Full text of Source of Income of Former Urban Relief Cases, Series I, No. 22

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

v. a~t.,.r
v nl. e r91-.

\, r

C Mf T
RO OM

ib r ;, r•

WO R K S

P R OG R E S S

A DM I N I S T R A T I O N

HARRY L. HOPKINS, ADMINISTRATOR

•

CORRINGTON GILL

HOWARD
SOCIAL

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR

R E S E A R C H

8. MYERS, DIRECTOR
RESE ARCH

DIVISION

BULLETIN

SOURCE OF INCOME OF FORMER UR BAN RELIEF CASES

l"

SEPTEMBER

,

1936

SERIES

I

Or g,nc 'rorr

NOR HWE-STE:R~ L~IVE!:l.Sl1Y

No. 22

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

PREFACE
This bulletin

is tased upon prelimin o ry

the Economic St a tus
Atlanta,

Geor g ia;

Montana; Chica go,

of

Furmer

Baltimore,

u'r ban

di=ita

Relief

Maryland;

from
Cases

Omaha,

San Francisco,

California;

Survey of Trends

conducted

Aridgeport,

111 inois; Detroit, Michigan;

New Hampshire;

the

in

Connecticut;

Houston,

in

13 cities:
Butte,

Texas; Manchester,

Nebraska; Paterson, New Jersey; 5t. Louis, Missouri;
Wilkes-Barre,

Pennsylvania.

Statistical tests

disclose that these cities provide a good cross-section of the urban relief
population.
As a first step in the selection of cases for the present survey, a random
sample was taken of all cases that were on relief in the 13 cities for all
or part of the period May throu~h October 1935.
The 6,144 cases examined
in this report were selected from the random sample, for study on a monthto-month basis.
They include unemployable as well as employable cases.
The
information concerning each case is obtained monthly from official relief
and Works Program records and from personal contacts with the family.
This

report

summarizes

the

changes

which

took

place

during the

10-month

period October 1935 through July 1936 in the distribution of cases receiving
their support from one or more (or none) of three sources - relief, Works
Program, and private employment.

Any

case

in

the

study may have received

income from sources other than the three mentioned, e.g., dividends from investments, rent from property, pensions, and g lfts from
purpose of this report, any such income is disregarded.

friends.

For the

Relief, as the term is used herein, includes both general public relief and
private relief distributed through organized agencies such as emergency re1 ief aaministrations, county or municipal departments of public welfare, and
private charities.
Categorical relief laid to the blind, old age pensions,
mothers' aid, etc.) is not included.
The term "Works Program" refers to the
broad employment plan of the Federal Government carried on under the Works
Progress Administration, Civi I ian Conservation Corps, Pub I ic Works Administration, and other agencies which operate under the Relief Appropriation Act
of 1935.
Private employment may be defined as work for private individuals
or o.rganizations, "regular" employment of governmental agencies, and work
for self in such capacity as store proprietor and contractor.
The figures presented

in the fol lowing pages are based upon unweighted data

for the 13 cities.
Application of weights, determined so as to represent
the case load of the several cities, results ~ in comparatively smal I changes
in the proportions of cases fal I ing in the various source-of-income groups.
Al I data refer to the case 01 household, not to individuals.

Prepared by

F, L. Carmichael and J. C. Bevis
under the supervision of
John N, Webb
Coordinator of Urban Research
Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

-1SOURCE OF INCOME OF FORMER URBAN RELIEF CASES
OCTOBER 1935 THROUGH JULY 1936
That an increasing number of for-

income or not, decreased during each

mer urban rel iefcases are being supported entirely by income from pri-

month of the survey. In October, 85.1
percent of the cases studied received

vate employment is revealed by a study
now being made in 13 cities.
Of the

assist ance in the form of Works Program earnings or relief.
In March

6,144 cases examined, the proportion
from private

the percentage was 79.7.
Between
March and July the rate of decrease

employment showed a smal I but steady

in the size of this group was greatly

increase from October 1935 to March
1936, when it comprised 17.1 percent
of the tot a I.
A more rapid increase

accelerated with the result that more
than twice as many cases left the relief or Works Program rel ls during

occurred during the next four months;
by July the proportion had reached
25.6 percent (See the chart and the
table I.

that period as during the preceding
five months.
This sharp decrease
during the later months Is attributable to increasing avallablllty of
jobs in private employment, to reduct Ions in Works Program quotas, and
to curtailment of relief in some cities because of lack of funds.

whose sole income

came

A number of the cases examined had
a member employed in private Industry
and received add it i ona I income from
relief or the Works Program, or both,
during the month. 1 Cases that were
wholly or partially supported by private emp I oyment in October formed
nearly one-third of the tota I.
There
was I it t I e change in the size of this
group unt i I the spring of 1936.
From
March to July, however, the proportion of cases having one or more membe rs employed in private industry,
whether supplemented by other income
o:- not, rose from 31.9 percent to 39.3
percent of the cases studied.
The
growing importance of this group of
cases reflects seasonal improvement
In business.
The number of former urban relief
cases receiving aid from re I i ef agencies or the Works Program, whether
supplemented by private employment

1Tbroughout tbls report, the month is used
as the unit or measurement.
This means
that, even though a case had two or more
sources or Income 1n a given month, it did
not necessarily receive the income from
those sources concurrently.

A sizeable but decreasing proportion of the cases studied derived Income f rem both private emp I oyment and
relief.
This group includes cases
supported by relief for a portion of
the month and by private employment
for the remainder of the month, as
wel I as cases In which earnings were
insufficient to meet minimum budgetary needs and were supplemented by
re I i ef.
Cases whose tot a I sup po rt
came jointly from private employment
and relief dropped from 15.6 percent
of the cases examined in October to
4.1 percent in July.
Much of this
declin e was caused by the transfer
of employable relief cases to the
Works Program and by the closing of
relief cases which had one or more
members in private employment.
The Works Program, which was deve I oped to provide work for the desti t ute unerrp I oyed, began ope rat i ens
during the summer of 1935.
By the
end of the yPar, it h3d 3.bsorb ed the

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

100
73

90

25 .6

80

70

4 .1

60

9 .1
5
.8

c

Q)

u

~

50

Q)

a...

40

34.8

30

20

10
16 . 8

0

Oc t.

Nov.

Dec.

Jon.

1935

Feb.

Mor.

Apr.

Moy

June

July

1936

SOURCE OF INCOME OF FORMER URBAN RELIEF CASES
(Coses wh i ch rece ived rel ief al any time from Moy\ lo October 31, 1935)

Source Study of Trend s in the Econ omic Status
of Former Relief Coses- 13 C, t ,es

O,v1s1on of Soci al Research, W. P. A.

AF-13B7

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

-2-

major portion of
l i ef

I oad.

The

the

employable re-

trend

of emp I oyment

re I ief cases that

had

em p I o y me n t ,

found t hat

under the Works Program is reflected

vember

in the

assignment,

monthly

proportions of Works

cases

in the present study.

Prag ram

it

1935,

relief

in

October,

19.2

percent

the

month

i n No-

of heaviest

the cases which received
addition

employme nt
In

is

Works Program

to Works Program

comprised

somewhat

over

of all

two-thirds of al I Works Program cases

cases examined had a member employed

examined, and one-s ixth of these also

ori a Works Program project.

This pro-

had some

income from private employ-

port ion morethandoubled inNovember,

ment.

and by December over half of the cases

during December and January as a re-

studied

sult of the decreasing number of re-

the

were

Works

receiving

Program.

income

The

from

number

of

The group

fel I

off

sharply

1 ief-to-Works-Program

transfers.

Works Program cases continued to increase until March when the
group

Throughout

months the

comprised 55.6 percent of
studied.
This
amounted

July amounted to only 4.9 percent of

all cases
to almost

the

next

six

proportion declined gradually and
a I I cases on the Works Program.

in
The

three-fourths of al I cases certified

majority of the

as

during the later months were fami I ies

eligible

Program.

for

employment

the

re11aining

Of

on

the

quarter

cases

in this group

which we re certified but not emp I oyed,

which, because of their size, or because of the existence of spec ia I

approximr\tely three-fifths

needs

vate employment,

an::1

had

pri-

one-sixth con-

taine::1 noworkers who were physically
able, at that time, to accept assignment.

Subsequent

men t

to

March, employ-

on the Program declined, and

Jul y

46.2

percent of

a member employe j

the

in

cases had

on a Works Program

projec t.
During each of the earlier months

granted
Works
are

of

ca ses

derived

income

from

both Works Prag ram emp I oyment and relief.

In the proc ess of transferring

cases from relief rolls to the Works
Prag ram, re I ief was usua I I y continued
until the
pay

NOrker

check.

received his first

This

practice

accounts

for most of the cases having these
two sources of income during the same
month.
Restricting
the

moment,

the

discussion,

to those

form er

for
urban

as

medical

relief

to

Program

ings from

odd

recorded

earnings,

it

care,

were

supplement

their

income.

2

jobs,

however

as

Since earn-

private

sma 11,

employment

is, not $urprising that

a few of the c~ses having both Works
Program employment and
relief received additional income from private
emp I oyme nt.

of the survey a considerable proportion

such

Througnout

the

period covered by

this report, Works

Program and pri-

vate ernployment

contributed

jointly

to the support of a number of cases.
A special
veals,

analysis

however,

of June data re-

that

many

of

these

cases lost either their Works Program
or their private employment, or both,

2

A rurther analysis or the data ror two
months (March and April) reveals that only
about three-rltths or the cases deriving
their support rrom both sources actually
rece 1ved incorne concurrent iy rrom relief
and the Works Program.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

before the end of the month.
21.1

percent

of

3.II

Althou3h

14.'orks

Program

of a I I
of

vate

industry

early

some

t i me

only 14.6 percent
employment
ures

on

had

during June,
both types of

June 30.

!These fig-

include thecaseswhichreceived

cases

studied.

increased opportunities

cases had a member employed in private
at

the

emp I oyment
summer ,

decl lned unt i I
of the

cases

in

this
in

the

for

pri-

spring

group

July

Because
and

gradually

53.4 percent

subsisted

entirely

on

income from these two sources.

relief in addition to income from the
other

two

sources. l

That

many

of

these private jobs either were parttime

jobs

or,

I ow ea r n i n g s

if full-time, yielded

is

i n d i cat e d

amination of the

private

by

an ex-

employment

As would be expected,
of cases whose only

the

number

income came from

the Works Program incre3.sed as the
number of cases which were entirely
dependent upon relief decreased.

In

July the former group comprised 34.8

earnings of these cases.

percent of al I cases examined and the
About two-fifths of the cases ha vi ng both

Works

Program

employment on

June

and

private

30 received

less

than $25 fro,,, privateemploymentduring the month.
Only a smal I proportion 12.0 percent l of the total group
of Works Prag ram cases received as
much as $75 from private employment
during June and st i II had a member
employed on the Works Program on the
last day of the month. This indicates
that the

percentage

of

cases

st i I I

on the Works Program which have sufficient private

employment

earnings

latter group 16.8 percent.

One-half

of the cases in the "relief only"
category contain no person 16 years

of age or

over

who is able to work.

Cases which receive no relief and
have neither

Works

Program nor pri-

vate emp I oyment have comprised an increasing p ropo rt ion of tot a I cases. 3
From June to July this group increased
from 5.2 percent to 7.3 percent of
the cases examined.
A large part of
this increment consists of cases which
had relief in June but no employment
of any kind. These relief cases were
closed mainly for two reasons - re-

t o s up po rt t hem i s v e r y s ma I I •

increasing number of

ceipt ofa soldiers' bonus and receipt
of an old age pension.
The other

former re I ief cases, there st i 11 remains a large number of people en-

cases coming into the "no employment
or re Ii ef" group were about equa 11 y

tirely dependent upon public or private aid in one form or another for

divided between those which held private jobs and those which held Works

support.
This is shown by the fact
that, throughout the 10-month peri-

Program jobs in June,
each instance
having

emp I oyment in
been I ost by

od, wet I over half of the cases studied had no income other than relief

July.

the

the Works Program cases resulted very

or

largely from physical

Despite the absorption by private
industry of

Works

an

Prag ram.

From

October

to

The

change

in

status of

incapacitation

February the proportion of cases wholI y dependent upon these two sources
of income remained substantially unchanged and comprised about two-thirds

3 ttany cases in t he •no employment or re11er•
category receive support rrom pensions and
rrom relatives and rriends.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

-4 -

of the workers and fromcompletion of

may be

the Works Program

private

projects

on which

they had been employed.
The Veteran's
tion, distributed
ceived

by

included

Compensa-

June,

5.0 percent
in the survey.

of

was

re-

al I cases

The propor-

tion of bonus recipients among the
Works Prog ra,,., cases was the sa,,,e as

War veterans,
between
would

to

i ndustry

from the present

Adjusted
in

attributed

the

be

the

draws
age

most

fact that

extensively

range of World

of whom

ages of 35

expected,

and

are

now

50.

As

proportionately

fewer of the cases having no employment of any kind, either on the Works
Progra m or

in

private industry,

re-

the general average.
Former relief
cases which had private employment

ceived a bonus. Since this group con-

but no Works Program employment fared
somewhat better, nearly 6 percent of

proportion having male members between

these cases receiving a bonus.

sma Iler than average.

This

tains
the

many

ages

unemployable

of 35 and 50

is

cases,

the

doubt I ess

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

SOURCE OF INCOME OF FORMER URBAN RELIEF CASES
OCTOBER 1935 THROUGH JULY 1936
z

0

~

1935

I

Source of Income

~

mo

l/l --

---l lO
m rt
:;;o ;:::;·

z~
C

z

o-

~

Total
Total
Total
Total
Total

z

0

~

I

~

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

6,144
100.0

6,144
100.0

6,144
100.0

6,144
100.0

6,144
100.0

6,144
100.0

6,144
100.0

6,144
100.0

6,144
100.0

50. 3
3.9
II. 9
2.2
I •2
I 5. 6
13.7
I .2

29.5
10.7
25.6
4.8
2.8
9.8
15.0
I .8

23.5
23.0
20.0
3.0
4.7
7.7
16. I
2.0

21.9
38.0
7.2
I. 5
6.6
5.6
16. I
3.1

20 . 2
41.4
5.8
I •2
7. I
4.7
16.3
3.3

19.2
42.0
3.7
I. I
8.8
4.9
I 7. I
3.2

19.4
38.8
2.5
.8
10.0
4.9
19.2
4.4

18. 7
36.7
2. I
.6
9.9
4.3
22.5
5.2

18.8
35.6
I .8
.7
9.3
4.4
24.2
5.2

16.8
34.8
I. 8
.5
9.1
4. I
25.6
7.3

85.1
19.2
80.0
66. I
32.7

83.2
43. 9
69. 7
65.8
32.4

81. 9
50.7
54.2
66.5
3 I. 5

80.8
53.3
36.2
67. I
29.8

80.4
55.5
31 .9
67.4
29.3

79.7
55.6
28.9
64.9
31. 9

76.4
52. I
27 .6
60. 7
34.9

72.3
49.3
25. 7
57.5
3 7. 3

70.6
4 7 .4
25.7
56 . 2
38.6

67. I
46.2
23.2
53.4
39.3

Number
Percent

I, 182
100.0

2,697
100.0

3, 112
100.0

3,272
100.0

3,411
100.0

3,414
100,0

3,202
100.0

3,032
100.0

2,914
100.0

2,840
100.0

Program on Iy
Program and re I ief
Program, re I ief, and private employment
Program and private employment

20.4
61. 8
II . 5
6.3

24.5
58.2
10.9
6.4

45.4
39.4
6.0
9.2

7 I ,4
13.5
2.8
12.3

74.4
10.5
2.2
12.9

75.5
6.6
2.1
15.8

74.3
4.9
I •5
19.3

74.4
4.2
I .3
20.1

75.1
3.8
I .5
19.6

75.3
3.8
I•I
19.8

Re I ief only
Works Program only
Works Program and re 11 ef
Works Program, re I i e f, and private employment
Works Program and private employment
Private employment and re I ief
Private employment only
No employment or re I i ef

:;;o

l/l

Nov.

6,144
100.0

Total cases stud l ed:

'-<

<
m

Number
Percent

Oct.

1936

Works Program and re I lef
Works Program
re I ief
Works Program and re I ief onlyt
privatP. employment

mo

l/l -,

---l u:i"
m 3·

:;;o

OJ

z::;;

co
z3

Works Program cases:

<
m
:;;o

l/l

~

Works
Works
Works
Works

t

Cases wholly dependent on relief and/or Works Program employrrent.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY