over 21 years of age.
Only one block was specified by the attendance officers as not being
industrial and in that block the major occupations were of a clerical
and trade nature. In that block the severity of unemployment was
nearly the same as in the 21 industrial units. Eighteen blocks were
given a medium to low economic rating, while the other four were placed
m the medium class. Only 14.5 per cent of the wage earners were
totally unemployed and 2.9 per cent partially unemployed in the
medium blocks, as against 22 and 7.8 per cent, respectively, for the
medium to low units. In the racial analysis the two blocks specified as
having predominately a colored population reported 29 per cent of
unemployment, whereas the native white blocks showed only 18.9
per cent. Inability to find work accounted for 29.4 per cent of
unemployment among colored wage earners and for only 16.5 per
cent among the unemployed white persons. Although, for the entire
city, unemployment was most severe among the foreign whites, in
this district the Negroes had the highest proportion. The block with
the lowest percentage of unemployment in this district—12.9 per
cent—consisted of a native white population with a medium economic
status. On the other hand, the block which reported 31.2 per cent
of full-time unemployment was composed mainly of Negro laborers
with a low economic rating.

District 8
Covering the large northwestern comer of Philadelphia, north of
Allegheny Avenue and the Schuylkill River and west of Broad
Street, this district is composed of a great diversity of inhabitants.
The area to the east of the Wissahickon Creek consists of a much
higher type of residential section than is to be found to the west of
this dividing line. Chestnut Hill is one of the finest residential sec­
tions in the entire city and there the family income is higher than in
any of the other Cawl survey areas. Germantown also contains a
population of high economic and social character. Directly west of
Broad Street and to the north is a newly settled division with a higher
than average class. To the west of the Wissahickon Creek are the
Roxborough and Manayunk districts, both of which contain families
of a lower economic standing than do the districts to the east and
north. The Manayunk section houses a densely settled industrial
population, along with numerous factories and mills. In Roxborough,
the economic status of the people is somewhat higher than in Mana­
yunk, but the income there is also below the city average.
Mainly because of the high-income families in parts of this dis­
trict, the average income per family of $2,817 and per capita of $690
were higher than in any other district with the exception of district
1 in West Philadelphia. The average size of the families in this
section was found to be 4.1 members per family, which is considerably
lower than that indicated for the entire survey. The proportion of
the population usually employed in this area was higher than in most
of the other districts.

54

CHAP. 3.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

Although but 10 large blocks were enumerated in district 8, never­
theless these blocks furnished a larger population than did those in
any one other district. Three of the blocks were classified as having
a high to medium economic status, and in them only 7 per cent of
full-time and 2.8 per cent of part-time unemployment was reported,
while the four blocks with a medium rating indicated 12.1 per cent of
full-time and 3.3 per cent of part-time unemployment. The attend­
ance officers placed the remaining three blocks in the medium to low
class and in these blocks 19.2 per cent of those usually employed were
totally jobless, while an additional 10 per cent were working only on a
part-time basis. These results show a distinct indirect relationship
between economic status and the severity of unemployment. Accord­
ing to occupational rating, the two blocks which were specified as
having a professional and executive standing showed only 6.6 per
cent of full-time unemployment. For the rest of the district, the one
clerical and trade block reported 7.5 per cent, the industrial and
trade block had 12.1 per cent, and the other six blocks, rated as
industrial, showed 16.2 per cent of full-time unemployment. The
facts derived from this section also reveal the same tendency as was
found for the combined districts. The racial analysis similarly
presents the same picture in this district as that shown for the entire
city. The most severe unemployment was found in one block
specified as foreign white, where 20.2 per cent of the working popula­
tion were not holding any job and 23.5 per cent had only part-time
work. This is quite a contrast to the results found in the five native
white blocks, which reported 8.3 per cent of full-time and 2.8 per cent
of part-time unemployment. The remaining blocks, with mixed
native and foreign white and white and colored population, disclosed
proportions of unemployment between these extremes.
Unemployment was lighter in this district than in any other one
except district 1, where incomes likewise averaged higher. In the
1929 survey and also in the census report this district ranked third
and not second in severity of unemployment. Exactly 1 out of 8
wage earners—12.5 per cent—in this area was without any work,
while 5.2 per cent were partially unemployed. Inability to find work
accounted for a relatively smaller portion of unemployment, both
full-time and part-time, in this district than in other sections. One
block in Chestnut Hill reported only 12 persons fully unemployed
and 1 person partially unemployed among the 382 workers; i. e.,
only 3.1 per cent and 0.3 per cent, respectively. On the other hand,
within the same district, one of the Manayunk blocks showed 24.2
per cent of the wage earners out of work and 16.8 per cent unem­
ployed part of the time. The former block was specified as having a
native white population of professional and executive employment
character and of a high economic status, while the block with the
extreme unemployment consists of mixed foreign and native white
inhabitants of low economic status and industrial occupations.
Duration of unemployment in this district was considerably longer
than for the whole city. For all districts 26.4 per cent of the full­
time unemployed had been without regular work for more than six
months and 9.1 per cent for more than a year, while in this section the
proportions for similar periods were 33.4 per cent and 14 per cent,
respectively. The part-time analysis disclosed a similar tendency,
64.7 per cent of the partially jobless having lost over three months in

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

55

this district as compared with 45.7 per cent for the city as a whole.
Both males and females over 21 years of age reported more than
their proportionate share of unemployment as compared with those
under that age limit.
A relatively large proportion of the full-time unemployed were in
the professional, executive, and clerical classes. The part-time
results, on the other hand, disclosed a very large percentage of the
partially unemployed persons as having held manual jobs.

District 9
Extending north of Lehigh and Kensington Avenues to the city
limits and east of Broad Street to the Tacony Creek, this district is
representative of a medium to high residential section. In the entire
northern portion of the district and all along Broad Street, the popu­
lation is made up of a high income and economic group of families.
The southern and eastern parts are settled by a mediocre social class
engaged in industrial occupations. The average family in this area
consisted of only 3.9 persons, which is smaller than in any other area
with the exception of district 4. According to the Cawl survey an
average per capita income of $657 was found for the entire district,
while a much higher income prevailed in the northern part and much
less to the south and east.
The attendance officers specified 9 of the 18 blocks as having a
medium economic status and the other 9 were rated as being in the
medium to low class. For the former group 10.2 per cent of full-time
and 3.8 per cent of part-time unemployment was reported, while the
medium to low blocks had 15.8 and 8.2 per cent, respectively. In the
occupational analysis only five blocks were placed outside of the
industrial category and these were classed as industrial and trade.
The industrial blocks showed 13.9 per cent of full-time unemploy­
ment as compared with 9.1 per cent for the industrial and trade units.
All except one block had predominantly a native white population,
while that exception was a block with foreign white inhabitants.
Little disparity of unemployment was found to exist in this one block.
It is interesting to note that of the 17,866 persons included in the
survey from this district only 11 persons were colored and not one of
them was unemployed, either all or part of the time, when the survey
was made.
Severity of unemployment in this district was not much above dis­
trict 8, which was one of the two districts reporting a smaller per­
centage of jobless than this section. Of the 7,757 wage earners, 986
or 12.7 per cent were totally unemployed and 5.8 per cent were par­
tially unemployed. Thus, while full-time unemployment was rela­
tively small in this area, part-time idleness was more intense than for
the city as a whole. Only 16.9 per cent of the families interviewed
indicated some idle members as against 21.2 per cent for the survey
total. Part-time unemployed members were found in 8.1 per cent of
this district’s families as compared with 8 per cent for the city. The
recent census report showed a slightly higher proportion of unem­
ployment in this section than was found for the 10 districts combined.
Full-time unemployment within the district varied from 6.1 per cent
in one block to 28.7 per cent in another. Likewise the part-time anal­
ysis revealed wide variations, with extremes of 0.2 and 15.4 per cent.
68400°—32------5

56

CHAP. 3.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

Duration of unemployment was but slightly longer in this district
than in the city. Similarly the distribution of unemployment accord­
ing to reasons found this section following the total survey findings
very closely. Unemployed workers under 21 years of age were less
affected in this district than in most others. Whereas for the entire
survey 85 per cent of unemployed males were 21 years of age or over,
in this area 92.4 per cent of them were 21 years of age or over.
An extremely large proportion of both full-time and part-time
unemployed persons in this district had held manual jobs. Of those
totally idle, 87.7 per cent were recruited from the manual group, and
of the partially unemployed wage earners 94.2 per cent had held such
jobs prior to their part-time inactivity.

District 10
The entire northeastern section of Philadelphia extending north and
east of Frankford Creek is included in this district, the largest in the
city. Much of the vast acreage in this section is undeveloped and
only scattered houses are to be found in certain of these parts, par­
ticularly in the northern half of ^the district. The portion which
borders on the Delaware River is industrial in character and consists
mostly of low economic and social groups. The economic status
improves toward the west, with a medium class in the central area
and a very high income group in Lawndale and Fox Chase along the
western end of the district. The Cawl survey income figures for this
area were found to average $2,166 per family and $500 per capita,
which were well below the averages for the city as a whole.
This district is less comparable, from the 1929 to 1930 survey, than
is any other one district. Four of the 26 blocks used in 1929 were
dropped, either because of incorrect enumeration or because of errors
in block definitions. In place thereof, six new blocks were added, two
of which yielded very few families, so that the size of the sample was
little changed. What is more significant is the fact that the census
for the 26 blocks which were included in the 1929 study showed
about four times as large a population for these blocks as was found
in the 28 blocks included in this survey. The attendance officers
reported 11,322 persons in the 28 blocks and the census showed
46,687 persons for nearly the same area. Most of this disparity is
due to misunderstandings of block definitions and locations. The
attendance officers included in the survey only a part of the extremely
large blocks in this section, while the census enumerators took the
entire population of each specified block, no matter how large, which
procedure was quite proper. The proportion of the population
usually employed was quite close for the census and this survey,
43.5 and 43 per cent, respectively.
Unemployment was less severe in this district than in the entire
city, as far as total idleness is concerned, while part-time unemploy­
ment was more severe in this district than in any other section. Of
the 4,865 wage earners, 14.2 per cent were totally unoccupied and
an additional 8.2 per cent were partially idle. Incidence of unem­
ployment in this district varied from no unemployment in two small
blocks and only 2.3 per cent in a large block to 31 per cent in another
unit. Eleven of the twenty-eight blocks reported less than 10 per
cent while eight blocks had over 20 per cent of full-time unemploy­

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

57

ment. In the part-time analysis it was found that three blocks
reported 1 per cent or less idlelness, whereas thirteen blocks indicated
more than 10 per cent of the wage earners as being partially unem­
ployed. These variations reflect the great differences of economic
character within the district.
Except for the professional and executive class in the occupational
analysis, the enumerators found that each classification in the racial,
economic, and occupational analyses included one or more of the
blocks in the district. One block was rated as having a high eco­
nomic character and only 4.4 per cent of the working population
there were unemployed, as compared with 13.1 per cent for the me­
dium and 14.8 per cent for the medium to low economic blocks. Sim­
ilarly, the relationship of unemployment and occupational status was
the same for this district as for the city. The blocks with clerical
and trade groups reported only 7.6 per cent of full-time and 1.6 per
cent of part-time unemployment, while the industrial and trade
blocks showed 13.5 per cent and 10 per cent and the totally industrial
ones reported 17.2 per cent and 9.2 per cent, respectively. In the
racial analysis an exception was found when the one block specified
as having predominantly a Negro population showed the lowest pro­
portion of idleness, with 8.1 per cent of full-time and 2.9 per cent of
part-time unemployment. True to other findings the foreign white
blocks reported the heaviest unemployment, with those of mixed
whites and mixed white and colored inhabitants following closely,
while in the 15 native white areas only 12.8 per cent of those usually
employed were reported as being entirely unemployed.
For both the full-time and part-time unemployed persons, idleness
was generally of shorter duration in this district than in the city as
a whole. Particularly was this true in the part-time results, where
52.3 per cent of the unemployed had been without regular work for
over one month and 35.9 per cent for over three months, as con­
trasted with 68.2 per cent and 45.7 per cent, respectively, for the city.
Full-time unemployment was distributed, according to reasons, about
the same in this as in most other districts. Whereas in the entire
city 86.6 per cent of those partially idle were unable to find work,
95.8 per cent of the part-time unemployed in this area attributed
their idleness to this cause. The incidence of unemployment in this
section fell more heavily on female wage earners and those usually
employed who are under 21 years of age, than in any other section.
For the entire sample 25.5 per cent of the totally jobless were females,
while in this district 30.2 per cent were females. The occupational
distribution of both full-time and part-time unemployment in this
section was representative of the city, except that oyer one-third of
the part-time unemployed persons failed to specify their usual
occupations.

T a b le

2 7 .—

,

,

Unemployment statistics of Philadelphia in April 1980, by districts
District

Item

No. 1

No. 2

3,894
16,677
4.3
7,050

3,654
16,757
4.6
7,207

$3,208
$750
11.4

6.2

$2,035
$444
20.9
6.5

Per cent

Per cent

Per cent

12.2

6.6

36,665
160,208
4.4
69,884
1.9
$2,440
$558

21.2
8.0

1.8

FULL-TIME UNEMPLOYED PERSONS

Total unemployed.
____________________
Unable to find work
____________________
White persons unable to find work ______________________
Negroes unable to find work
___________ _____-.......
Occupations:
All occupations
____ _______________________
TVfn/nHfll
__ _____________
Clerical __
. _____ _______ ______
Executive
_ _______________________
Unspecified_
_
_________________________
Unable to find work—Sex:
Total. _ _ _
______________________
Males....... .................... .... ....... ............ ...............................
Females_____________ _______________________________
Unable to find work—Age:
Total____________ __________________________________
Under 21 years_____ _______________________________
21 years and over
_______________________________
Reasons for unemployment:
All reasons__________ __________________________ _____
Unable to find work__________________________________
Sickness_____ ____________________________________
Superannuation_____________________________________
Indifference____ ____ ________________________________
Other reasons........... ........................... ..................................

No. 3

15.0

7.9

6.4

11.5
16.2

12.2

100.0

100.0

2.0

2,493
13,028
5.2
4,837
1.9
$2,321
$444
31.4

11.8

Per cent
23.4
19.4
11.8
13.2
18.7
8.4
33.7

14.7

100.0

100.0

No. 5

No. 6

3,880
17,338
4.5
7,801

4,455
20,125
4.5
9,451

3,237
15,435
4.8
6,418

21,221

$2,496
$559
20.9
3.2

$2,210
$489
23.8

2,714
10,439
3.8
5,032
1.9
$2,341
$609
26.9

$1,939
$407
29.8

11.2

$2,817
$690
17.7
7.6

Per cent

Per cent

Per cent

Per cent

Per cent

No. 4

2.0

13.8
11.4
9.4
16.7

100.0

2.1

6.8

15.4

11.8

12.6
11.0

18.3

19.7
16.1
15.4
17.6

100.0

100.0

80.9

No. 7

2.0

20.4
17.4
16.5
29.4

No. 8
5,195

4.1
9,466

1.8

12.5
9.7
9.6
11.3

No. 9
4,532
17,866
3.9
7,757
1.7
$2,587
$657
16.9

8.1

Per cent

12.7

10.2
10.2

No. 10
2,611
11,322
4.3
4,865
1.9
$'., 166
$500

20.2

11.5
Per cent

14.2

11.6

10.9

21.8

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1.1

.6

5.6

89.2
6.5
.3
4.0

4.6

88.7
7.6
.3
3.4

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

84.7
9.4
1.5
4.4

74.5
25.5

23.3
76.7

100.0
83.6
9.0
3.9

1.8

1.7

65.3

22.6
10.1
2.0
73.1
26.9

24.8
75.2

100.0
84.7

10.0
2.4

1.1
1.8

83.1
10.7

76.2
23.8
28.5
71.5

100.0
82.8
11.5

2.6
2.3

.8

77.6
22.4
26.4
73.6

100.0
86.7
6.3
4.4
1.9
.7

90.0
6.9
1.4
1.7

74.8
25.2

10.2

89.2
5.1

1.4
7.5

72.4
27.6

76.3
23.7

75.7
24.3

80.4
12.5
2.5
4.6

72.0
28.0

87.7
9.7
1.3
1.3

75.2
24.8

84.0
7.2
.7

8.1

69.8
30.2

100.0
18.8
81.2

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

75A

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0
86.0
6.8

100.0

100.0

100.0

11.0
.6

2.8
1.2

24.6

83.6

8.8

4.8

1.8
1.0

83.7
9.2
3.7
1.9
1.5

19.9
80.1

84.0
2.7
1.7

19.1
80.9

3.2

25.1
74.9

79.4

10.0
6.7
1.3

2.6

19.5
80.5

80.8
8.7
3.0
1.9
5.6

31.6
68.4

84.3
9.0
5.2
.3

1.2

CHAP. 3.— UNEMPLOYMENT IN PHILADELPHIA

Nlimhei* of families interviewed _
Number nf persons in families
.... . ....
Average size of family..... .
____________
Nin^he** of persons employable
Number employable per family...________ _______ _________
Average family inf»om^.... . ^. T.
T
.... Average per capita income________________________________
Proportion of families with full-time unemployment ________
Proportion of families with part-time unemployment_________

Phila­
delphia

Time lost since last regular job:
1 day or more................................................. .
More than 1 month.........................................
More than 3 months______________________
More than 6 months.___ _________________
More than 1 year.................. ..........................

100.0

79.0
66.1

26.8
7.9

100.0

100.0

22.6
8.0

6.8

70.4
47.6

86.9
64.0
30.5

100.0
79.9
57.4
28.3
8.4

100.0

100.0

8.2

10.0

78.0
55.4
28.3

83.3
55.9
26.4

100.0
80.0
47.3
19.4
7.4

100.0

80.6
60.3
33.4
14.0

100.0

100.0

10.1

76.4
54.6
24.2
11.3

83.9
58.4
23.4

PART-TIME UNEMPLOYED PERSONS

4.1
3.3
3.1
.4

4.4
3.4
2.4

7.9
6.4

100.0

100.0

81.3
13.9
3.1
1.7

100.0

76.5
23.5

100.0

100.0

84.5
6.4
2.5
.4
6.1

100.0

77.8
59.0
34.7
9.7

85.7
6.4

3.9

3.5
3.6
3.3

5.2

2.0

7.6
5.4
3.8
8.4

6.8

8.5

2.2
2.1
2.6

2.1
2.2

5.8
5.0
5. a

4.6
4.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1.2
.2

89.8

1.6

91.1
3.4

7.3

6.8

5.5

44.2

90.2
4.3
.4
5.1

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0
21.2

100.0
30.1
69.9

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

78.8

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

69.0
31.0

87.2
4.6
.7
.7

2.1

1.3

75.1
24.9

94.2

1.2
2.2

6.8

1.5
.9

100.0

100.0

57.3
31.5
13.7
4.8

84.3
59.9
29.3
5.2

70.2
29.8

16.1
83.9

6.0

88.7
2.9
.5
7.9

70.5
29.5

19.9
80.1

89.9
84.0
3.6
5.6
.7
.7 ........ I.Y
5.1
9.2

100.0
82.2
57.5
28.1
4.8

100.0
51.1
35.4
16.2
4.7

59.4
40.6

14.4
85.6
74.0
6.3
.3

54.4

8.8

1.4
9.9

.6

82.7

1.4

8.2

69.9
30.1

19.9
80.1

95.0

2.1
.4

70.6
29.4

23.4
76.6

76.6
3.9

94.2
4.2
.7
.9
71.5
28.5

16.0
84.0
89.4

95.8
3.4
.4
.4

100.0

2.1
.4

17.5

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

6.8

38.7

20.0
8.5
2.3

23.6
76.4

1.2
.8

1.6

80.8
50.1
25.2

70.4
29.6

1.6

.9
.7
7.4

17.8

61.8
2.5
.3
35.4

81.3
64.7
32.3
8.9

82.8
49.1
20.5

6.0

52.3
35.9
19.1
7.3

DISTRICTS

16.7
83.3

6.1

1.9
1.4

6.2

SCHOOL

Total unemployed..................................................
Unable to find work...............................................
White persons unable to find work...................... .
Negroes unable to find work...................................
Occupations:
All occupations............................................... .
Manual............................................................
Clerical.............................................................
Executive.........................................................
Unspecified................................... ..................
Unable to find work—Sex:
Total................................................................
Males................................................. .... .........
Females............................................................
Unable to find work —
Age:
Total................................................................
Under 21 years......................... ........................
21 years and over.............................................
Reasons for unemployment:
All reasons.......................................................
Unable to find work..................... ..................
Sickness............................................................
Superannuation............................ ......... .........
Indifference-....................................................
Other reasons...................................................
Time lost since last regular job:
1 day or more...................................................
More than 1 month__________________ ____
More than 3 months______________________
More than 6 months.......................................
More than 1 year.............................................

Appendix.—Part-time Unemployment Data
In order that the text should not be broken up too much by tables,
it was decided to assemble most of the tables analyzing part-time
unemployment in one group and to present them in this appendix.
1.— Number and per cent of white persons and of Negroes unable to find work

T able

White persons
District

All races

Unable to find
work

Unable to find
work

Unable to find
Number
Number
Number
work
usually
usually
usually
employed Number Per cent employed Number Per cent employed Number Per cent

No. 1........ .
No. 2........ .
No. 3.........
No. 4_____
No. 5_____
No. 6_____
No. 7_____
No. 8_____
No. 9.........
No. 10........

6,775
5,027
4,535
5,599
7,438
3,287
5,935
8,789
7,728
4,512

213

Total.

59,625

1,958

122

281
78
158
126

211

188
386
195

3.1
2.4
6.2

1.4

2
.1
3.8
3.6
2.2

5.0
4.3
3.3

247
1,958
258
2,137
1,931
1,731
449
661

19
120

0.4

44
50
145
15
9

2.0

27

&
8

7,050
7,207
4,837
7,801
9,451
5,032
6,418
9,466
7,757
4,865

451

4.7

69,884

22

0)308
9,680

6
.1

8.5

2
.6
8.4
3.3
1.4

234
245
310
124

3.3
3.4
6.4

271
226
197
387
225

5.4
3.5

2,429

3.5

210

1
.6

2.2

2.1

5.0
4.6

i No Negroes usually employed.

T able 2.— Number and per cent of unemployed personsy by customary occupations

and by districts
Number
District

Unemployed persons in specified customary occupations

ployed
Clerical
Executive
Manual
Unspecified
persons
in all oc­
cupations Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent
9

3.1

2.1

5

1.3

6.0

5

1.4
.5

No. 1...............
No. 2..... .........
No. 3........
No. 4
No. 5.........
No. 6— ..........
No. 7— ..........
No. 8. .............
No. 9...............
No. 10.............

288
314
382
146
364
381
434
493
448
398

234
269
343
133
301
338
236
445
422
246

81.3
85.7
89.8
91.1
82.7
88.7
54.4
90.2
94.2
61.8

40

19

10

4.3
4.2
2.5

Total___

3,648

2,967

81.4

161

4.4

20
8

5

22
11

5

21

13.9
6.4

2

3.4

.6

5
23
26

5.5
9.9
7.9
44.2
5.1
.9
35.4
13.4

.2

3

1

.4
.7
.3

30

1.2

6.8

8

36
30
192
25
4
141

.8

490

2
1
2

2.9

L7
7.3

T able 3*— Number of persons in family usually employed compared with number

unemployed

Families with un­ Number of families with specified number
unemployed
Number in family usually Number employed workers
of families
employed
3
Number Per cent
2
4
5
1
None

_________ __ _

5 persons______________
6 persons_______________
7 persons________ ______
8 persons ____________
9 persons

475
16,914
10,509
5,103
2,348
873
287
109
31
13

920
904
601
330
127
45
15
7

Total______________

36,665

2,951

1 person
__
2 persons___ _________

3 persons

_______ _

4 persons _____________

60

2

5.4

8.6
11.8

14.1
14.5
15.7
13.8

22.6

15.4

8.0

920
764
446
205
67
16

8

3

2

2,431

140

120

35
37
16
4

16
5

3
3

2

2
1

388

95

29

8

72
33
17
4

8

1
1

61

APPENDIX— PART-TIME -UNEMPLOYMENT DATA

T able 4.— Unemployment in families of different size

Number of
families

Number in family

Families with unem­
ployment
Number

1person.................................
2persons...............—........ ......
3 persons_____________ _____
4 persons_______ ____ ______
5 persons__________ _______
6persons______________ ___
7 persons____ _________ ____
8persons___ ______________
9 persons__________________
1 persons........ ....................-0
1 persons_____________ ___
1
1 persons............ ..................
2
13 persons................................
14 persons................................
15 persons................................
Over 15 persons.......................

1,052
6,245
7,216
7,296
5,557
3,740
2,380
1,446
807
496
209

Total.............................

36,665

Per cent

41
286
384
509
498
381
302
213
148
91
54
19
13
4
5
3

35.7
27.3

2,951

Number of
persons
usually
employed

8
.0

12
1
50
34
14

1
1

3.9
4.6
5.3
7.0
9.0

Persons unemployed
Number

Per cent

892
7,828
11,080
12,957
11,602
8,912
6,277
4,249
2,564
1,763
759
451
242
171
51

1 .2
0

12.7
14.7
18.3
18.3
25.8
17.0
26.0

1 .8
1

41
306
441
594
600
482
381
305
208
128
84
31
27
9
3

5.3
9.3
5.9

3,648

5.2

8
6

4.6
3.9
4.0
4.6
5.2
5.4

6
.1
7.2
8
.1
7.3
1 .1
1
6.9
1 .2
1

8

69,884

T able 5.— Number and per cent of persons unable to find work, by districts, sex,

and age

Sex

Age
Females

Males

District
Males Females Total

Males and females

1years Under 2 years
1years
Under 2 and Under 2 and
1
1
1
2 years over 2 years over 2 years and over
1

Total

Number
No. 1................
No. 2...............
No. 3................
No. 4...............
No. 5...............
No. 6...............
No. 7...............
No. 8................
No. 9________
No. 10..............

179
169
232
87
146
161
158
139
276
157

Total___

1,704

55
76
77
37
61
no

6
6

234
245
309
124
207
271
226
197
386
223

718

2,422

6
8

58
no

1
2

27

145
135
116
254
128

23
40
25

43
47
41
27
45
87
46
35
67
40

255

1,440

231

478

27
25
57

1
0

26
16
23
23

2
1

151
139
175
77

10
2

25
36

1
0

15
23

2
2

39
50
93

41
39
45
46
61
52

194
186
216
104
165
232
181
151
321
168

486

1,918

2,404

16.7

10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0

2
0

233
236
309
124
206
271
226
197
382

20
2

Per cent
No. 1................
No. 2...............
No. 3...............
No. 4...............
No. 5...............
No. 6—
.............
No. 7___ _____
No. 8...............
No. 9...............
No. 10___ ____

76.5
69.0
75.1
70.2
70.5
59.4
69.9
70.6
71.5
70.4

23.5
31.0
24.9
29.8
29.5
40.6
30.1
29.4
28.5
29.6

Total___

70.4

29.6

10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0
10
0 .0

2 .8
1

15.2
15.2
24.6
11.5
17.8
9.9
14.6
16.5
7.6
17.4

84.8
84.8
75.4
88.5
82.2
90.1
85.4
83.5
92.4
82.6

34.7
46.8
27.0
25.0
20.9
32.4
39.7
37.4
38.5

78.2
65.3
53.2
73.0
75.0
79.1
67.6
60.3
62.6
61.5

2 .2
1

30.1
16.1
19.9
14.4
19.9
23.4
16.0
23.6

83.3
78.8
69.9
83.9
80.1
85.6
80.1
76.6
84.0
76.4

15.0

85.0

32.6

67.4

2 .2
0

79.8

62

APPENDIX— PART-TIME UNEMPLOYMENT DATA

T able 6.—Per cent of idle workers unemployed for specified reasons, by districts
Per cent of idle workers unemployed for each specified reason
Number of
unem­
ployed
Unable to
Superan­
Indiffer­
Other
persons find work1 Sickness
nuation
ence
reasons

District

No. 1.......................................
No. 2._...................................
No. 3.......................................
No. 4.......................................
No. 5 ---._______ __________
No. 6 .- ...................................
No. 7.......................................
No. 8 .-...................................
No. 9.......................................
No. 10.-..................................

277
281
329
138
250
366
238
257
433
235

Total _______________

2 2,804

84.5
87.2
94.2
89.9
84.0
74.0
95.0
76.6
89.4
95.8

6.5
4.6

3.6
5.6
6.3

.7

2
.1
3.9
1
.6

8 .6
6

6
.1
6
.8

0.4
.7
1.5
.7

2.5
.7

1
.2

2
.2
1
.2

3.4

.9
.4

1
.2
1
.6
2
.1
.8

.9
5.1
9.2
17.8
.4
17.5
7.4

3.8

1
.0

1
.0

7.6

.3
.4

.7
.4

* Includes also such reasons as “ slack season,” “ laid off,” etc.
* Does not include 844 persons for whom the reasons for unemployment were not given.

T able 7.— Number and per cent of unemployed persons, by length of time lost since

last regular job

All unemployed
persons
Length of time lost
Per cent

Number

1day and o v e r_________ __________________________________

13,648
2,927
2,488
2,081
1,667
1,363
1,132
815
699
626
581
540
534
223

Over 1 week_______________________________________________
Over 1 month_____________________________________________
Over 2 months_____________________________________________
Over 3 months_________ _________ . __________ ___________
Oveii 4 months.
-. - _ _ ___ _
Over 5 months__ _ ______________________________________
Over 6 months_____________________________________________
Over 7 months_____________________________________________
Over 8 months_____________________________________________
Over 9 months_____________________________________________
Over 10 months - - _______________________________________
Over 11 months________________ _____ _____________________
Over 1 year________________________________________________

Per cent
of all
persons
usually
employed ;

10
0 .0
80.2
6 .2
8
57.0
45.7
37.4
31.0
22.3
19.2
17.2
15.9
14.8
14.6

6
.1

5.2
4.2
3.6
3.0
2.4

2
.0
1
.6
1
.2
1
.0
.9
.8
.8
.8
.3

i Includes 665 unemployed who did not specify time lost since last regular job.

T able 8.— Number and per cent of unemployed persons, by length of time lost since

last regular job and by districts

District

Number
of unem­
ployed
persons

Per cent of all workers unemployed for over—
One
week

One
month

Two
months

Three
months

Six
months

59.0
31.5
59.9
57.5
35.4
50.1

34.7
13.7
29.3
28.1
16.2
25.2
8.5
32.3
20.5
19.1

9.7
4.8
5.2
4.8
4.7

22.3

6
.1

No. 1...................................... No. 2........................... .............
No. 3 _____________________
No. 4.......................—...........
No. 5............................... .........
No. 6_____ _________________
No. 7______________________
No. 8______________________
No. 9___ ________ __________
No. 10..... ............................... .

288
314
382
146
364
381
434
493
448
398

90.6
75.2
96.6
91.8
59.6
92.1
55.3
90.7
94.9
62.1

77.8
57.3
84.3
82.2
51.1
80.8
38.7
81.3
82.8
52.3

69.4
42.0
73.8
71.9
43.1
64.8
27.6
71.8

6 .1
8
45.0

64.7
49.1
35.9

Total........... ....... ............

3,648

80.2

6 .2
8

57.0

45.7

2 .0
0

One
year

6
.8

2.3
8.9

6
.0
7.3

63

APPENDIX— PART-TIME UNEMPLOYMENT DA.TA
T able

9.— Per cent of unemployed persons, by length of time lost since last regular
job and by reasons why unemployed
Per cent of persons unemployed for specified reason

Length of time lost
Unable to
find work

1day and over_____________

Over 1 week------------------- —
Over 2 weeks---------------------Over 3 weeks---------------------Over 1 month______________
Over 2 months........ ....... .......
Over 3 months_____________
Over 4 months------------ ------Over 5 months------------------Over 6 months-------- ----------Over 7 months_____________
Over 8 months_____________
Over 9 months_____________
Over 10 months____________
Over 11 months___ ________
Over 1 year_______ ________
T able

10
0 .0
92.3
88.7
84.6
77.6
64.0
50.7
40.9
33.5
23.8
20.7
18.2
16.8
15.5
15.2

6
.1

Sickness

10
0 .0
87.9
84.1
81.3
79.4
70.1
58.9
50.5
45.8
42.1
41.1
41.1
40.2
37.4
37.4
25.2

Superan­ Indifference
nuation

10
0 .0
92.6
92.6
85.2
81.5
74.1
55.6
48.1
44.4
40.7
40.7
40.7
40.7
40.7
40.7
14.8

10
0 .0
82.8
79.3
79.3
75.9
72.4
62.1
51.7
51.7
48.3
44.8
44.8
41.4
41.4
41.4
20.7

Other
reasons

10
0 .0
90.6
88.7
84.9
82.5
68.9
51.9
42.5
36.8
26.4
15.6
13.7
13.2

1 .8
1
1 .8
1
4.2

All
reasons

10
0 .0
80.2
77.1
73.8

6 .2
8
57.0
45.7
37.4
31.0
22.3
19.2
17.2
15.9
14.8
14.6

6
.1

10.— Per cent of persons unable to find work, by length of time lost since last
regular job and by sex and race
Per cent of persons unable to find work
Length of time lost
Males

1day and over...........................................

Over 1 week................ ..............................
Over 2 weeks........... ....... ..........................
Over 3 weeks............................. ...............
Over 1 month....... ........... ....... .................
Over 2 months-------------------- --------------Over 3 months............... ....... ...................
Over 4 months. ..... .................................
Over 5 months...... ..................... ..............
Over 6 months..-........ ..................... ...... |
Over 7 months......... .................. .............. !
Over 8 months_______________________ i
Over 9 months. ..........................................
Over 10 months.........................................
Over 11 months.... ....................................
Over 1 year................................................

T able

10
0 .0
92.7
89.6

8 .2
6

80.3
67.2
53.8
44.5
36.9
25.8
22.2
19.5
18.0
16.8
16.5
7.0

Females

10
0 .0
92.1
86.9
81.3
71.9
57.0
43.9
32.6
25.6
19.2
17.3
15.2
13.9
12.5
12.4
3.9

White
persons

10
0 .0
93.8
90.0

8 .0
6

78.8
65.2
51.7
41.9
34.5
24.7
21.3
18.9
17.8
16.6
16.5
6.5

Total
Negroes

10
0 .0

10
0 .0

1 .2
0

57.0
45.7
37.4
31.0
22.3
19.2
17.2
15.9
14.8
14.6

86.3
82.7
78.5
72.9
59.0
46.6
36.4
28.8
19.7
18.2
15.5
12.9
10.9
4.7

80.2
77.1
73.8

6 .2
8

6
.1

11.— Per cent of persons unable to find work, by length of time lost since last
regular job and by occupations
Per cent of persons unable to find
work
Length of time lost

Total
Manual

1 day and over_____________________________________

Over 1 week...... ............................ ......... ........................
Over 2 weeks____________________ _____ ______ ____
Over 3 weeks................... ........... .............. ................ .
Over 1 month_________________________ _________
Over 2 m onths.._______________________ _______ ____
Over 3 months___ ____ __________ ____ ______ _______
Over 4 months___________________________________
Over 5 months....... ........................ ..................................
Over 6 months.................................................................
Over 7 months___________________________________ _
Over 8 months...................... ........................... ..............
Over 9 months................................. ................................
Over 10 months____________________________________
Over 11 months____________________________________
Over 1 year________________________________________

100.0
92.9
89.4
85.2
77.9
64.0
50.3
40.7
33.5
23.7
20.5
17.9
16.6
15.2
15.0
6.0

Clerical
100.0
88.2
80.8
76.2
70.7
62.4
54.1
37.6
31.2
20.2
19.3
18.3
17.4
16.5
15.6
7.3

Executive
100.0
88.2
88.2
82.4
82.4
76.5
64.7
58.8
47.1
41.2
41.2
41.2
41.2
41.2
41.2
11.8

100.0
92.6
89.0
84.8
77.6
64.0
50.6
40.7
33.5
23.7
20.6
18.1
16.8
15.5
15.2
6.1

64

APPEND IX— PART-TIME UNEMPLOYMENT DATA

T able 12.— Per cent of persons unable to find work, by length of time lost since last

regular job and by sex and age
Persons under 21 years

Persons 21 years and over

Length of time lost
Males

1day and over_____________

Over 1 week_______________
Over 2 weeks______________
Over 3 weeks______________
Over 1 month______________
Over 2 months_____________
Over 3 months_____________
Over 4 months_____________
Over 5 months_____________
Over 6 months_____________
Over 7 months_____________
Over 8 months........................
Over 9 months_____________
Over 10 months______ ______
Over 11 months____________
Over 1 year________________

10
0 .0
92.9
87.8
82.0
74.9
59.6
47.8
38.0
30.2
18.8
16.5
13.7

1 .8
1
1 .8
1
1 .8
1
3.5

Females

10
0 .0
93.5
87.4
81.4

6 .8
8
50.2
35.5
24.2
17.3
13.0

1 .6
2
1 .8
0
9.5
8.7
8.7

2
.6

Total

10
0 .0
93.2
87.7
81.7
72.0
55.1
42.0
31.5
24.1
16.0
14.2
12.3
10.7
10.3
10.3
3.1

Males

10
0 .0
92.6
89.9
86.9
81.2
68.5
54.8
45.6
38.0
26.9
23.1
20.4
19.0
17.6
17.2
7.5

Females

10
0 .0
92.3
87.4
82.0
73.8
60.5
47.9
36.6
30.1

2 .6
2
19.9
17.6
16.3
14.5
14.4
4.6

Total

10
0 .0
92.5
89.3
85.7
79.4
66.5
53.1
43.4
36.0
25.8
2.3
2
19.7
18.4
16.8
16.5

6
.8