The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
WILS
GOVU
Y 3.W 89/2:13/4-2
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
Division of Social Research
'
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR
WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT
IN 13 CITIES
Series TI[
Number 2
WORKS
PROGRESS
ADMINISTRATION
Harry L. Hopkins, Administrator
Corrington Gill, Assistant Administrator
Howard B. Myers, Director
Division of Social Research
R E S E A R C H B Ul L E T I N
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT
IN 13 CITIES
Prepared by
Susan M. Shepherd and Gertrude Bancroft
under the supervl slon of
A. Ross Eckl er
Coordinator of Special Inquiries
Division of Social Research
Washington
1937
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
CONTENTS
Page
Works Program status of cases...........................
Relief status of cases..................................
Employment experience on the Works Program..............
Private employment......................................
Characteristics of economic heads of cases..............
Characteristics of other certified members of cases.....
1
2
3
5
6
8
Size of household . .............. ,• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
March income of certified cases.........................
Appendix A-Statistical procedure.......................
Table A
Numbet' of certified cases on April 15, 1936,
and sampling ratios used for study of certified load in 13 cities....................
Table B
Class of usual occupation of economic heads
• by sex, in 13-ci ty sample and in Labol" Inven-
9
15
16
tory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Appendix B-Supplementary tables........................
Table 1
Works Program status of all certified cases
as of April 15, 1936 •• ,...................
Table 2a Relief status of certified cases according
to Works Program status, by months in 13
cities, September 1935 through March 1936.
Table 2b Relief status of certified cases according
to Works Program status, November 1935 and
21
March 1936. • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Number of months on relief of all certified
cases in 13cities, between September 1, 1935
and April 15, 1936........................
Means of support of all certified cases in
13 cities, between September 1, 1935 and
April 15, 1936............................
Success of assignments to Works Program employmen t • . • • • • . • . . • • . . . . . . • • • . . • • • . • . . • • . .
Table 6
Table 7
21
22
22
23
23
24
Assignment and work experience ot certified
load.. . . . . . . . • . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • . . . . • . . .
24
Supervising agency of cases employed on Works
Program on April 15, 1936 •••••••••••••••••
25
iii
Digitized by
Google
CONTENTS
iv
Page
Appendix B-Supplementary tables-Continued
Table 8
Median length of time employed on Works
Program and average period per job, classified by number of jobs held, for all cases
having had Works Program employment in 13
cities....................................
Table
9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Number of weeks without Works Program employment since first successful assignment
of all cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of weeks without Works Program employment since first successful assignment
of cases employed on the Program as of April
15, 1936 ............ ,................ .. . . .
Class of assigned occupation on latest Works
Program job of certified workers, by class
of usual occupation, in 13 c'i ties •••••••••
Percent of persons employed on latest job
on Works Program in same skill class of occupation as their usual, by type of project,
-in 13 cities .......•...... ·................
'Private employment and Works Program employment status of all certified cases on April
15, 1936 ....•...... ,......................
Class of usual occupation of all economic
heads as of April 15, 1936, and of economic
heads with private employment in March 1936
in
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18a
Table 18b
Table 19
13
cities..............................
26
27
28
29
30
'3.0
31
Class of ·occupation in private employment
during March 1936 of economic heads, by
class of usual occupation in 13 cities ••••
Class of usual occupation of economic heads
by Works Program status as of April 15, 1936,
in 13 cities ... , ....... ,..................
Age of economic head.s of all certified cases
by Works Program status as of April 15, 1936,
in 13 cities.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sex of economic heads of all certified cases
by Works Program status as of April 15, 1936,
33
in 13 cities..............................
34
Sex of economic heads of all certified cases,
by Works Program status as of April 15, 1936
Number of months since ending of last job
of 4 weeks or more at usual occupation of
economic heads, by class of usual occupation,
in
13
cities..............................
Digitized by
Google
32
33
34
35
CONTENTS
V
Page
Appendix B-Supplementary tables-Continued
Table 20a Number of months since ending of last job
at usual occupation of economic heads by
Works Program status as of April 15, 1936,
in
Table 20b
13
cities..............................
economic heads. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23a
Table 23b
Table 24
Table 25a
Table 25b
Table 26
Table 27
Table 28
Table 29
36
Number of months since ending of last job
of 4 weeks or more at usual occupation of
Availability of additional assignable member
in cases employed on the Works Program, by
size of household, in 13 cities •••••••••••
Class of usual occupation, sex, and age, of
certified members able to accept assignment
in cases with no member employed on the Works
Program and with no economic head able to
accept assignment, in 13 cities •••••••••••
Size of household of all certified cases by
Works Program status, in 13 cities ••••••••
Size of household of all certified cases ••
Works Program income in March •••••••••••••
General relief grants of certified cases in
March 1936, by size of household, in 13
37
38
38
39
39
40
cities ................................... .
41
March relief grants of certified cases ••••
Total March income of certified cases, by
source of income, in 13 cities ••••••••••••
Median income from private employment of
cases with and without Works Program employment in March 1936 ••••••••••••••••••••
Private earnings of cases with and-without
Works Program employment in March 1936 ••••
Total March incomes of certified cases, by
size of household, in 13 cities •••••••••••
42
Digitized by
43
44
45
46
Google
Digitized by
Google
PREFACE
In the spring and early summer of 1936 the Division of Social
Research andertook a series of studies of families which had been
certified as eligible !or employment on the Federal Works Program under the terms of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act
of 1935. Executive Orders under this Act stipulated that families
which had received relief within the period May through October
1935 were to be certified !or Works Program employment. 1 The
term "certified load", !or a given date, refers to the total number of cases with one or more members certified as eligible !or
Works Program employment.
The studies of the c;:erti!ied load were designed to give information on the following points:
1. The proportion and characteristics of cases with Works
Program employment, of those waiting to be assigned, and of those
unable to accept assignment !or various reasons.
2. The extent to which relief rolls had been cleared of certified cases as the volume of Works Program employment rose.
3. The employment experience of those workers who had been
assign~d to Works Program projects.
4. The extent and nature of private employment obtained by
certified cas~s.
5. The characteristics of economic heads of cases in relation to their status on the Works Program.
6. Incomes of cases employed on the Program, of cases continuing on relief, and of cases having private employment.
Studies of the certified load as of April 15, 1936, were conducted in 13 cities 8 widely scattered throughout the United
States and representative of varied types of industrial employment. The findings are believed to be generally applicable to
the certified load in most urban areas for the period covered by
the studies.
'tn each of the 13cities, random samples of approximately 250
cases with a member employed on the Program, and a similar number
1Uuder the lller1euo1 Ral1et .lppropriat1ou .lot ot 1930, this proYis1ou was
■oditied to iuolude as el1&ible tor eaplo1■1ut ou the Prosru all persona
iu need, resardleaa ot their relief atatu1.
~he oitiea are: Atlanta, Oeorsia; Balt1■ore, Har7laud; Bridseport, couueotiout: Butte, Montana; Chioaso. Il11uo1s; Detroit, Michisau: Houston,
Texas; M&Dcheater, Hew Raapahire; OUl:la, Hebruka; Paterson, lfew Jerae,;
8t, Louis, Missouri; Sau J'raucisoo, C&litoruta: Wilkes-Barre, Peuua,1Yau1a.
vii
Digitized by
Google
viii
PREFACE
with no member employed, were drawn from Work Division Occupational Classification Records (FERA Form 1441. From these and
other available forms, including assignment documents and earnings records, the following basic data were transcribed: number
of persons in the relief group; age, sex, and usual occupation
of each certified member of the case; Works Program status as of
April 15; and Works Program assignment history and income. Relief data were secured from local relief agencies. Home interviews elicited information on the extent of private employment,
date when last job at usual occupation ended, ability to accept
assignment to Works Program employment, and incomes from sources
other than Works Program employment and relief.
The studies were conducted in the 13 ci tie·s by the supervisors
oftheEconomic Trends Surveystaffs, and the data, together with
a background report upon the work in each city, were sent for
analysis to the Special Inquiries Section of the Division of
Social Research.
Presentation of the collected data in brief form makes it
desirable to omit certain details from the discussion. The
analysis, therefore, is based on the combined figures for all
13 cities, with no reference to inter-city differences. Data
for individual cities and variations among cities may be found
in the accompanying tables. Similarly, some of the characteristics of cases, or members of cases, are not fully discussed
but are shown in tables 13, 15, 16, 17, 23a, and 23b.
Throughout the report, the figures used in both text and
tables are in the form of percentage distributions. A description of the method of combining data for the 13 cities is included in appendix A.
Digitized by
Google
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
EMPLOYMENT IN 13 CITIES
WORKS PROGRAM STATUS OF CASES
On April 15, 1936, 85 percent of the cases certified for
Works Program employment in 13 cities were either employed on
the Program or had no member able to accept assignment. Sixty
percent of the cases had a member employed on the Program on
that date, and an additional twenty-five percent were unable to
accept assignment for various reasons (table 11. The remaining
15 percent were reported as able and willing to take Works Program jobs, but probably not more than 10 percent of these could
have been put to work at any one time, in view of the magnitude
of assignment and transfer operations resulting from the turnover of employed cases. 1
The 25 percent unable to accept an assignment were not available for Works Program jobs because the certified members of
these cases had private employment, were disabled, or were needed
at home to care for dependents. Private employment was the most
important factor accounting for inability to accept assignment;
15 percent of all certified cases were unable to take a Works
Program job for this reason. Insofar as private employment provided the equivalent of the Works Program security wage for unskilled labor, these cases were not in need of Works Program
jobs. Cases unable to accept an assignment because their certified members were physically di.sabled constituted 3 percent
of the certified load. Some of these handicapped persons had
been certified by relief agencies because it was thought that
special projects would be designed for them, and others had become disabled after certification. Four percent of the cases
were not available for assignment because their certified members were needed at home to care for small children or invalids,
or for other reasons. A small group 13 percent l could not be
located for interview.
1 In Butte and Bridgeport, where only 4 percent or the cases were awaiting
assign111ent, tull employment or cases able to accept assignment bad probably been reached.
1
126343 0-37-2
Digitized by
Google
2
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
RELIEF STATUS OF CASES
Monthly data on the sources of aid to these certified cases
show that the movement from relief to Works Program rolls got
under way slowly in September and October 1935, and became very
rapid in the last 2 months of 1935. In September, 7 percent of
all certified cases in the 13 cities were employed on the Program (table 2al. By December, this proportion had increased
to 66 percent and it reached a maximum of 69 percent in February
and March 1936. The absorption of cases by the Works Program
is also reflected in the decreasing percentage without Works
Program employment receiving relief in each month. The size of
this group fell from 80 percent of all certified cases in September to 15 percent in March.
During the first several months of the Program, many cases
had both Works Program jobs and relief in the same month. For
the most part, relief grants were made to such cases to provide
needed a:ssistance until the receipt of the first full pay check
for work on projects (u·sually 14 to 21 days after assignment l.
Thus, the large proportion reporting both relief income and
Works Program employment in November (44 percent) is explained
by the fact that most of the cases receiving initial assignments
between October 15 and November 30 would require relief assistance for a part of November. In March, when the bulk of assignments had been completed, a much smaller group, 6 percent of
the total, reportedboth forms of aid. This group was composed,
in part, of large families whose Works Program income was insufficient for budgetary needs and had to be supplemented by
relief, and, in part, of cases continued on relief until receipt
of their first project pay check.
A sizable group in each month, about 13 percent, wa:s able to
do without both Works Program and relief assistance; most of
these cases had secured some private employment. With the revival of industry in the spring of 1936, an increasing proportion of cases came into this category. The percentage of all
economic heads who had some private employment in March (20 percent-table 141 is comparable to the percentage of cases ( 16
percent-table 2al without public aid in that month; the former
is larger because some cases with private jobs were not wholly
self-supporting.
Policies with regard to giving relief to cases with Works
Program employment differed from city to city and changed with
fluctuations in the amount of State and city funds available
for relief. In Atlanta, Butte, and Hou·ston, almost no relief
at all was given in March 1936 to certified cases, whether or
not they were employed on the Program ( table 2b). Relief was
granted to fairly large proportions of certified cases in the
other cities, but only in six-Bridgeport, Chicago, Detroit,
Digitized by
Google
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR
•
WORKS PROGRAM
3
Manchester, Paterson, and St. Louis-was there a definite policy
of supplementing WPA wages that were below budgetary needs. In
the other four cities-Baltimore, Om.aha, San Francisco, and
Wilkes-Barre-practically none of the cases working on the Program were given relief assistance in March.
Over the entire period between September and April themajority of certified cases received relief for a period of from 2
to 4 months I table 31 • Only 2 percent of the certified load
was completely independent of public assistance throughout the
period studied (table 41. A much larger group, 29 percent of
the cases, were able to support themselves at some time between
September and April, but the remaining cases which held Works
Program certifications in April had been continuou·sly in need
of public aid of some sort throughout the 7~ months. 2
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE ON THE WORKS PROGRAM
A review of the records of those cases which had been assigned
to the Program .at some time prior to April 15 I five-sixths of
all certified cases I indicates that, in most instances, assignments to jobs resulted in placement and that subsequent employment on the Program was continuous. With allowance for the
limitations imposed by available projects, existing ·skills of
workers had been taken into account to a considerable extent
in making assignments.
Success or Assignments
The present study indicated that a large proportion of assignments 184 percent I had resulted in placemen ts in Works Program jobs (table 51. An earlier survey of failures to accept
assignment made in the same 13 cities3 during December 1935
showed that up to that time 72 percent of all assignments had
resulted in placement on projects. The record subsequent to
December reflects selective elimination of cases not in need of
Works Program employment and improvement in the procedure of
handling records concerning availability of certified persons.
Among the cases not employed on the Program on April 15 (39
percent of all ca:sesl, about two-fifths had been employed at
some time previously, two-fifths had never been assigned, and
one-fifth had been assigned to the Program but had never taken
a job (table 61. Since many of the last group had private employment they were not in need of Works Program jobs.
2 s1nce the sample drawn ror th1s study was
as or Apr1l 16, 11138, lt d1d not include
were cancelled prior to that date.
3 suney of 1ai lures to Accept Assignaents
18 Cities, D1v181on or Social Research,
Serles II, No. 18, Aprll 8, 11138, p. 1.
based on active certified cases
any cases whose certlrlcat1ons
to Jt'orb Progra• hploJ11ent in
WorkS Progress Administration,
Digitized by
Google
4
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
Supervising Agencies
Among the small group of cases having more than one member
employed on the Program 14 percent of the total employed), the
second member was generally on National Youth Administration or
Civilian Conservation Corps projects Itable 7l. These agencies,
under the regulations governing the Works Program, are permitted
to employ young persons who are members of tamilies with other
Works Program employment.
·
Duration of Employment
Cases which had had Works Program employment had worked for
an average period of 21 weeks, or approximately the length of
time between December 1, 1935, the peak of activity in making
assignments, and April 15, 1936 (table 8), Forty-nine percent
had worked at one job during their Works Program employment;
30 percent had held two assignments; and the remaining 21 percent had held three or more Works Program jobs.
The average length of the individual job decreased, of course,
as the number of jobs held increased. The average length of
job for those having held only one Works Program job was 20.5
weeks; for those having held three jobs, the average length was
only 7.1 weeks (table a>.
For the entire group studied, the average period per job on
the Works Program was 10.3 weeks (table 8). This considerably
understates the duration of an average Works Program job. Allowance should be made for the fact that jobs held in the early
stages of the Program tended to be short, and that about half of
the jobswerestill continuinginApril,whenthe study was made.
Continuity of Employment
On the whole, the Works Program provided fairly continuous
employment to needy workers once they had been successfully assigned. The average amount of time lost after the first successful assignment was only 2,3 weeks, and for two-thirds of
all cases assigned to the Program, employment had been continuous through April 15 (table 9l. When those holding Works Program jobs on April 15 are considered, a much larger proportion
is found to have had continuous employment (table 101. Eightyfive percent had lost no time at all and seven percent had lost
only 1 week.
Utilization of Workers' Skills
In the process of assignment, an attempt was made to place
workers in jobs which best utilized their skills, in order to
Digitized by
Google
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
5
preserve skills and to increase project eff.iciency. The requirement that projects should not compete with private industry,
however, made it impossible to employ at their usual occupations
certain types of workers such as those skilled in manufacturing,
and resulted in a disproportionately large number of unskilled
jobs, More than three-fifths of the available jobs were in unskilled occupations, although only one-fifth of the workers had
been unskilled laborers by usual occupation I table 11 l. Consequently, a certain amou11t of occupational II degrading" occurred.
Professional workers and offke workers were given work of their
usual kind in about half of their assignments. Most of the
skilled and semiskilled workers were assigned to laboring jobs.
Nevertheless, some workers were placed in occupations of
higher ratings than their usual occupations. The proportion of
workers whose status was improved varied from 37 percent of the
domestic workers to 6 percent of the office workers.
In general, the types of projects most successful in employing workers in their usual skill groups were the professional
and the public building projects. Most workers above the unskilled class suffered some occupational "degrading" even on
types of projects which required large numbers of skilled and
professional workers; Professional project~ and those set up
for the distribution of surplus commodities were the only ones
on which themajorityofwhite collar workers found white collar
jobs (table 12). Public building projects offered the best opportunities for skilled workers to work in their customary
trades. The position of the skilled building workers was, of
course, much more favorable than that of the skilled factory
operatives; the latter were best utilized in the goods projects
(sewing, canning, etc.,lbnt even on such projects, four-fifths
of them were employed at jobs requiring less skill than required
in their usual occupations. 4 Goods projects were also the only
kind on which a large proportion of semiskilled manufacturing
workers were employed at their usual occupations.
PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
Approximately one-quarter of all families had one or more
memoers employedinprivate industryatsometimein March (table
26). The bulk of these families were in the group not assigned
to the Program. In one-fifth of all cases it was the head of
the family who held private employment (table 14). A majority
of these workers secured the kinds of jobs for which they were
trained. The percentages of economic heads working at less
skilled jobs than their usual ranged from 14 percent of those
4Based on tabulated data which are not presented in this report,
Digitized by
Google
6
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
semiskilled in manufacturing to 37 percent of the proprietors
and managers (table 151.
A comparison of occupational adjustment on the Works Program
and in private industry indicates that workers are more likely
to secure work at their usual jobs in private industry than on
the Program. This is due, in part, to the fact that the Works
Program is unable to offer certain types of work.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ECONOMIC HEADS OF CASES
Whether a case had a Works Program or private job depended
to some extent on the employment characteristics of the economic
head. 6 Such characteristics as usual occupation, age, sex, and
duration of unemployment differed among economic heads with
Works Program employment on April 15, those waiting to be assigned, and those unable to accept an assignment, but the degree
of d~fference was not great.
Occupation
There was relatively close agreement, with respect to distribution by class of usual occupation, among the economic heads
of all certified cases, the heads of cases with a member employed
on the Program, and the heads. of ~ases with no member able to
accept assignment (table 161. In the remaining significant
group, those able to take assignment, two of the classes hardest
to place on the Works Program are relatively over-represented:
semiskilled factory operatives, and persons without work experience.
Age
The average age of workers in the three groups did not differ
markedly (table 171. The average family head with a Works Program job was 41 years old, about U years older than the average
worker awaiting assignment or unable to accept assignment. Among
those not employed but able to accept assignment, there was a
definite concentration of economic heads in the age range from
18-24 years (many of them with no usual occupation) and of heads
over 65 years of age. Persons in both age groups were evidently
at a disadvantage in getting Works Program jobs. Workers in
the most employable age group, those between 35 and 45 years of
age, were comparatively over-represented among the economic
6The economlc head ot a case ls the man or woman who, ln the oplnlon ot the
cert1t11ng agency, should be glven preference ln employment on the Works
Program. In some reports on the works Program such workers are deslgnated
•r1rst prlorltY workers.•
Digitized by
Google
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
7
heads who were unable to accept a Works Progran assignment,
principally because of private employment. Persons in this age
group are best able to hold private jobs since they are old
enough to have obtained experience in their jobs, but are not
too old to learn new processes and skills.
Sex
Men secured Works Program employment more easily than women
because the prevailing types of work projects were road and
building construction, 6 on which women obviously could not be
employed I table 18al. The larger proportion of women in the
group unable to accept an assignment than in the group already
assigned reflects, on the one hand, the greater employability
of women in private industry and, on the other, their inability
to take any job because of home obligations.
The greatest difficulty was found, therefore, in providing
Works Program jobs for women, for the extremely young or old,
and for persons with no working experience. All of these types
were represented in considerable proportions among the group
with Works Program employment, however, ·and in a few cities,
women were assigned to the Program in proportions greater than
their representation in the total load (table 18bl.
Duration of Unemployment
Although in the total certified load there was wide variation
in the length of unemployment reported, economic heads had not
worked at their usual occupations in private industry for an
average of nearly 3 years. At one extreme, 8 percent of the
economic heads were currently employed at their usual occupation
and 13 percent had lost their last jobs at their usual occupation within the la.st 12 months. At the other extreme,· 17 percent had not worked at their customary jobs within 5 years
(ta.ble 191.
Differences in duration of unemployment are to some extent
eY.!)lained by the occupations of the workers. Duration of unemployment tended to be shortest for certain types of unskilled
anu semiskilled workers. For example, relatively large proportions of semiskilled workers in manufacturing and of domestic
servants had been unemployed l year or less. The number of
those who had not worked for 5 years or more was relatively
greatest among office workers and skiiled building workers,
They were, in part, the long-time unemployed and, in part, persons who had worked in the last 5 years at an occupation other
6Approx1mately 70 percent or all WPA workers were employed on construction
proJects ln Karch 1936.
Digitized by
Google
8
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
than that reported as their "usual occupation." Median duration
of unemployment was longest for office workers 144 months) and
shortest for domestic workers 129 months).
Economic heads working on the Program had been unemployed
f.or an average of 41 months, a longer period than that of any
other group except the group of economic heads unable to accept
an assignment because o:f physical disability I table 20al. Economic heads unassigned but able and willing to take an assignment had been unemployed 29 months, on the average. Both the
occupational and age characteristics of this group tend to explain their shorter average period o:f unemployment. A large
proportion had usually worked as domestic servants and semiskilled factory operatives, groups for which duration of unemployment was relatively short. Moreover, these unassigned
workers included many young persons whose maximum period o:f unemployment is limited by the short length of time they have been
in the labor market.
A majority of the family heads unable to accept an assignment
because they already had private jobs were not working at their
usual occupations. The average length of time since these heads
had worked at their usual jobs was only slightly over 2 years,
the shortest period of unemployment of any class of family heads.
Inter-city differences in average duration of unemployment
were greater than differences among occupations or between workers with and without Works Program employment (table 20>). This
fact suggests that the length of time a worker had been unemployed was influenced more by the general economic conditions
prevailing in his community than by the demand for workers with
his skill.
CHARACTERISTICS OF OTH·ER CERTIFIED MEMBERS- OF CASES
In the great majority of cases ( 95 percent l only one member
of a family had employment on the Program. This was usually
the economic hea'd. As a means of increasing the income of large
families, local requests have been made that a second member
from such families be assigned to the Program. It was found in
the present study that only 17 percent of the cases already assigned had another member ready to accept an assignment (table
211. In the larger families, where supplementation of income
would tend to be needed, another member was available in a
greater proportion of cases, al though only one-quarter of the
families with from five to seven members, and less than one-half
of those wit~ eight or more had another member who could take
an assignment. The other certified members available for assignment included relatively large proportions o:f persons over
65, of young and inexperienced workers, and o:f women-the types
o:f workers most difficult to place satisfactorily on work projects I table 22).
Digitized by
Google
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
g
SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD
Size of family had almost no influence in the selection of
cases for Works Program employment. Those employed on the Program in April were of approximately the same average size (3.1
persons) as those awaiting assignment (3 .O persons I, although
a larger proportion of the latter consisted of only one person
(table 23al. Households unable to accept an assignment because
of private employment, however, were markedly larger than other
types of cases. On the other hand, small families predominated
among those cases in which all certified members were physically
disabled and unable to accept assignment.
MARCH INCOME OF CERTIFIED CASES
Works Program Income
The three major sources of the income of certified cases were
the Works Program, private employment, and relief. Cases receiving all or part of their income from Works Program employment in March constituted 69 percent of the total load and received an average income of $57.40 from such employment (table
241. Average Works Program income in each city was close to
the minimum security wage for unskilled labor, since most o!
the assignments were made to workers in that skill class. The
proportion of workers receiving more than the minimum security
wage was largest in Atlanta, Baltimore, and Butte. Works Program income showed no tendency to vary with the size of the case
receiving it.
Relief Income
One-fifth of all certified cases received assistance from
local public relief agencies in March 1936 (table 25al. The
average amount received was $24,90. Grants naturally differed
from city to city, as they depended both on local policy and
the amount of funds available for relief (table 25b), For the
total number of relief cases studied, general relief grants
ranged from $16 .80 for one-person households to $40, 70 for sevenperson households.
Income From Private Employment
Private employment was the sole source of income in March
for 11 percent of the certified cases; earnings !or this group
averaged $68.30 (table 261.
Private jobs were held both by cases with Works Program employment and by cases without such employment, but there were
126343 0-31-3
Digitized by
Google
10
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
marked differences between the two groups with respect to the
proportion holding private jobs and the average earnings derived
from them. Only about one-tenth of the cases employed on the
Program in March received any income from private employment
(table 261. Such income,in most cases, was earned by some member other than the worker assigned to the Program. Many of these
cases did not hold both types of jobs at the same time; the
Works Program job was given up in favor of private employment.
The average private earnings of cases with Works Program and
private employment were comparatively low in every city, ranging
from $13.50 in Atlanta to $44.20 in Baltimore I table 271. Few
cases received income from private employment exceeding the
minimum security wage for unskilled labor I table 281. By contrast, about three-fifths of the cases without employment on
the Program received some income from private employment Ctable
261 and their earnings ranged from $28.20 in Atlanta to $114.80
in Butte ltable 271. As average earnings indicate, a considerable proportion of these cases received March earnings from
private employment exceeding the minimum security wage for unskilled labor on the Works Program ( table 281 •
Total Income
Cases which received their whole income in March from only
one of the three main sources constituted approximately threequarters of the total load I table 261. Among the remaining
cases whose total incomes were derived from some combination
of sources, those receiving income from private employment in
addition to Works Program earnings fared best. Their median
income was $79.50 and nearly a third of them received $100 or
more.
The average income of cases receiving both relief and Works
Program income was $64.30, an amount higher than that of cases
with only Works Program income but not as high as the average
for cases with only private earnings. A much lower average income was received by cases supported by relief and privat-e earnings, or relief and other income, since relief is granted only
when income from other sources is inadequate. The average income from a combination of relief and private earnings was $54.76;
from relief and other sources ( such as aid from relatives or
the sale of personal possessions) it was $43.20. Only 4 percent
of the total load, however, drew income from these two combinations of sources.
Average total incomes for all cases combined increased uniformly with size of household. The average income for one·person households was $52.40 in March and for households with
eight or more members, $71 I table 291.
Digitized by
Google
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
ll
Analysis of incomes indicates that the great majority of
cases certified for the Works Program were still in need of
public aid in March and that Works Program assistance was given,
in the main, to those cases without substantial earning power
and most in need. Only a small group, cases without either
Works Program or private employment, had extremely low average
incomes. A considerable proportion of cases without Works Program employment but with private jobs were not in need at the
time of the survey. Reinvestigations of the certified load,
conducted in many areas since April, have operated to reduce
the proportion of cases no longer requiring assistance.
Digitized by
Google
~igitized by
Google
APPENDIX A
STATISTICAL PROCEDURE
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
G oog Ie
APPENDIX A
STATISTICAL PROCEDURE
Sampling Procedure
On April 15, 1936, the total of all cases certified for \forks
Program employment in the cities studied was over 314,000. Since
a study of the entire group was out of the question, the decision was made to base the survey upon a sufficient number of
cases to be representative of the total load for each city.
The cases selected for study were drawn at random from the
Occupational Classification files (Form 1441, It was originally
intended that there should be approximately 500 cases drawn in
each city, bu1 the sampling procedure resulted in a somewhat
lower figure in several of the cities.
Instructions to the local supervisors provided that the sampling procedure should be so set-up in each city as to provide
approximately equal numbers of cases with and without employment on the Program. Since these two groups were generally of
unequal size,· it was necessary to apply two separate sampling
ratios to the Occupational Classification tiles in most of the
cities.
The total sample drawn constituted 6,333 cases, or approximately 2 percent of the total certified load in the 13 cities.
The sample included 2.4 percent of cases not employed on the
Program, as against 1.8 percent of those employed. In individual cities the proportion of cases included ranged from 0.4 percent in Chicago to about 15 percent in Butte, Montana.
Table A presents for each of the 13 cities the total number
of certified cases on April 15, 1936, the number with and without Works Program employment, and the samples and sampling ratj0s tor each of these groups.
Since the samples for individual cities were restricted to
about 500 cases, considerable care must be used in interpreting
the results. A sample of this size is clearly too small to provide dependable evidence of the proportion of cases falling in
minor occupational groups or having unusually high or low earnings. Accordingly, a number of the tables in appendix B present
the minor occupational. classes in combinations rather than in-
dividually.
15
Digitized by
Google
16
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
Combining of Results
In order to present data for the 13 cities combined, it was
necessary to make a choice between the following alternatives:
(ll an aggregate of the samples drawn for each city, and (2) a
weighted total with the weights for each city proportional to
the total certified load in that city. The second of these
plans was adopted. The process of summation required, as a
first step, the adjustment of distributions based on city samples to a level representing the total certified load in each
city. The probable errors in the components of the city distributions thus obtained are of appreciable magnitude in the
Table A-NUMBER OF CERTIFIED CASES ON APRIL 15, 1936, ANO SAMPLING RATIOS
USED FOR STUDY OF CERTIFIED LOAD IN 13 CI Tl ES
City
Total
Certified
Cases
Sample•
Cases £rnp l oyed on
Works Program
Total
Sampling
Ratio
-
Cases Not Eq,1oyed on
Works Program
Total
SM1>l ing
Ratio
Number in
3,420
122,982
-
2,913
1
1
1
1
in 33
in 34
in
7
in
3
Nt1nber in
Samo le
All Cities
314,582
6,333
191,600
Atlanta
Baltimore
Bridgeport
Butte
14,883
20,573
4,740
3,373
451
500
502
500
8,481
12,576
2,820
2,663
1
1
1
1
in 33
in 48
in 12
in 12
257
262
239
231
6,402
7,997
1,920
710
Chicago
Detroit
Houston
Manchester
122,653
39,623
9,262
5,131
508
483
500
487
79,724
21,711
3. 719
3,731
I
I
1
1
iQ 243
in 88
in 15
In 13
328
247
241
287
42,929
17,912
5,543
1,400
1
1
1
1
In 238
in 76
In 21
7
in
14,453
6,734
32,202
30,429
10,526
500
494
451
442
515
7,309
2,761
21,251
18,504
6,350
I
1
1
1
1
in 23
in 12
in 79
in 72
in 25
311
236
269
7,144
3,973
10,951
11,925
4,176
1
1
l
1
1
in 38
in 15
in 60
in 65
in 16
Omaha
Paterson
St. Louis
San Francisco
Wilkes-Barre
258
254
""'""lo
194
238
263
269
180
236
259
200
189
258
182
184
261
•s&11p11ng tatlo ror total It not COfllputed, 1lnc• In all cHIH except Atlanta tht total 1&111plt waa a c:011blnatlon of two
11par1t117 drawn 1utt-H111PlH, tach with lt1 own 1a11pllng ratio.
case of larger cities like Chicago and Detroit. Consequently,
it was decided not to present any of the absolute figures built
up from the samples, because of the danger that such figures
would be used without allowance for their probable errors. All
th.e tables are presented in the form of percentage distributions
rounded to the nearest percent; the probable errors of the percentages shown are relatively small. For many tables, the absolute figures upon which the percentages are based are given
in table A; for most of the other tables, they may be obtained
by referring to the first row of figures which shows the relationship of the column totals to the total certified load.
Representativeness of the Samples
Both internal and external evidence suggests that the sample
drawn was reasonably satisfactory for the puq,oses for which it
has been used. The substantial similarity in the results for
Digitized by
Google
STATISTICAL PROCEDURE
17
the several cities makes it possible to place considerable confidence in the general findings of the study. Additional confirmation of the validity of the conclusions has been obtained
from time to time by checking the results for this group of
cases against those for another group from the same cities which
has been interviewed monthly by the Economic Trend Survey staffs
of the Division of Social Research.
The representativeness of the samples drawn in the cities
was also tested by comparir>g the sex and occupational distributions of the cases in the survey with those obtained through
the complete Labor Inventory for the counties in which the 13
cities are located ( table Bl. The sex distributions shown in
Table B-CLASS OF USUAL OCCUPATION OF ECONOMIC HEADS BY SEX,
IN 13-CITY SAMPLE AND IN LABOR INVENTORY
(Percent Distribution)
Sanple
labor Inventory•
Class of Usual Occupation
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
All economic heads
100
83
17
100
83
17
All occupations
100
100
100
100
100
100
2
3
6
2
3
2
9
5
2
1
3
3
4
7
Professional and technical worl<ers
Proprietors, rMnagers, and officials
Office workers
Sales and kindred worl<ers
Skilled workers in building and construction
Other ski 11 ed workers
Semiskilled workers in building and construction
Other semiskilled workers
Unskilled laborers
Dcmestic and personal service workers
Farm operators
Farm laborers
No usual occupation
Unknown
4
5
4
4
11
13
6
6
7
7
23
23
18
13
21
•1
1
1
3
6
•
9
•
•
•
•
22
•
37
•
•
21
1
2
5
3
9
5
5
22
16
10
•1
5
15
3
11
6
7
22
19
6
1
1
2
14
1
4
•-
19
1
29
•
•
17
18
•L•11 than 0.1 percent.
•Llbor lnvantory. January 15. ,,,,, of ec:ort0111lc htad1 In countlH In •lch tht 1' cltlH an 1oc1ted,
the survey and the inventory were exactly the same. Only slight
differences appear in the proportions of the two groups in various occupational classes, and they are probably accounted for
by trie fact that the usual occupations of 15 percent of the economic heads were not reported in the Labor Inventory. Persons
in occupations such as the skilled building trades and domestic
service ~ere relatively more numerous in the sample because it
was drawn from cities, while the Labor Inventory used the county
as a unit. That the effect of this difference in the area covered is less serious than might have been expected, however, is
indicated by the fact that agricultural workers were an equal
part of the relief load in both cities and counties.
126343 0-37--4
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
APPENDIX B
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Digitized by
Google
DigitizedbyGoogle .
Table 1-WORKS PROGRAM STATUS OF ALL CERTIFIED CASES AS OF APRIL 15, 1936
(Percent Distribution)
Total
Atlanta
Baltlmore
Bridge-port
Butte
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Cases employed on Works Program
60
57
61
59
79
65
Cases not employed on Works Program
40
43
39
41
21
Member able to take assignment
15
13
10
4
No member abie to take assignment
22
30
27
11
10
16
13
3
10
9
8
3
2
s
'
•
9
3
-
2
Works Program Status
Total cert i f i ed cases
All certified ••••bers in pr.ivate -loyn,ent
1-worker cases
• 2 or more worker cases
One certified member in pr ivate e,,playment
others unable to take ass l glY!lellt
Physical disabilities
Other reasons•
Unknown
•L•H
nan
0.1 pucent.
I
'3
I
llanchester
Ooaha
Paterson
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
55
40
73
51
41
66
51
60
35
45
60
27
49
59
34
39
40
4
18
13
10
10
14
24
11
18
18
33
17
17
27
50
16
22
25
1B
21
20
16
13
3
14
13
1
9
8
1
13
12
1
42
5
36
4
1
11
9
2
13
11
2
8
8
6
10
9
1
11
10
1
'
•
3
4
6
3
4
4
2
4
3
2
2
2
s
2
2
3
5
1
s
1
11
•
3
5
-
6
5
5
2
'
5
•
-
s
-
1
13
10
s
•
2
'
Chicago Detroit Houston
WilkesSt. I.Duis San
Francisco Barre
•
8 t1911t1•nlne percent of tr.• UHi In tflls category In lalti111ore and nlnety-t.u ,ercent In
ltlcl9eport Nre not re1l ■terllel
at i.e unit.cl stat ■s laplo,aant ortlca and ••r• barred fl'Ol'I Vorll1 Prog, .. anlgna■flt ttac•H of t111I I tact.
....
C\:)
22
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
Table 2a-RELIEF STATUS OF CERTIFIED CASES ACCORDING TO WORKS PROGRAM STATUS,
BY MONTHS IN 13 CITIES, SEPTE~BER 1935 THROUGH MARCH 1936
(Percent Oistribut ion)
Month
Cases With Works
Program Employoent
Al 1 Cases
Total
Cases Without Works
Program ~loyment
Relief
No Relief
7
19
6
16
56
44
34
1
3
12
32
34
57
60
63
32
31
31
Total
Relief
No Relief
93
81
80
70
11
44
32
21
1935
September
October
November
December
100
100
100
100
66
100
100
100
68
69
69
13
12
13
1936
January
February
March
11
9
6
14
18
17
14
16
15
Table 2b-RELIEF STATUS OF CERTIFIED CASES ACCORDING TO WORKS PROGRAM STATUS,
NOV EMBER 1935 ANO MARCH 1936
(Percent Distribution)
City
Month
Cases With 'M>rks
Program Emp I oyment
Al 1 Cases•
Cases Without Works
Program Employment
Total
Relief
No Relief
Total
Rel lef
54
19
35
62
45
37
4
-
37
No Rel lef
November
March
100
100
62
•
November
March
100
100
37
62
23
14
1
61
61
36
50
22
14
November
March
100
100
43
63
25
5
18
58
57
37
33
13
24
November
March
100
100
51
80
49
1
2
79
49
32
•
17
19
November
March
100
100
64
72
54
36
9
10
63
29
19
7
9
November
March
100
100
52
66
31
7
21
59
34
34
12
13
22
November
March
100
100
56
42
62
I
14
61
44
38
15
2
29
36
November
March
100
100
24
78
20
18
4
60
76
22
59
15
17
7
November
March
100
100
44
38
2
6
67
56
42
14
69
31
8
23
Paterson
November
March
100
100
53
55
49
8
4
44
26
18
19
St, Louis
November
March
100
100
63
76
58
November
March
100
100
49
November
March
100
100
51
59
Atlanta
Bal ti more
. Bridgeport
Butte
Chicago
Detroit
Houston
Manchester
Omaha
San Franc i sea
Wilkes-Barre
•.LHI
72
28
47
41
II
24
19
47
42
23
36
22
30
6
II
5
65
II
It
46
2
3
70
51
28
41
14
14
3R
13
56
49
41
31
17
3
10
18
24
thin 0.5 percent.
•1ncludn calH tor which rt11tf 1tatus wa• unkno.n.
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEMENT~RY TABLES
23
Table 3-NUMBER OF MONTHS ON RELIEF OF ALL CERTIFIED CASES IN 13 CITIES,
BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1, 1935 AND APRIL 15, 1936
(Percent Distribution)
Months on Rel i ef
All certified cases
Certified Cases
100
None
4
1 month
2 months
3 months
4 months
5
24
26
5 months
6 months
7 months and over
14
13
8
6
•
Unknom
•t.eaa
U1.at1
o.s percent.
Table 4-MEANS OF SUPPORT OF ALL CERTIFIED CASES IN 13 CITIES, BETWEEN
SEPTEMBER 1, 1935 AND APRIL 15, 1936
(Percent Distribution)
Means of Support
AII cert i fi ed cases
Certified Cases
100
Cases which supported thenselves continuously
Cases which supported thenselves at some time
2
29
Cases with continuous relief and Works Program income•
Cases with continuous relief only
Cases with continuous Works Program incetne only
60
8
Unknown
•
•.,... uu o., percent.
8 CuH receiving both types at lncoae throughout the period but not concurrently, end cans receiving
botll types concurrently.
Digitized by
Google
Table 5-SUCCESS OF ASSIGNMENTS TO WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT
(Percent Distribution)
r
Success of Ass Ignment
All assignments
Total
Butte
Chicago
Detroit
Manchester
Houston
Omaha
Paterson
St. Louis
Francisco
WilkesBarre
San
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
84
72
93
93
97
77
94
91
97
87
88
88
81
95
16
4
4
8
28
6
7
15
7
1
4
2
7
3
1
1
1
23
7
5
11
6
1
1
9
4
1
4
3
1
1
1
13
3
1
3
12
2
2
8
12
5
2
5
19
1
6
12
5
4
Unsuccessful
Because of private employment
Because of disabll lty
Because of other reasons
....
Baltimore Bridgeport
100
Successful
•
Atlanta
'
thu 0 .1 per-c•nt •
3
3
7
•1
c:n
c::
l:c
<
t,;I
-<
0
"Zj
0
>
rn
t,;I
c:n
0
t,;I
l:c
~
1-4
Table 6-4SSIGNWENT AND WORK EXPERIENCE OF CERTIFIED LOAD
(Percent Distribution)
"Zj
.....
t,;I
t::,
Assigrnent and Work Experience
All certified cases
No assigrment ll'Elde
Ass i grment nade but case never
en,ployed on iYorks 'Program
Case formerly employed on Works Program
but not as of 4pril 15. 1936
Case e,,pl oyed on ilorks Program
as of April 15, 1936
Status unknown
• ~ • U.an 0.5 percent.
St. Louis
San
Francisco
WilkesBarre
100
100
100
100
21
29
13
12
32
3
3
6
6
6
5
38
7
lB
19
11
21
2
55
40
73
51
41
66
61
60
4
-
1
7
5
4
Houston
Manchester
Omaha
100
100
100
100
9
15
t)
16
1
11
1
9
6
3
15
25
61
60
79
65
-
2
-
-
Total
Atlanta
Bal timore
Bridg.,...
port
Butte
100
100
100
100
100
100
16
18
35
28
17
7
11
2
4
16
14
2
60
57
1
-
Chicago Detroit
Paterson
"Zj
0
~
:,(
0
l:c
:,.:
c:n
~
~
•
1
0
(;')
~
>
X
Table 7-SUPERVISING AGENCY OF CASES EMPLOYED ON WORKS PROGRAM ON APRIL 15, 1936
(Percent Dlstribut Ion)
Supervising Agency
Total
cases with 1 """"ber employed on Works ProgrM!
WP exclusive of CCC and NYA
CCC
NYA
Cases with 2 members employed on Works Program
2 in CCC and/or NYA
1 CCC and 1 other WP
1 NYA and 1 other WP
Ccwnbinat ions exclusive of CCC
Cases with more than 2
members employed on Works Program
Unknown
Total
Atlanta
Bait 1more
Bridgeport
Butte
Chicago
Detroit
Houston
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
96
89
2
92
90
96
97
94
94
93
2
5
91
1
2
94
92
1
92
90
1
1
4
4
92
1
1
6
2
3
-
-
-
-
•
•
•
1
1
-
1
•1
3
•
•
3
6
3
1
3
3
-2
5
•2
4
•1
-
4
2
7
-
Man-
Paterson
St. Louis
100
100
100
100
100
100
94
93
91
96
99
95
93
91
87
2
2
95
98
91
1
•
5
•1
2
5
•
1
-1
1
1
-
-
•
-
•
-
1
1
1
•
1
2
-
-
1
4
-
1
-
-
•
2
3
3
-1
5
1
2
1
•6
•
1
WilkesSan
Francisco Barre
Onaha
chester
4
2
•
•
1
3
1
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
••
2
3
26
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
Table a-MEDIAN LENGTH OF TIME EMPLOYED ON WORKS PROGRAM ANO AVERAGE PERIOD PER
JOB, CLASSIFIED BY NUMBER OF JOBS HELO, FOR ALL CASES HAVING
HAO WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT IN 13 CI Tl ES
Nunl>er of Jobs
Percent of Cases
Median Length of Time
on Works Prog mn
(weeks)
100
20.a
10.3•
49
30
13
5
20.5
20.8
21.3
22.5
20.5
10.4
7 .1
5.6
2
1
21.7
21.9
19.1
22.1
3.1
2. 7
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
· 7
8
.
job
jobs
jobs
jobs
jobs
jobs
jobs
or more jobs
LeH nan 0.1 percent.
•10,al Nfl-ll9tlil worllld divided bJ toUl nUll&ttr or
b IDCltUr■ lnau.
••
Jeb•
Average Period per
Works Program Job
(weeks)
4.3
b
held.
Digitized by
Google
Table 9-NUMBER OF WEEKS WITHOUT WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT SINCE FIRST SUCCESSFUL ASSIGNMENT OF ALL CASES
(Percent Distribution)
Weeks Without Works Progr1111
£n,ploy-,,t Since Fl rst Ass l grrnent
Bridge-
port
Butte
Chicago
Detroit
Houston
chester
OMha
Paterson
St.
Louis
Francisco
Wilke&Barre
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
69
77
64
n
75
59
46
&I
57
55
77
48
67
7
4
8
11
4
6
2
6
4
.3
4
.3
4
2
6
2
1
1
7
7
17
5
2
1
5
1)
.3
7
5
9
4
5
4
2
4
18
5
8
4
8
6
8
5
2
5
6
7
4
17
7
2
1
3
3
Atlanta
All cases
100
No weeks
67
1 week
2 weeks
.3 weeks
4 -"•
> B weeks
4
2
6
9-12 weeks
.3
~16 weeks
2
2
2
1
17-20 weeks
21-24 weeks
25 weel<s and over
Average nunt>er of weeks lost•
-
IAH OM ••• perceet.
•.,,.,... I ■ tM arltllalt lc •an•
Man-
..,,.
Total
2•.3
•9
.3
3
Balti-
4
1
2
1
2
.3
.3
2
5
2
1
1
1
1
2
4
9
.3
3
3
2
2
4
.3
.3
2
•
-
•
-
2.7
0.8
1.4
1
2
1
•
•
-
•
.3
-
0.9
2.1
4.1
).4
5
-
2
1
JJ
.3
•2
•
-
•-
0.7
2.4
2.4
2
San
5
5
4
10
6
•
•
•
•
•-
1.1
2.5
.3
1
.3
.3
1
•
••
1.2
CZ>
c::
'1;t
'1;t
I:"'"
t;,;I
X
t;,;I
:z:
➔
>
--<
::ICI
➔
>
b:l
I:"'"
t"il
rn
Table 10-NUMBER OF WEEKS WITHOUT WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT SINCE FIRST SUCCESSFUL ASSIGNMENT OF CASES EMPLOYED ON
THE PROGRAM AS OF APRIL 15, 19.36
IPercent
Di st ri but ion)
en
c::::
Weeks Without Works Program
Employment Since First Assigrrnent
All cases
Total
100
Chicago
Detroit
Houston
Manchester
Onaha
Paterson
St.
San
Wilkes-
port
Butte
Louis
Francisco
Barre
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Atlanta
Bal tinore
Bridge-
100
100
l:Q
<
tz:I
--<
0
No weeks
1
2
.3
4
week
weeks
weeks
weeks
5- 8 weeks
9-12 weeks
13-16 weeks
17-20 """ks
21-24 weeks
25 weeks and over
•u ■- than 0.5 percent.
85
7
2
1
1
2
1
•
•
•-
B6
79
71
3
8
16
.3
1
5
3
5
1
.3
7
2
1
.3
-
•1
-•
-
1
--
•-
-•
-
75
11
7
4
1
2
•-
90
.3
2
1
1
2
1
--•
89
5
•2
•1
1
1
-
86
10
2
1
-
1
-
92
5
1
•2
-
81
8'J
92
6.3
70
8
2
.3
1
.3
9
1
1
2
2
.3
1
1
1
2
20
6
.3
3
2
1
2
1
1
-1
•
-
1
2
--
1
-
4
-
-
17
5
"Zj
(")
>
en
tz:I
en
(")
tz:I
1
l:Q
-
"Zj
•-
>-i
1-4
1-4
tz:I
0
"Zj
0
l:Q
~
0
l:Q
Po:
en
"ti
l:Q
8
l:Q
>
:x
Table 11-CLASS OF ASSIGNED OCCUPATION ON LATEST WORKS PROGRAM JOB OF CERTIFIED WORKERS,
BY CLASS OF USUAL OCCUPATION, IN 13 CITIES•
( Percent Dlstrl butionl
Class of Usual Occupation
Occupation
All oecupat ionsc
Professional
Unsk i 11 ed Oomest ic
Mlscellaneousb
100
4
9
6
1
2
13
64
t
•
3
4
100
100
100
100
100
64
5
11
18
'9
27
3
1
7
4
2
1
2
-1
23
3
-•
a,
7
12
9
13
4
100
100
100
100
100
100
1
2
1
7
1
4
1
3
22
7
3
3
2
1
1
4
11
Other ski I led workers
Semiskilled workers in building and construction
Other semiskilled workers
Unsk i 11 ed I aborers
Domestic and personal service workers
5
7
21
19
12
•~■■ lhan 0.1 percent.
Total
Skilled in Other Semiskilled
Other
Workers
Bulldioa Skilled in Bulldlna Semiskilled
Office
100
Profes•ional and technical workers
Proprietors, managers, and officials
Office workers
Sales and kindred workers
Skilled workers in building and construction
No usual occupation
Distribution by Class of Assign'l(I Occupation
Distribution by
Class of Usual
6
8
6
8
3
•
•4
•,.rcentagH of persons •orklng on Progru In st:• clan ot ocaipation as their usual are In Italics.
blncludes ule... n, managers, and tara operators,
clncludes .or,ien whose usual occupation••• unkno-n. Fam operators an corGlned •Ith proprietors, tara laborers •Ith unskilled laboren.
-5
1
•
•3
7
3
•
-•1
1
55
29
40
53
72
8
3
1
84
1
1
ao
3
93
32
31
59
38
•1
70
1
5
•
•1
1
•
'
2
1
•
••
-•-
Table 12-PERCENT OF PERSONS EMPLOYED ON LATEST JOB ON WORKS PROGRAM I~ SAME SKILL CLASS OF OCCUPATION AS THEIR USUAL,
BY TY PE OF PROJECT, I N 1) CIT I ES
Skill Class
of
Usual
Occupation
Type of Works Progr"" Project
All
Projects
Highway, Road,
and Street
Rlbl le
Building
All classes
46
41
57
lllllte collar
Slcilled
S...lslcllled
Unski lied
44
13
11
5
96
8
69
10
92
t ,.. r tt.u
27
18
e
Goods
Sanitation
and
Health
Di stribution
of Surplus
Canodlties
42
73
39
20
63
43
13
11
3
97
93
4
't
95
45
31
2
Uti1 it ies,
Sewers, and
Water Works
Transoortat ion
Faci 1ities
38
51
52
31
24
9
17
98
16
Facilities
15
22
85
30
9
98
Project Not
Elsewhere
Classl fied
and Unknown
[ducat ional.
Pr;,fessional,
Etc.
Conservation
Recreation
11
21
61
-
17
98
't
-
-
2
89
100 NO.era.
Table 13-PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AND WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF ALL CERTIFIED CASES ON APRIL 15, 1936
(Percent Distribution)
En,pl.,_t Status of Case
All cases
En,ployed on Works Progrn
No 1H11ber in private -lo1"'enl
One ,anoer in private npl oyntent
More than one in private -lo111ent
Unknown
Not ""Ployed on Works Prognn
No member in pr.ivate -lo,-,t
One l'llefflDer in private enployraent
More tha, one in private 41191 oyraent
UnknO'M"I
•LeH O• 0.5 perce"t.
Balti- Bridge""re
port
i!utte
Atlanta
WO
100
100
100
WO
100
60
57
61
59
79
65
53
6
1
44
12
1
55
5
1
51
7
1
76
3
-
-
57
7
1
40
43
14
39
20
14
3
2
41
19
16
2
3
15
18
4
15
•
-
26
3
-
-
4
llanchester
OMha
Paterson
St.
Louis
Francisco
WilkesBarre
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
55
49
40
73
51
41
61
60
36
61
9
3
44
6
1
34
4
•3
66
53
9
1
3
57
4
55
5
40
21
15
2
2
4
2
4
•
•
-
-
21
35
5
20
13
2
45
20
17
3
5
60
8
45
7
1
•
•
s..,
Houston
0,icago Detroit
Total
-
•
-
•-
27
49
59
34
39
15
20
30
12
9
15
2
1
1
16
3
10
26
12
1
~
15
2
5
•
•-
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Table
31
14-CLASS OF USUAL OCCUPATION OF ALL ECONOMIC HEADS AS OF APRIL 15, 1936,
ANO OF ECONOMIC HEADS WITH PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT IN MARCH
1936 IN 13 CITIES
IPercent. Di st ri bul I on)
All Economic
Heads
Economic Heads With
Private Employment
A11 econom i C heads
100
20
411 occupations
100
2
4
6
4
100
Class of Usual Occupation
Professional and technical workers
Proprietors, nanagers. and officials•
Office workers
Sales and kindred workers
Skilled workers In building and construction
Other skilled workers
Semi ski lied workers in bui Iding and construction
Other semiskilled workers
Unski I led laborersb
Domestic and personal service workers
No usual occupation
Unknown
11
6
6
23
18
14
6
•
3
3
6
3
11
6
8
26
17
16
•1
•uu UIM 0.1 percent.
•111elud•• ta,- op1retor■•
bfncludes tara laborers.
Digitized by
Google
Table 15-CLASS OF OCCUPATION IN PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT DURING MARCH 1936 OF ECONOMIC HEADS,
BY CLASS OF USUAL OCCUPATION IN 13 CITIES•
{Percent Distribution)
en
c:::::
l,CI
Class or Occupation in Private Employnent
Class of Usual Occupation
Total
Prof esslonal
All occupations b
100
2
Professional and technical workers
Proprietors. managers, and officials
Office workers
Sales and kindred workers
Skilled workers in building and construction
100
100
100
100
100
54
Other skilled workers
Semiskilled workers in building and construction
Other semiskilled workers
Unskilled laborers
Domestic and personal service workers
No usual occupation
100
100
100
100
100
100
-
-2
-
Proprietors, etc.
Office Sales and Skilled in Other Semi ski 11 ed
Other
Workers
Building Sk i1 led in Building Semi ski I led
Kindred
<
l:?':I
Unskil I ed Oanest ic
3
5
4
9
4
4
22
18
13
2
53
4
1
9
14
1
•4
17
-
46
9
41
1
1
2
9
5
5
4
1
10
20
9
10
2
112
11
11
13
10
3
4
4
61
5
9
6
61
1
38
20
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
-
•
3
•4
t
1
2
8
-2
11
2
2
-
11,
-•
3
5
,a
12
2
l
1
2
-
2
-•
•Lesa Ulan 0.5 perc;ent.
8,ercentagea ot persons woning in private •p1o,...nt In sa111e class or oc;cupatlon H their usual are l,i Italics.
blncludH workers •boH usual occupation • • unknown. ,a,.. operators are co11bintd •Ith proprietors, fal'II laoontrs with unalllllecl laborers.
-1
3
M
2
1
1
-
14
8
1
F.arm Unknown
•
3
1
•
•-
--<
16
0
24
10
19
21
0
10
8
19
13
14
19
33
~
>
en
l"3
en
0
l:?':I
1:11:1
➔
1-1
~
1-1
l:?':I
t:,
"'II
0
,.,
•
0
l,CI
po,:
en
"ti
1:11:1
0
c;)
l=tl
>
:x
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
33
Table 16-CLASS OF USUAL OCCUPATION OF ECONOMIC HEADS BY WORKS PROGRAM STATUS
AS OF APRIL 15, 1936, IN 13 CITIES
(Percent Distribution)
Not Employed on Works Program
Employed
Total on Works
Program
Class of Usual Occupation
Able To Take
Asslanment
Unable To Take
Assl onment
Unknown
All econon i c heads
100
57
15
26
2
All occupatl ons
100
100
100
100
100
2
4
6
4
3
4
7
4
2
2
3
3
4
11
11
2
3
3
4
13
6
5
4
7
8
2
9
3
6
7
21
20
12
6
4
27
16
14
10
6
23
16
17
6
Professional and technical workers
Proprietors, mansgers, and officials•
Offl ce workers
Soles snd kindred M>rkers
Skilled M>rkers In building and construction
llther sk 111 ed M>rkers
Semiskilled M>rkers in bul I ding and construction
Other s.. lskllled workers
Unskilled laborersb
Domest le and persona 1 service workers
No usual occupation
23
18
14
6
•
Unknown
5
11
-
•
8
20
18
19
1
7
•
•LHI Ulan 0.1 percent.
8 1nchde1 rara op1r.11tor1.
b1nchdt1 rara 1aoorer1.
Table 17-AGE OF ECONOMIC HEADS OF ALL CERTIFIED CASES BY WORKS PROGRAM STATUS
AS OF APRIL 15, 1936, IN 13 CITIES
(Percent Dlstributionl
Not Employed on Works Program
Total
Employed
on Works
Program
Able To Take
Asslanment
Unable To Take
Asslanment
All economic heads
100
57
15
26
2
All ages
100
100
100
100
100
1
1
10
22
28
1
16
21
24
2
22
31
24
7
26
21
20
7
9
6
4
4
4
Age Interval
16-17
18-24
25-34
35-44
years
years
years
years
45-54 years
55-59 years
60-6-4 years
65 years and over
Unknown
Median Age
11
22
28
11
•
•
2
3
5
•
•
40.1
40.8
39,4
39.1
3
4
•LIH tllan o.s percent.
Digitized by
Google
Unknown
u•
25
27
19
7
4
2
2
38,2
34
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
Table 18a-SEX OF ECONOMIC HEADS OF ALL CERTIFIED CASES BY WORKS PROGRAM
STATUS AS OF APRIL 15, 19:36,
IN
1:3
CITIES
(Percent Dlstrlbut ion)
Sex
Total
Employed
on Works
Prog"""
Total
Not Emp 1oyed on Works Program
Able To Take
Asslgnnent
Unable To Take
Asslgrment
Unknown
100
100
100
100
100
83
86
75
25
81
Male
Fe,,ale
14
17
83
17
19
Table 18b-SEX OF ECONOMIC HEADS OF ALL CERTIFIED CASES, BY WORKS PROGRAM
STATUS AS OF APRIL 15, 19:36
(Percent Dlstrlbut Ion)
City
Chicago
Detroit
Houston
Manchester
Onaha
Paterson
St. Louis
San Francisco
WI 1kes-Barre
Not Employed on Works Program
Able To Take
Assignm,nt
Unable To Take
Assl9m,ent
Fema.le
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
:37
22
16
22
68
58
68
42
56
84
96
:32
16
4
:32
78
22
70
67
44
:30
75
25
77
2:3
90
98
74
72
56
44
78
22
84
80
26
28
16
83
90
2
10
79
78
9
12
21
22
81
87
70
19
1:3
:30
87
77
2:3
95
5
1:3
19
:31
:30
1
Male
Atlant.a
Baltimore
Bridgeport
Butte
Employed
On Works
Program
Total
6:3
78
84
78
91
88
81
69
70
99
20
88
94
77
:32
5
4:3
80
95
57
89
11
90
10
84
89
68
86
75
"
10
17
12
6
2:3
20
14
25
16
11
Unknown
Male
86
76
74
92
-
Female
-
14
24
26
-8
-
6:3
:37
75
25
9:3
7
75
100
100
25
Digitized by
-
Google
4 WEEKS-OR MORE AT USUAL OCCUPATION~ OF ECONOMIC HEADS,
BY CLASS OF USUAL OCCUPATION, IN 13 CITIES
(Percent Dlstributlonl
Table 19--NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE ENDING OF UST JOB OF
Class of Usual Occupation
Total
Employed
at Date
of
lnteNin
1-\2
13-24 25-36
Months Months Months
37-48 4s-60
Months lt>nths
All occupationsb
100
8
13
13
10
8
9
Professional and technical •or~ers
Proprietors. nanagers,and officials
too
)
9
9
10
8
l4
16
8
11
14
11
11
8
14
12
11
12
11
9
11
12
18
12
16
14
11
Off ice wori<ers
Soles and kindred workers
Skilled workers in building and construction
Other ski I led workers
Semiskilled "orkers in building an:t construction
Other semisk i II ed workers
Unski lted laborers
Donestic ard personal service workers
100
100
100
100
8
100
100
100
8
7
10
too
6
9
too
9
5
s
Unk"°""
lledlan
Duration
of
~ loy..,,.t•
22
35. 4
)7.7
39.8
44.0
)6.6
)8.5
NUfflber of Months Since Last Job at Usual Occu-tion
11
15
14
13
8
9
8
10
6
9
11
12
10
8
11
10
5
8
8
8
s
14
8
9
8
&1-n
73-84
Months lbnths
85-9{,
97 lolonths
Months
and Over
8
5
2
2
9
8
14
7
10
4
1
4
l
2
2
25
3
5
2
24
20
5
8
2
1
4
2
25
6
7
3
1
1
2
1
l
23
8
10
6
9
5
5
7
2
l
2
2
3
~SUI occupation Is defined•• Ul•t at •l'lld • peraot1 Ns 1JOrked tM greatest lengo ot ,1 . . dwino the last 10 1•u. Ne •1 .,...,. 11:ieen 1111Nflo1ed at &hi• occ•aUon 1h1ee ltH
talrlJ cofltiiwo11s ea,loJMftt In otl'lcr occ1i11atlon1.
blftCIVO•• worur-s . .._M •1U•I occu,at ion •s 1u1knoan. ,.,.. open.tort.,., c.oaolMCI •1111 pn:i,rlators. tara laboran •in uanllled •rk•n •
CNedlans ca1cu1atN on ca .., ffH •tllO dunlJ011 of un91Plo,-ent • • reported. Ca.a eap1o)'\lld at date of h1tervle• " ' • excluded 11'1 c.alculatlon of eedl&l'I..
21
20
20
~
23
••t
1tlll ,..,. had
35.6
40.2
)2.5
)8.2
29.2
tf)
C:
'"Cl
'"Cl
I:""
tz;I
X
t:,;J
::z:
➔
>
><
:::0
>-i
;I>
to
I:""
t"3
ti)
0
ciS"
~:
N
(D
Q.
O"
'<
()
0
-
~
(v
(>I
(11
36
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
Table 20a-NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE END.ING OF LAST Joe• AT USUAL OCCUPATION
OF ECONOMIC HEADS BY WORKS PROGRAM STATUS AS OF
APRIL 15, 1s,e. IN 1, CITIES
{Percent Dlstrlbut Ion)
Nun'l>er of Months Since
Last Job at Usual Occupat Ion
Al I economic heads
No monthsb
1-12 months
1:3-24 months
2s-,s months
,748 months
Able To
Acceot
Assignnent
100
100
8
•
Median duration of unemploy11ent0
Unab I e To Accept Ass I gnnent
Privste
E1111lo-nt
Physical
Disabi 1itv
100
100
100
100
100
40
4
12
6
28
12
1,
12
1
20
16
12
2'
10
9
12
8
9
8
9
8
1'
9
8
11
10
8
6
'
9
8
5
2
2
22
7
5
1
2
2
22
2
19
l
l
14
,5.4
40.6
29.2
25.4
1,
1,
10
49-60 months
61-n months
7:3-84 months
85-96 months
97 months •nd over
Unknown
Not Employed on Works Program
Employed
on
Works
Program
Total
'
1'
4
5
Other
Reasons
Unknown
1
7
1,
6
10
6
'
2
6
15
22
••
•70
46.6
26.,
11,5
l
4
•L•n OH 0.1 percent.
8 LHt
Joo of • ... 11. o_r aor1.
btaplo11d 11 utua1 occup1llon on date or lnUrvl•••
c,eraon1 working at Otlr
occupation on date of lnUrvlt• are excluded In c11cu11tlng 01 11edl ■ n1.
••••I
Digitized by
Google
Table 20b-NUMBER OF MONTHS ~INCE ENDING OF LAST JOB OF 4 WEEKS OR MORE AT USUAL OCCUPATION OF ECONOMIC HEADS
( Percent Dlstrlbut Ion)
Cities
Total
Employed
at Date
of
Interview
1-12
Months
13-24
Months
25-36
Months
37-48
Months
16
12
7
7
9
12
2
3
11
12
11
3
2
4
Atlanta
Baltimore
Bridgeport
Butte
100
100
100
100
10
9
16
11
13
10
11
7
24
14
Chicago
Detroit
5
7
9
6
8
19
18
51
11
11
18
12
11
Manchester
100
100
100
100
6
14
5
9
5
7
1
Omaha
Paterson
St. Lou Is
.San Francisco
Wi l kes-Sarre
100
100
100
100
100
8
12
15
11
8
6
6
3
6
3
14
19
12
12
12
18
7
13
3
5
8
4
Houston
11
Median
N_umber of Months Si nee Last Job at Usual Occupation
6
11
14
9
49-60
Months
4
7
9
8
2
11
5
61-72
Months
73--&I
85-96
Months
Months
2
5
3
6
3
3
2
8
1
2
1
2
12
7
6
1
8
4
4
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
10
3
2
2
2
6
2
•
1
1
2
4
•
97 Months
and Over
1
1
•2
2
•1
1
•
•1
3
2
No Usual
Occupat I on
Unknown
35
39
42
10
38
24.9
33.1
28.6
45.4
6
9
4
5
47.9
28.7
28.1
9.7
6
22.9
17.8
28.6
39.4
20.3
6
11
15
21
10
15
.
of
Unemp I ovmen t •
4
12
7
10
19
45
Duration
3
5
6
4
•1.•ss Oan o.5 percent.
•~1an1 calculated on totals repor\lng both ulu ■1 occupation and duration of un•ploy•nt.
C■aH
currently •ployed "re excluded In calculatlon or lledlans,
0
ciS"
~:
N
(D
Q.
O"
'<
()
0
a(v
(;I
-.;J
38
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
Table 21-AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL ASSIGNABLE MEMBER IN CASES EMPLOYED ON
THE WORKS PROGRAM, BY SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD,
IN 1:3 CITIES
(Percent Distribution)
Size of Household
No Additional Memer
Able To Accept
Assigment
Total
Additional Member Able
To Accept Assignment
Male
F""ale
Total
100
8:3
9
8
1-person
2-person
:3- to 4-person
5- to 7-person
8-person and over
100
100
100
100
100
100
89
81
-
-
1
9
17
:38
7:3
51
10
9
10
10
Unknown
•
-
•1
•1
•LIIH than o.s percent.
Table 22-CLASS OF USUAL OCCUPATION, SEX, AND AGE, OF CERTIFIED MEMBERS ABLE TO
ACCEPT ASSIGNMENT IN CASES WITH NO MEMBER ~MPLOYED ON THE
WORKS PROGRA'-' ANO WITH NO ECONOMIC HEAD ABLE TO ACCEPT
ASSIGNMENT,
IN
13 CIT I ES
(Percent Distribution)
A, Class of Usual Occupat Ion
Percent of total certified load
A11 occupat i ans
Other Certified '-'embers Able To Accept Asslgmient
2
100
Professional and technical workers
Proprietors, managers, and officials
Office workers
Sales and kindred workers
Skilled workers in building and construction
Other sk 111 ed workers
S...lskllled workers In building and construction
Other s,miskl lled workers
Unsk 111 ed 1aborers
Dornastlc and personal service workers
No usual occupat Ion
1
10
1
•
•
26
9
28
25
8. Sex and Age
Tota.1
100
Male
50
Female
All ages
16-17
1&-24
25-34
:35-44
years
years
years
years
45-54 years
55-59 years
60-64 years
65 years and over
Median age
50
100
6
43
22
17
3
1
1
7
24.6
Digitized by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
39
Table 23a-SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD OF ALL CERTIFIED CASES BY WORKS PROGRAM STATUS,
IN 13 CITIES
(Percent Distribution)
No Member Employed on Works Program
Member
Employed
Total on Worl<s
Progrzm
Size of Household
Able To All CertiAccept fled MemAssign- hers in
ment
Private
I
ovrrent
•-1
All certified cases
.
Lall
100
100
100
100
100
17
23
22
18
-
)B
:36
16
27
31
22
4
30
39
7
16
21
21
4
-
13
4
2
4,3
2.3
2.8
2.4
100
18
21
34
))
23
22
4
•
4
•
23
4
14
14
38
29
5
3,1
3,1
3.0
3,7
34
Medi., size of household•
100
100
1-person
2-person
,_ to 4-person
5- to 7-person
8-person and over
Unknown
Unable to Accept Assigrwnent
One but Not
All Certi- Physical
Other
f i ed lleftbers
DisReasons Unknown
in Private ability
Employment
18
nu o.a ,ercent.
-
-
-
-
33
18
•r•
•ror ttie ,..,,... of ca1c ■1at1111 _., ..... ci ..1 flg•re• "tlouHtleld IIH
qauaed to II• at: tM
■ ld-,olnta et c1ua IM•"•"• Tin•, a J.p1rt0fl II011Htto1, na Ullen H thll central point or u
lt1tarnl txttllelllng fr• Zol to ,.s perlOfll.
Table 23b-SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD OF ALL CERTIFIED CASES
(Percent Distrlbut ion)
City
Atlanta
Baltimore
Bridgeport
Butte
Chicago
Detroit
Houston
Manchester
Omaha•
Paterson
St, Louis
San Franc I scoW11 kes-Barra
All
Households
Size of Household
1person
person
,_ to 4person
5- to 7person
100
100
100
100
13
13
8
25
35
17
24
34
24
28
33
43
23
23
9
3
8
7
2
100
100
100
100
17
18
24
17
16
36
36
37
35
24
26
27
24
5
5
5
7
22
20
27
25
8
36
20
21
3
5
4
1
10
100
100
100
100
100
9
14
18
18
21
14
48
7
2-
33
34
18
39
28
21
8
36
•ror 1 percent. 1lze of llouuhold la unknown.
Digitized by
Google
8-person
and over
Table 24-WORKS PROGRAM INCOME IN MARCHa
(Percent Distribution)
lncorre Interval
Percent of certified cases with March WP income
Total with WP incone
$ 1-$ 4
5- 9
10- U
15- 19
20- 24
Total
Atlanta
Butte
Chicago Detroit
Houston
Man-
chester
Onaha
Paterson
St. Louis
San
Francisco
WilkesBarre
69
62
64
63
80
71
67
62
78
68
58
77
72
60
100
1
3
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
•
•
•1
•3
-
-
1
1
100
1
2
1
1
3
100
-1
100
1
5
2
6
1
100
•-1
100
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
6
1
1
1
1
2
9
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
4
5
2
4
3
3
2
1
2
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
7
10
48
3
7
1
1
2
3
56
10
1
1
13
81
3
-1
2
1
3
10
36
2
9
2
2
1
48
1
2
1
8
53
1
12
11
19
16
7
1
6
2
1
12
3
-
1
1
6
3
1
3
1
15
4
•1
1
2
2
6
8
2
11
4
4
3
3
9
32
1
2
14
50- 54
55- 59
60- 64
65- 69
70- 74
75- 79
9
30
13
7
1
1
•3
•3
80- 84
85- 89
1
6
2
90- 94
Bridgeport
100
29
34
39
44
49
2530354045-
Salt imore
"'"
0
1
2
•1
•7
-
-
-1
•
1
•64
-
2
1
1
1
1
1
55
1
1
1
7
2
6
1
5
4
2
24
13
18
4
5
3
1
22
3
2
2
6
2
4
1
-2
•
•1
•
11
2
3
•
•2
•2
5
1
-1
1
•2
-1
54
•1
•--
-2
2
4
•
•
1
•1
•-
1
5
1
1
•
•
1
1
1
-
3
1
•
•76
1
5
•
1
6
2
•1
-2
4
3
3
-
••-
-1
13
2
•
-1
1
100 and over
•2
Unknown
1
-
$57.40
$.32.70
$48.80
$58.60
$48.70
$57.10
$63.10
$37.30
$52.50
$56.70
$61.90
$57.40
$58.60
$62.80
-
33.00
49.50
60.50
48.00
55.00
60.00
35.00
52.00
55.00
60.50
55.00
60.00
60.50
95- 99
Median incorre
Mininun security wage for unskilled labor
•L"• than o.s percent.
8woru Progra■ fnc.oae ..u also tabulated by alze ot fully but showed no tendency to lncreaae with lul1y alze.
•
-2
-
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
41
Table 25a-GENERAL RELIEF GRANTS OF CERTIFIED CASES IN MARCH 1936,
BY SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD, IN 13 CITIES
(Percent Distrlbut lonl
Size of Household
Size of Grants
Total•
Percent of cert if led cases with
general relief grants in March
Total with general rel lef grants
$ 1-$ 4
5- 9
10- 14
15- 19
20- 24
25- 29
30- 34
35- 39
40- 44
45- 49
50 a..:t <Ner
Unknown
Med Ian 1ncane
1-.
,2456B-person
73-person person person person person person person and over
21
15
19
19
19
25
26
28
46
100
6
10
8
14
11
9
100
6
14
17
100
2
9
5
9
11
7
100
g
10
5
7
13
16
100
8
4
9
2
5
12
100
5
10
100
10
7
8
4
6
5
100
6
13
8
13
5
100
5
13
11
24
15
11
9
7
7
6
12
5
2
8
5
17
14
9
6
8
5
13
9
14
10
14
8
5
10
9
18
1
37
•
3
•
•2
•
•
3
3
4
10
9
12
•
•
3
13
9
10
-
4
6
3
6
40
1
$24.90 $16.80 $19.10 $31. 70 S26.90 $33.80 $30.50 $40,70
•Le..
thM 0.5 percent.
•rota1 lncludH hOt.lHho1ds of unknown 1lze.
Digitized by
Google
5
13
3
3
5
5
7
32
-
S32.40
Table 25b-MARCH RELIEF GRANTS OF CERTIFIED CASES
(Percent Distribution)
Cl)
Size of Grants
Percent of certified cases with
relief grants in March
Total with general relief grants
S 1-$ 4
5- 9
10- 14
15- 19
20- 24
25- 29
30- 34
35- 39
40- 44
45- 49
50 an:t over
Unknown
Median Income
•Lesa tMft o. S percent.
flaN
too-•• tor calculatioas.
Atlanta
Bal tincre
Bridgeport
Butte
Chicago
Detroit
Houston
Manchester
Oiaha
Paterson
San
St. Louis Francisco
WilkesBarre
C:
~
<
i.:,:,
1
23
t
100
-4
4
8
12
9
19
7
11
1B
19
3
33
11
31
22
17
20
I
t
100
8
13
21
14
10
11
100
2
26
2
16
12
12
100
4
11
11
100
100
6
4
4
100
1
3
8
10
9
9
9
6
5
3
5
3
10
4
6
13
5
4
13
t
7
10
3
4
S20.10
S23. 70
11
10
6
8
8
8
6
6
7
9
21
t
5
8
7
11
1
S23.10
S24. 70
too
5
7
11
19
12
12
5
4
20
8
$33.50
2B
too
100
8
10
11
4
12
·6
-
2
8
11
7
13
-
$29. 70
2
2
4
•
S17.80
13
15
4
3
15
14
15
12
12
38
6
6
-
5
9
6
3
12
1
15
11
5
9
20
S21.30
S19. 70
$33.00
5
-
-<
...,
0
C')
>
Cl)
i.:,:,
Cl)
C')
.,....
i.:,:,
~
.......,
i.:,:,
t:::I
...,
0
~
:C
0
~
;ii,,;
CIJ
"ti
~
8
~
>
X
Table 26-TOT·AL MARCH INCOME OF CERTIFIED CASES, BY SOURCE OF INCOME, IN 13 CIHES
(Percent Distribution)
lnccme Interval
All Certi fled Cases
Total
None
s
1-$ 4
5- 9
10- 14
15- 19
202530354045505560657075-
24
29
34
39
44
49
54
59
64
69
74
79
80- 84
85- 89
90- 94
95- 99
100 and over
Unknown
Median I nccme
Works Program
Works Program
Works Program
and Other
and Private
and Relief
Combinations
Employment
Private
Private
Employment Employment
Only
and Relief
Private and
Other Caro i-
Rel lef
Only
Rel lef and Other
Except Works Program and Private
Employment
Other
lnccme
Only
Total"
Works Program
Only
100
52
8
5
4
11
3
3
10
1
1
100
2
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
•
•1
-
1
2
2
2
•4
•4
1
•
•
1
1
3
3
3
11
1
3
1
2
3
2
•
•2
3
3
3
2
9
5
6
10
7
2
2
1
1
3
1
•1
2
3
2
3
4
3
3
7
7
18
11
7
3
3
2
1
2
2
4
8
30
14
8
1
2
3
5
13
5
5
6
8
13
18
12
10
6
1
7
3
5
7
2
4
31
1
3
3
2
6
3
$79.50
S64.30
5
2
1
7
4
•2
$58.30
$58.10
•
•Le11 than 0.1 p1rcent.
•c•n• with no lncoae and wlh source of lncoae unknown are included In total col1111n.
4
-
-1
•
1
•
•
•
•1
4
5
4
6
3
5
7
6
5
6
4
11
20
3
5
2
3
24
2
2
4
5
2
9
1
S71.90
$68.30
$54. 76
4
5
10
14
6
9
8
4
4
•
7
7
5
5
nations Except
Works Program
3
1
5
5
15
9
10
-1
8
11
3
11
•
13
8
6
10
10
6
3
4
5
4
2
2
1
19
10
69
•
•
•
•1
-
3
•
$41.83
$32.20
$43.20
1
1
1
•5
1
-
-1
-3
•3
9
-
1
16
13
27
7
10
1
1
2
-1
1
3
•
•
•
1
-
•
15
$22.20
fl}
c:::
"ti
"ti
t'"'
ti::I
:3:
ti::I
:z
➔
>
:ad
to<
➔
>
b:I
t'"'
ti::I
fl}
44
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
Table 27-MEOIAN INCOME FROM PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT OF CASES WITH ANO WITHOUT
WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT IN MARCH 1936
Cases With Works
Program Employment
Cases Without Works
Program Employment
Unskll led Security
Wage Rate
Atlanta
Bal ti more
Bridgeport
Butte
$13,50
44.20
42.90
34.20
$28.20
50,30
73.60
114.80
$33,00
49.50
60.50
48.00
Chicago
Detroit
Houston
Manchester
30.60
35.00
14.70
35.00
60.60
99.20
45. 70
47.50
·35.00
52.00
Onaha
Paterson
St. Louis
San Francisco
Wilkes-Barre
26,30
40.00
18.50
30.00
29.40
53.40
60.80
49.20
71. 70
48.10
55.00
60.50
55.00
60.00
60.50
City
55.00
60.00
Digitized by
Google
Table 28-PRIVATE EARNINGS OF CASES WITH AND WITHOUT WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT IN MARCH 1936
(Percent Distrlbut ion)
San
Francisco
WilkesBarre
100
100
100
90
76
92
90
10
24
8
10
3
16
2
8
2
22
3
5
2
8
100
100
100
100
100
100
51
34
38
29
57
47
43
24
19
53
18
35
Atlanta
Baltimore
Bridgeport
Butte
Chicago
Detroit
tbuston
Wa•chester
Omaha
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Cases with no private earnin1s
n
89
84
94
87
87
74
82
81
Cases with private earni"9S
23
11
16
6
1)
13
26
19
4
19
5
6
5
11
3
3
3
10
4
9
5
21
18
6
12
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
22
52
35
15
54
33
2
Private Earnings in March
Paterson St. Louis
CUes Mith Nork• Protraa laplo1111on1
Total
Above security wage
Below security wage
CU•• Nllhout Nor~• Protroa lllplovaent
Total
Cases with no private earnings
Cases with private earnings
Above security wage
Below security wage
78
31
47
48
21
27
65
85
46
67
98
49
66
62
71
36
77
8
24
22
)II
o1
31
17
32
17
49
16
46
24
47
29
29
46
SURVEY OF CASES CERTIFIED FOR WORKS PROGRAM
Table 29-TOTAL MARCH INCOMES OF CERTIFIED CASES, BY SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD, IN 13 CITIES
!Percent Distribution)
lncone
Interval
Total•
Size of Household
1person
person
person
person
5person
100
18
21
18
16
11
None
S 1-S 4
5- 9
10- 14
15- 19
100
100
100
100
100
46
39
39
51
46
16
10
9
8
6
6
2
35
11
13
41
3
2
4
202530354045-
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
S58.3()
All cert I fled cases
24
29
34
39
44
49
50- 54
55- 59
60- 64
65- 69
70- 74
75- 79
80- 84
85- 89
90- 94
95- 99
100 and Over
Unknown
Median lncaoe
2-
3-
4-
29
29
11
25
15
21
17
11
26
28
29
15
20
25
28
20
19
21
17
22
14
21
25
20
26
12
13
6
8
22
14
16
18
16
18
12
11
18
18
20
24
15
12
9
14
14
2
2
25
11
24
15
9
10
22
18
19
13
14
18
19
10
18
16
10
17
14
5
14
15
25
21
8
$52,40
$56.40
$58.60
$59,00
$62,00
12
lhan o.s p,rcenl.
4 Tota1 lnchdH CHH •Ith IIH of hOuHhold unllno•n.
6
4
12
13
15
15
9
20
23
20
10
7
9
12
12
11
10
9
11
15
8
20
7person
&-person
and over
7
5
4
3
-4
5
-1
6-
person
-1
2
1
2
-1
•2
5
10
6
3
6
7
3
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
5
5
3
5
5
10
4
1
2
6
6
13
9
3
6
12
10
4
10
1
7
16
8
3
15
5
12
7
11
2
$6).60
$66. 70
22
10
22
5
8
17
JJ
4
2
$71,00
•L•n
u.1. .a,a11Hn , .. mu
onric:1, IH?
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
@FedFRASER