The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
L5.2ù :
237
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
C H IL D R E N 'S BU REAU
-
-
-
-
PUBLICATION N o. 237
TRENDS IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF
IN URBAN AREAS, 1929-35
y -jfk
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
FRAN CES PE RK IN S, Secretary
X lS
CH ILDREN’ S BUREAU
' * ,V
KATHARINE F. LENROOT, Chief
TRENDS IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF
IN URBAN AREAS, 1929-35
By
E M M A A . W INSLOW . Ph. D .
Bureau Publication No. 237
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1937
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D . C,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Price 15 cent*
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CONTENTS
P age
Letter of transmittal__________________________________________
„
Development and scope of study________________________ ____ 2
Expenditure from public and from private funds______________ __ _ ~
7
Trends in annual expenditure_________________________________
o
Seasonal changes in monthly expenditure_____________________
14
Annual changes in per-capita expenditure___________________________
10
Regional differences__________________________________________
jo
Administration of public and of private funds by public and by private
agencies_______________
23
Annual changes and regional differences in relief administered by public
agencies______________________________________________________________
31
General relief_____________________________________________
31
Veterans’ relief_______________________________________________
35
37
Mothers’ aid______________________________________________
Old-age assistance_______________
_
43
Aid to the blind________________________________________
45
Annual changes and regional differences in general relief administered by
private agencies______________________________________________________
49
Nonsectarian private agencies______________________________________
49
Jewish agencies________________________________________
~~
52
Catholic agencies___________________________________________________
55
Other private agencies administering general relief__________________
58
-Annual changes in veterans’ relief administered by private agencies______
60
Annual and monthly changes in the number of meals and lodgings pro
61
vided to homeless and transient individuals___________________________
Appendix A.—-Cities included in plan for reporting current relief statistics
and the territory and population to which reports relate, by geographic
division; 1929-35__________________________________________
05
Appendix B.— Tables_____________________________
H ill
69
A.— Annual and monthly expenditure from public and from private
funds for different types of relief in 120 urban areas; 1929-35. _
69
B-— Total and per-capita expenditure from public and from private
funds for relief in 117 specified urban areas; 1929-35.......... ..
72
C. — Total and per-capita expenditure from public funds for mothers’
aid in 108 specified urban areas; 1929-35_____________________
86
D. — Total and per-capita expenditure from public and from private
funds for old-age assistance in 74 specified urban areas; 1929-35.
90
E. — Total and per-capita expenditure from public funds for aid to the
blind in 79 specified urban areas; 1929-35______ _____________
93
E.— Average monthly number of cases receiving general relief admin
istered by public and by joint public and private agencies,
average monthly number per 10,000 population, and average
monthly relief per case in 99 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -3 5 ...
96
G. — Average monthly number of cases receiving veterans’ relief admin
istered by public agencies, average monthly number per 10,000
population, and average monthly relief per case in 57 specified
102
urban areas; 1929-35________________________________________
H. — Average monthly number of families receiving mothers’ aid from
public funds, average monthly number per 10,000 population,
and average monthly allowance per family in 108 specified urban
areas; 1929-35______________________________________________
104
E Average monthly number of individuals receiving old-age assist
ance administered by public and by private agencies, average
monthly number per 10,000 population, and average monthly
allowance per individual in 74 specified urban areas; 1929-35..
108
**• Average monthly number of individuals receiving aid to the blind
from public funds, average monthly number per 10,000 popula
tion, and average monthly allowance per individual in 79 speci
fied urban areas; 1929-35____ _______________________________
111
92678
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CONTENTS
IV
K.
— Average monthly number of cases receiving general relief admin
istered by nonsectarian private agencies, average monthly num
ber per 10,000 population, and average monthly relief per case
in 108 specified urban areas; 1929-35------------------------------------114
L. — Average monthly number of cases receiving general relief admin
istered by Jewish agencies, average monthly number per 10,000
population, and average monthly relief per case in 68 specified
118
urban areas; 1929-35-------------------------------------------------- --------M. — Average monthly number of cases receiving general relief ad
ministered by Catholic agencies, average monthly number per
10.000 population, and average monthly relief per case in 48
specified urban areas; 1929-35-------------------------------- -----------•
121
N. — Average monthly number of cases receiving general relief admin
istered by the Salvation Army, the Volunteers of America, and
certain other private agencies; average monthly number per
10.000 population; and average monthly relief per case in 97
specified urban areas; 1929-35----------------------------------------------124
O. — Average monthly number of cases receiving veterans’ relief ad
ministered by certain private agencies, average monthly num
ber per 10,000 population, and average monthly relief per case
in 84 specified urban areas; 1929-35-------------------- r ---------------130
P. — Annual, monthly, and daily average number of meals and lodgings
provided to homeless and transient individuals by public and by
private agencies in 67 urban areas; 1929—33--------------------------135
Q. — Annual number of meals and lodgings provided to homeless and
138
transient individuals in 81 specified urban areas; 1929—33-------
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
U n it e d S t a t e s D
of L abo r ,
C h il d r e n ’s B u r e a u ,
W ashington N ovem ber 2 8 ,1 9 3 6 .
epartment
,
There is transmitted herewith a report on Trends in
Different Types of Public and Private Relief in Urban Areas, 1929-35,
which has been prepared by Emma A. Winslow as director of the
Social Statistics Division of the Children’s Bureau.
The data here presented were assembled through various sources
for current use in measuring changes in relief expenditure and cases
in connection with the development of Federal, Sta,te, and local relief
programs. Because of their value as a record of increased needs for
relief during the recent depression and of changes in the methods used
in financing and administration, the data presented previously in
current summaries of relief trends have been amplified and made as
nearly comparable as possible for the 7-year period covered in this
report. Special analysis has been made of regional variations in the
number o f cases aided through different types of public and private
relief and in the average monthly relief per case.
The Children’s Bureau acknowledges with appreciation the coop
eration of the many organizations, agencies, and individuals in pro
viding and assembling the relief reports here summarized. Monthly
reports for certain areas were obtained prior to July 1930 under the
direction of A. Wayne McMillen and Helen R. Jeter as part of the
project for the registration of social statistics sponsored jointly by the
local community research committee of the University of Chicago and
the Association of Community Chests and Councils (now Community
Chests and Councils, Inc.). These reports were made available
to the Children’s Bureau when the project was transferred to the
Bureau in 1930.
During the latter part of 1930 and during 1931 the Russell Sage
Foundation cooperated by providing the Children’s Bureau each
month with data on relief expenditures and cases in the 76 cities
included in the monthly relief series established in 1929 by Ralph G.
Hurlin, director of the foundation’s department of statistics. When
arrangements were made early in 1932 for transferring to the Chil
dren’s Bureau the responsibility for the collection of monthly relief
reports in these cities, copies of the data previously assembled by the
foundation were made available for the Bureau to use in establishing
its relief series for 120 areas. The foundation also cooperated by
making Dr. Hurlin’s services available for continued consultation and
by releasing Anne E. Geddes of the department of statistics for
employment by the Children’s Bureau for the 6 months’ period
beginning February 1932. The services of Dr. Hurlin and Miss
Geddes were of great value in merging the data assembled by the
M
adam :
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
VI
Bureau and by the Foundation and in developing plans for collection
and publication by the Children’s Bureau.
Valuable assistance in developing and maintaining the compara
bility of the Bureau’s monthly relief series was provided also by the
President’s Emergency Committee for Employment, the President’s
Organization for Unemployment Relief, the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Cen
tral Statistical Board, and the Social Security Board. Beginning with
data for September 1934, the Federal Emergency Relief Administra
tion provided the monthly data on public unemployment relief pre
sented in the Bureau’s monthly bulletin. The Social Security Board
assisted during the first part of 1936 in providing supplementary
information on trends in aid to dependent children, old-age assistance,
and aid for the blind.
In many local areas the Children’s Bureau had the assistance of the
community fund, the council of social agencies, or a special research
organization, in assembling and forwarding the monthly reports of
local agencies. Elsewhere the reports were forwarded directly to the
Children’s Bureau by the individual agencies. In certain States data
on mothers’ aid, old-age assistance, or aid for the blind in the reporting
areas were obtained from the State agency in charge of such assistance.
The regular forwarding of reports, month after month, has involved a
large amount of work by individuals frequently overburdened with the
problems of relief administration. The Children’s Bureau is greatly
indebted for their continued interest and cordial cooperation.
In accordance with the policies formulated by the Children’s Bureau
Advisory Committee on Social Statistics and following the recommen
dations of the various Federal agencies especially concerned with relief
statistics, responsibility for the continuation and publication of the
monthly relief series for 120 urban areas was transferred to the Social
Security Board as of July 1,1936. The material here presented includes
monthly and annual data through December 1935. Data assembled
by the Children’s Bureau for the period January-June 1936 and
published currently in the monthly summaries will be included in
annual summaries for 1936 to be issued by the Social Security Board.
Respectfully submitted.
H
on.
K
F r a n c e s P e r k in s ,
Secretary o f Labor.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
a t h a r in e
F. L
enroot,
Chief.
Trends in Different Types of Public and Private
Relief in Urban Areas, 1929-35
The pressure of rapidly mounting relief costs caused many changes
between 1929 and 1935 in the administrative procedures of public
and private agencies providing assistance to persons in need. Al
though the differences in program were especially noticeable in the
administration of public relief, important adjustments occurred also
in the methods used in handling private relief and in the organization
of relationships between the relief work of public and of private
agencies.
The monthly relief series for urban areas, upon which this report
is based, was established by the Children’s Bureau in 1932 through
the merging of data on relief expenditures and cases assembled pre
viously by the Children’s Bureau and by the Russell Sage Foundation.
Monthly summaries showing changes in different types of public and
private relief, as compared with the preceding month and with the
corresponding month of the previous year, were issued by the Bureau
from the time of the establishment of the series until its transfer to
the Social Security Board in July 1936.1_
The present summary brings together in comparable form available
data on trends in relief expenditures and cases in the reporting areas
from the beginning of 1929 through 1935. Because of additional
information received in correspondence or in field investigation, a
number of changes have been made in relief data for 1929 and 1930 pre
viously published for certain areas by the Children’s Bureau.2 Impor
tant revisions have been made also in the figures from preliminary
reports used in certain instances in extending the trend series for
monthly publication.
1 M onthly Relief Bulletin, covering period January 1932-April 1933 (published March 1932-June 1933);
M onthly Bulletin on Social Statistics, covering period M a y 1933-August 1934 (published July 1933-October
1934); and Changes During (Current M onth) in Different Types of Public and Private Relief in Urban
Areas, covering period September 1934-M ay 1936 (published N ov. 10, 1934-July 20,1936)— all published b y
U. S. Children’s Bureau, Washington; Changes During June 1936 in Different Types of Public and Private
Relief in Urban Areas— published by U . S. Children’s Bureau and Social Security Board, Washington,
Sept. 18,1936; Changes During (Current M onth) in Different Types of Public and Private Relief in Urban
Areas, covering period July 1936 to date (published Oct. 19, 1936, to date)— published b y Social Security
Board, Washington.
* Cost of Family Relief in 100 Cities, 1929 and 1930, b y Glenn Steele. M onthly Labor Review (U . S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics), vol. 32, no. 4 (April 1931), pp. 2ff-28. Fam ily Welfare—
summary of expenditures for relief, general family welfare and relief, mothers’ aid, veterans’ aid, b y Glenn
Steele (Separate from Social Statistics in Child Welfare and Related Fields— Annual Report for the Regis
tration Area for the Year 1930, U . S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o. 209, Washington, 1932).
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DEVELOPMENT AND SCOPE OF STUDY
At the time of the industrial depression in 1921 and 1922, the
Children’s Bureau made a careful study of the effect of unemployment
upon local problems of child welfare. The findings indicated clearly
that children suffer not only temporary but also permanent losses as
a result of a period of industrial depression.3
As was described in the 1931 report of the Chief of the Children’s
Bureau, evidences of the suffering of children during the recent
depression came from many sections of the country where local relief
had been inadequate or poorly organized. In order to have a more
accurate picture of conditions, the Children’s Bureau, at the request
of the President’s Emergency Committee for Employment, undertook
to assemble monthly statistics on certain types of relief in cities with
50.000 or more population, and to make brief field studies in especially
depressed areas outside the large urban centers.
The nucleus in the Bureau’s collection of relief statistics was a
monthly reporting project covering various fields of social and health
work in a representative group of cities with 50,000 or more popula
tion, for which the Bureau assumed responsibility in July 1930 fol
lowing a period of experimental development by the local community
research committee of the University of Chicago in cooperation with
the Association of Community Chests and Councils (now Community
Chests and Councils, Inc.).4
At the time of transfer to the Children’s Bureau forms and instruc
tions for monthly reports in 18 fields had been developed and participa
tion in the current forwarding of reports established m 39 cities located
in various sections of the United States.6 Data assembled in all fields
during 1928 and 1929 and prior to the transfer in 1930 were made
available to the Children’s Bureau for use in its summaries.
The department of statistics of the Russell Sage Foundation began
early in 1926 the monthly collection and publication of statistics on
family case work and relief. The data were used as approximate
indexes of relief conditions, but it was recognized that the sample
of agencies was too small to be representative of current relief trends.
During 1928 plans were discussed for the collection for index pur
poses of more representative data, and a new project was initiated
at the beginning of 1929 with the intention of obtaining reports
covering all types of noninstitutional relief in cities of more than
115.000 population in the United States and Canada. The sum* Unemployment and Child Welfare; a study made in a middle-western and an eastern city diming the
industrial depression of 1921 and 1922, b y Em m a Octavia Lundberg. U . S. Children’s Bureau Publication
N o. 125. Washington, 1923.
* Jeter, Helen R ., and A . W . M cM illen: Registration of Social Statistics for the Year 1928— a (planographed)
report submitted to the joint committee of the Association of Com m unity Chests and Councils and the
local community research committee of the University of Chicago, Oct. 1, 1929; Griffith, A . R ., Helen R.
Jeter, and A . W . M cM illen: Registration of Social Statistics Supplement for the Year 1929— a (pianographed) report submitted to the joint committee of the Association of Community Chests and Councils
ana the local community research committee of the University of Chicago, Oct. 1, 1930.
* Collection of Social Statistics b y United States Children’s Bureau, b y Glenn Steele. M onthly Labor
Review (U . 8. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics), vol. 31, no. 4 (October 1930), pp. 921-925.
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DEVELOPMENT AND SCOPE OF STUDY
3
maries of relief reports were published each month by the Russell
Sage Foundation at the end of the month following that to which the
figures related. In 1930 it was decided to concentrate on 76 cities
in the United States and 5 cities in Canada, all of more than 100,000
^ When the Children’s Bureau was requested in October 1930 by
the President’s Emergency Committee for Employment to extend its
collection of relief reports to include all cities of 50,000 or more
population, the Russell Sage Foundation cooperated in making the
data on relief expenditure and cases that had been assembled in its
project available for the stress not included in the Bureau s project
for the registration of social statistics. The Children s Bureau
assumed responsibility for establishing monthly reporting of relief
expenditure and cases in other cities of 50,000 or more population
and for obtaining comparable data for the period beginning with
January 1929. The reports to the Children’s Bureau and to the
Russell Sage Foundation were summarized by the Bureau each
month for the use of the President’s Emergency Coimmttee for
Employment and its successor, the President’s Organization for
Unemployment Relief. The Children’s Bureau also secured monthly
reports on the number of meals and of lodgings provided to homeless
and transient individuals in cities of 50,000 or more population and
summarized this information for presentation to the President s
committee and its successor.
_
. , ..
At first the summaries prepared for the President s Emergency
Committee for Employment excluded expenditures for veterans
relief mothers’ aid, and aid to the blind because it was considered
that these forms of relief were not appreciably affected by seasonal
or economic changes. The cost of temporary institutional care of
homeless and transient individuals also was excluded, and the monthly
trend was measured in terms of the number of meals and of lodgings
provided. Because of difficulties in securing comparable data on
expenditures for salaries, maintenance of office headquarters, and
other items related to the administration of relief, the monthly reports
collected by the Russell Sage Foundation and the Children’s Bureau
excluded such costs.
___
, _
.
~
..
During the latter part of 1931 the Children’s Bureau and the Russell
Sage Foundation assisted the United States Bureau of the Census in
making a study for the President’s Organization on Unemployment
Relief of the expenditures for relief by organized agencies during the
first 3 months of 1929 and during the corresponding months of 1931.
Attempt was made in this study to obtain information on increases
in relief expenditures in all sections of the United States. The Census
Bureau used its agents in securing data from cities of 30,000 or more
population for which reports were not available through the Children’s
Bureau and the Russell Sage Foundation. In cities of less than 30,000
population and in counties it received reports through correspondence
From postmasters and county officials.
e Hurlin, Ralph G .: Statistical Studies of Dependency— Statistic in Social Studies, pp. 43- 58, editedl by
Stuart A Rice for the Committee on Social Statistics of the American Statistical Association, University
of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1930; Hurlin, Ralph G ., and Anne E . Geddes: Public and Private
Relief During the Current Unemployment Emergency— Proceedings of the National Conference of Social
W ork. 1931. d p . 430-440, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
____
7 Relief Expenditures b y Governmental and Private Organizations, 1929 and 1931. Special report of U . S.
Bureau of the Census. Washington, 1932.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4.
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929 -3 5
The definition of relief used by the Census Bureau differed in certain
respects from that used in the Children’s Bureau summaries of
monthly relief reports to the Bureau and to the Russell Sage Founda
tion. Veterans’ relief, mothers’ aid, and aid for the blind were included
and also the costs of institutional care of homeless men. Expenditure
for administrative costs was requested, but it was found that many
agencies could not segregate costs relating to the administration of
relief from other administrative costs and were able to report only
the amount of relief granted.
Returns were received in this study from all the 93 cities of 100,000
or more population; from all but 1 of the 217 cities of 30,000 to 100,000
population; from 4,863 of 5,938 cities or incorporated places of 1,000
to 30,000 population; and from 6,353 smaller incorporated places.
The total population of the cities or other incorporated places for
which reports were received represented 89 percent of the total
population of all cities and incorporated places, and 57 percent of
the total population of the United States. Reports covering county
governmental relief were received from 1,716 counties out of a total
of 3,073. Of this number 377 reported no relief expenditures by the
county government.
Experience in the collection of Nation-wide relief statistics in the
Census Bureau study showed the difficulties involved in securing data
from small units of population in any continuing study of relief trends.
It also indicated the advisability of developing a permanent plan for
the current collection of relief statistics by a governmental agency.
Early in 1932 plans were developed cooperatively with the Russell
Sage Foundation for the Children’s Bureau to assume responsibility
for the collection of reports previously assembled by the foundation
and to begin the publication of a monthly bulletin summarizing
relief trends, similar to the bulletin issued by the Russell Sage Founda
tion. Monthly data on relief expenditures and cases that had been
assembled since the beginning of 1929 by the foundation for the
76 cities included in its project were made available for the use of
the Bureau. The director of the department of statistics of the
Russell Sage Foundation was appointed as consultant to the Chil
dren’s Buieau, and a staff member of the Russell Sage Foundation
joined the staff of the Children’s Bureau for a period of 6 months
while the new plan for the Bureau’s collection and presentation of
relief data was being developed. The first summaries issued by
the Children’s Bureau under the new plan related to relief during
January 1932.
The contacts made by the Children’s Bureau and the Russell Sage
Foundation in attempting to secure substantially complete data on
various types of public and of private relief in all cities of 50,000 or
more population indicated that there were 120 cities from which
reports on monthly relief expenditure were available for the period
beginning with January 1929 and from which future reports could
probably be secured with sufficient regularity to justify their inclusion
in a monthly trend series.8
The population of the 120 cities and the adjoining areas to which
their relief reports relate was 43,814,628, according to the 1930
8 For information on the cities included and the territory and population to which relief reports relate
see appendix A , p. 65.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5
DEVELOPMENT AND SCOPE OF STUDY
census—-59 percent of the urban population of the United States and
36 percent of the total population. The number of reporting areas
in each of five geographic divisions and the proportion of the urban
and of the total population of each division represented were as
follows:
Geographic division
Urban
areas
reporting
Percent of popula
tion of division 1
in areas to which
reports relate
Urban
popula
tion
South Atlantic and South Central..............................................................................
Total
popula
tion
120
69
36
18
26
36
29
11
45
69
62
44
63
35
57
38
17
42
i According to the 1930 census.
Although the sample varied in adequacy in different States and
geographic divisions, it related to a sufficiently large proportion of the
total relief expenditure as indicated in the Nation-wide study of the
United States Bureau of the Census to warrant dependence upon it
in studying current trends in urban relief.
#
The shortage of local relief funds and the interest in having State
funds made available for relief purposes stimulated in certain States
the collection of relief statistics on a State-wide basis. Collection for
all or certain areas in a State was further stimulated when Federal
funds became available under title I of the Emergency Relief and
Construction Act of 1932 for loan by the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation to States and communities requiring assistance in meeting
current emergency relief needs.
_
The Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933 made Federal funds
available for unemployment relief in all States and laid the foundation
for the collection of uniform relief statistics on a State-wide basis
through the State relief administrations in charge of the expenditure
of Federal funds. The statistics assembled, however, related only
to the types of public relief for which Federal funds were available
under the provisions of the act and did not include mothers’ aid, oldage assistance, and aid to the blind from public funds, public veterans
relief (except in certain States), and the various types of private
relief covered in the Children’s Bureau series for 120 urban areas.
Also the Nation-wide data assembled by the Federal Emergency
Relief Administration following its establishment in May 1933
extended back only to the preceding January because of the difficul
ties involved in securing State-wide figures for earlier months from
the records available in most States.
#
In accordance with plans developed cooperatively with the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, the Children’s Bureau continued
the preparation and publication of its monthly series showing trends
since 1929 in different types of public and of private relief in urban
areas. For a time the Bureau continued to collect reports on public
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
unemployment relief directly from local agencies and used them in
the monthly summaries after they had been checked with the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration to determine if there were any
differences between them and the reports received for the local area
through the State relief administration. As soon as possible theBureau’s collection of reports on such relief was discontinued, except
in the registration areas where collection was part of a comprehensive
plan covering various fields of health and social work. Beginning with
September 1934 the reports received by the Federal Emergency Relief
Administration through the State relief administrations were used
in the Bureau’s monthly summaries of current trends.
The establishment of a Nation-wide program for old-age assistance,
aid to dependent children, and aid to the blind under the Social
Security Act of 1935 made possible the development of uniform
statistical reporting on such public assistance in the States qualify
ing for grants from Federal funds under the provisions of the act.
Although the Federal Emergency Relief Administration discontinued
during the latter part of 1935 its assistance to States for direct relief,
it was interested in having the assembling of monthly data on relief
expenditures and cases continued in as many States as possible so
that Nation-wide data on relief trends would continue to be available.
When the Children’s Bureau assumed responsibility in 1932 for thè
establishment and continuation of the monthly relief series for 120
cities it was understood that responsibility for further work would be
transferred if the development of the program of another permanent
Government agency made transfer advisable. In accordance with
policies formulated by the Children’s Bureau Advisory Committee on
Social Statistics and following the recommendations of the various
Federal agencies especially concerned with relief statistics, the Chil
dren’s Bureau presented to the Social Security Board in June 1936 a
statement suggesting the transfer of the series to the Board if certain
conditions considered essential in safeguarding its future could be
met. These were accepted by the Board and transfer took place as of
July 1, 1936.
Data assembled by the Children’s Bureau on changes in different
types of relief during May 1936 were issued by the Children’s Bureau.
Data for June 1936 were issued jointly by the Children’s Bureau and
the^Social Security Board. Beginning with data for July 1936, tlje
Social Security Board assumed full responsibility for the compilation
and publication of the monthly series for 120 urban areas and for the
securing of reports on public and private relief in areas not included
in the Bureau’s project for the registration of current social statistics
in child welfare and related fields. Data available in reports to the
Children’s Bureau from relief agencies in the 44 areas now included in
this project will be used by the Social Security Board in the prepara
tion of its monthly summaries. The Children’s Bureau is represented
on the committee appointed by the Board to give advisory service
in the continuing development of the monthly relief series, and certain
members of the Children’s Bureau Advisory Committee on Social
Statistics are serving on the new committee.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
EXPENDITURE FROM PUBLIC AND FROM PRIVATE
FUNDS
The reports on relief expenditure assembled from public and private
agencies m the study of relief trends in 120 urban areas mcluded on y
the amounts expended by the agency for relief provided m the form of
cash, commodities, or orders for commodities. As the purpose of this
part of the study was to show changes m the amount of relief provided
to persons living in their own homes or with relatives or friends, the
cost of relief provided in the form of institutional care was excluded.
Expenditures for salaries, rent, materials, supplies, equipment, nonrelief wages, and other costs related to the administration of relief and
the operation of work-relief projects also were excluded because of
difficulties involved in securing comparable monthly data from the
many different types of agencies included in the study, i n s t i t u
tional, administrative, and operatmg costs had been mcluded, the
amount of the expenditure reported would have been considerably
laririn foraia tion on obligations incurred for relief provided during
the period covered in a report gives a better indication of current
relief trends than data on actual expenditure, emphasis was placed
throughout the study upon securing monthly reports on obligations
incurred. For certain agencies, however, information was^not avail
able on obligations incurred, and data on expenditure had to be used.
The summaries presented in this section show the annual and
monthly trends in the total amount expended for the types of relief
included in the study and the extent to which the expenditure was
financed from public funds and from private funds. Because of
important differences in trend, the amounts expended for direct relief,
work relief, and special allowances are shown separately. In later
sections detail is presented on expenditures for relief admmistered for
various purposes by public agencies and by different types of private
^ T h ^ te rm “ direct relief” is used in this study to include financial
assistance provided to persons in need of such assistance, with the
exception of that provided in compensation for work performed (work
relief) or in the form of special allowances from public funds as defined
^Expenditures for work relief include only those made from relief
funds^ for wages or other compensation for work performed by per
sons in need of relief.
» For information on monthly and annualtrendsinthe number
less and transient individuals m 67’ ™ *an ‘
dependent and neglected children, in day nurserin the number of individuals undercareininstituto
... P .
chronically ill, see summaries of reports
7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1 9 2 9 -3 5
Expenditures for special allowances include only those made under
State laws authorizing grants from public funds for mothers' aid oldage assistance, or aid to the blind.
TRENDS IN ANNUAL EXPENDITURE
During 1929 expenditure from public and private funds for the
different types of relief included in the study totaled nearly $44,000 000
m the 120 reporting areas. More than $25,000,000 was used’ for
direct relief, slightly less than $15,000,000 of this amount coming
from public funds and slightly more than $10,000,000 coming from
private funds. About $17,000,000 was used from public funds for
Chart 1.— ANNUAL EXPENDITURE FROM PUBLIC AND FROM PRIVATE FUNDS FOR
DIFFERENT TYPES OF RELIEF IN 120 URBAN AREAS, 1 9 2 9 -3 5
M I L L I O N S OF D O L L A R S
0
200
I
|
*00
1
600
800
1,000
|---------------- 1---------------- 1
1929..- E l
i9 3 o :...B 2 ]
1935....
P U B L IC
■
FUNDS:
D I R E C T AND W O R K R E L I E F
SPECIAL ALLOWANCES
,
P R IV A T E
Q
FUNDS:
D IR E C T AND W O R K
RELIEF
expenditure under the Civil Works Administration, November 1933-March 1934.
Excludes expenditure under the Works Progress Administration, August-December 1935.
mothers aid and about $1,500,000 for aid to the blind. Expenditures
from public funds for old-age assistance and from both public and
private funds for work relief formed a negligible part of the total
More than three-fourths of the total expenditure during the year was
from public funds, and nearly one-fourth was from private funds
(tables 1 and A, pp. 10 and 69, charts 1 and 2).
Between 1929 and 1930 there was an increase of 63 percent in the
total amount expended for relief. The rise in expenditure was about
the same for public funds as for private funds, with the result that
the distribution of the total expenditure by source of funds was about
the same as in 1929. The distribution by type of relief, however
was quite different. The expenditure for work relief from public and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
EXPENDITURE FROM PUBLIC AND FROM PRIVATE FUNDS
9
Chart 2 — PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURE FOR RELIEF IN
120 URBAN AREAS BY SOURCE OF FUNDS AND TYPE OF RELIEF, 1 9 2 9 -3 5
I9Z9
1931
1930
1932
1933
1935«
1934»
PU BLIC F U N D S :
D IRECT AND W O R K R E L IE F
PRIVATE FUNDS!
C =3
d ir e c t a n d w o r k
r e l ie f
S P E C IA L A LL O W A N C E S
1 Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, November 1933-March 1934.
2 Excludes expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December 1935.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIYATB RELIEF, 1 9 2 9 -3 5
private funds rose from about $30,000 in 1929 to nearly $4,000,000
m 1930. Although the expenditure for special allowances from public
funds was increased in 1930 by an additional expenditure of about
$1,000,000 for old-age assistance, $1,000,000 for mothers’ aid, and
$400,000 for aid to the blind, the more rapid increase in direct relief
and m work relief reduced the proportion of the total expenditure
that was used for special allowances from 43 percent in 1929 to 30
percent in 1930.
T able
1.
Total and p er-ca p ita 1 expenditure fr o m public and fr o m private fu n d s
fo r different types o f relief in 120 urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
Source of funds
1029
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Total expenditure
T o t a l ........... $43,745,001 $71, 424, 617 $172, 749,219 $308,185,543 * $448,920,544
’ $667,152,901 « $840,866,919
Public funds____
Direct relief...
W ork relief___
Special allowanees_______
Private f u n d s ...
Direct relief—
W ork relief___
33, 448, 803 54, 754, 066 123, 320,040 251,104, 365 * 421, 032, 236 3 652, 467, 025
« 829, 223, 503
14,827,935 31, 731, 938
24,784
1,778,265
66,023,943 156, 643, 441 274, 258, 447 394, 599, 340 533, 795, 259
22, 569, 689 52, 051,336 * 105,463, 464 3 214,280, 682 * 236, 460,975
18,596,084 21, 243, 863
34,726,408
42,409, 588
41, 314 325
43, 587,003
10,296,198
16,670, 551
49,429,179
57, 081,178
27,888,308
14,685, 876
11, 643, 416
10,292, 209 14, 620, 725
3,989 2, 049,826
34,842,425
14, 586, 754
43, 034,391
14, 046, 787
21,152,721
6, 735, 587
13,504,826
1,181, 050
11,122,-201
521, 215
58,967, 269
Percent distribution
Total..............
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Public funds____
76.5
76.7
71.4
81.5
<93.8
*97.8
*98.6
Direct relief...
W ork relief___
Special allowanees..............
33.9
.1
44.5
2.5
38.2
13.1
50.8
16.9
61.1
*23.5
59.2
*32.1
63.5
«28.1
42.5
29.7
20.1
13.8
9.2
6.5
7.0
Private fu n d s.. .
23.5
23.3
28.6
18.5
6.2
2.2
1.4
23.5
20.5
2.8
20.2
8.4
14.0
4.5
4.7
1.5
2.0
.2
1.3
.1
Direct relief...
W ork relief___
(*)
Percent change from—
1929 to
1930
1930 to 1931
1931 to 1932
1932 to 1933
1933 to 1934
1934 to 1935
T otal.............
+63
+142
+78
*+ 46
’ +49
*+ 26
Public funds___
+64
+125
+104
*+ 68
’ +55
*+ 27
Direct relief.. .
W ork relief___
Special allowances..............
+114
+618
+108
+ 1 ,1 6 9
+137
+131
+75
» +103
+44
’ +103
«-f-io
+14
+64
+22
-3
+6
Private fu n d s.. .
+62
+197
+16
-5 1
-4 7
-2 1
Direct relief...
Work relief___
+42
(•)
+138
+612
+24
-4
-5 1
-5 2
-3 6
-8 3
—18
-5 6
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
+35
+35
EXPENDITURE FROM PUBLIC AND FROM PRIVATE FUNDS
T able
11
1.— Total and per-capiia expenditure fr o m public and fr o m private fu n d s
f o r different types o f relief in 120 urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -8 5 — Continued
Source of funds
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Per-capita1 expenditure
Total____! . . .
$0.96
$1.56
$3.77
$6.73
2 $9.80
3 $14.63
Public funds____
.73
1.20
2.69
5.48
3 9.19
» 1 4 .31
‘ 18.19
.32
.69
.04
1.44
.49
3.42
1.14
5.99
>2.30
8.66
3 4. 70
11.71
<5.19
1.29
Direct relief...
W ork relief___
Special allowances_______
(7)
*
$18.44
.41
.46
.76
.92
.90
.95
Private funds___
.23
.36
1.08
1.25
.61
.32
.25
Direct relief.-.
W ork relief___
.23
.32
.04
.76
.32
.94
.31
.46
.15
.30
.02
.24
.01
P)
> Based on population of the urban area according to the 1030 census.
2 Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, November and December.
3 Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, January-March.
4 Excludes expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December.
8 Less than one-tenth of 1 percent.
8 N ot computed.
7 Less than 1 cent.
The increase in the total amount expended from public and private
funds was 142 percent between 1930 and 1931— more than twice as
large as between 1929 and 1930. The rise was more rapid in expend
iture from private funds, and the proportion thus financed increased
from about 23 percent in 1930 to 29 percent in 1931. This change
was due mainly to the very large increase in expenditure from private
funds for work relief, but the expenditure from private funds for
direct relief also increased more rapidly than expenditure for such
relief from public funds. Expenditure for special allowances from
public funds was increased by a much larger expenditure for old-age
assistance and a somewhat larger amount for mothers’ aid and aid
to the blind. The proportion of the total expenditure used for these
special types of assistance, however, continued the downward trend
noticeable between 1929 and 1930.
Between 1931 and 1932 the total expenditure for relief increased
78 percent— more than between 1929 and 1930 but less than between
1930 and 1931. The total expenditure in 1932 was more than seven
times as large as in 1929. In 1932 the increase was mainly from public
funds and the proportion thus financed became considerably larger—
nearly 82 percent as compared with 71 percent in 1931 and about
77 percent in both 1929 and 1930.
A change occurred also in 1932 in the source of the public funds
used for relief purposes. In July the enactment of the Emergency
Relief and Construction Act made Federal funds available for loan
through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to States and local
communities requiring such assistance in meeting current emergency
relief needs. State funds were used to an increasing extent in reduc
ing the strain placed upon local community resources by the con
stantly mounting expenditure for the relief of the unemployed.
The increased expenditure from public funds in 1932 was largely
for direct relief and work relief. The amount expended from public
109759 ° — 37-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-2
12
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
funds for direct relief was 137 percent more in 1932 than in the pre
ceding year. The expenditure from public funds for work relief rose
almost as rapidly. A much smaller increase (24 percent) was reported
in expenditure from private funds for direct relief. Expenditure from
private funds for work relief decreased slightly.
Expenditure for special allowances from public funds increased
22 percent between 1931 and 1932, primarily because of the larger
amounts used for old-age assistance under recently enacted legislation
in certain States. The small increase in expenditure from public
funds for special allowances as compared with the rise in expenditure
from public funds for direct and work relief reduced, however, still
further the proportion of the total expenditure used for special allow
ances. In 1929, 43 percent of the total expenditure was used for this
purpose; in 1932, 14 percent.
During 1933 the trend toward financing direct and work relief from
public funds became more marked and also the trend toward the use
of Federal and State funds for this purpose. Following the passage
of the Federal Emergency Relief Act in May, Federal funds became
more readily available and their use in State and local relief programs
increased rapidly. State relief administrations were established in all
States, and emphasis was placed upon having the State participate
in the financing of relief costs.
The use of Federal funds for work projects organized under the
Civil Works Administration during the winter of 1933-34 replaced
almost entirely the expenditure for work relief included in the relief
reports of local public agencies and also reduced expenditure for direct
relief that would otherwise have been given to persons employed on
these projects. As employment under the Civil Works Administration
was not limited to persons on relief rolls and no information is available
on wages paid on these projects to persons in need of relief, monthly
reports cannot be secured on expenditure for wages under the Civil
Works Administration in form comparable with the reports on workrelief expenditure in preceding and following months.
The summaries of relief expenditure here presented for 1933 are,
therefore, considerably less than if expenditure from Federal funds for
wages of relief workers on projects under the Civil Works Administra
tion could have been included in November and December. Even
without the inclusion of these expenditures the amount expended for
work relief from public funds was more than twice as large in 1933 as
in 1932, and the expenditure for direct relief from public funds in
creased 75 percent. Expenditure from private funds for direct and
for work relief, however, showed a sharp downward trend in 1933.
Less than half as much was expended for either type as was expended
in the preceding year. Expenditure from public funds for special
allowances decreased slightly because of reduced amounts for old-age
assistance and for mothers’ aid. Ninety-four percent of the total
expenditure for relief in 1933 was from public funds as compared with
82 percent in 1932 and 77 percent in 1929. The proportion of the total
expenditure used for special allowances from public funds was 9 per
cent in 1933 as compared with 14 percent in 1932 and 43 percent in
1929.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
EXPENDITURE FROM PUBLIC AND FROM PRIVATE FUNDS
13
The summaries here presented for 1934 are affected by the exclusion
of expenditure under the Civil Works Administration during the first
3 months of the year. The increase in total expenditure as compared
with the preceding year was 49 percent, or about the same as the
change between 1932 and 1933. Expenditure from private funds was
again cut almost in half, the decrease being especially noticeable in
expenditure for work relief. Expenditure from public funds for work
relief again more than doubled, but expenditure from public funds for
direct relief increased less rapidly than in any preceding year. Ex
penditures for all three forms of special allowances increased slightly.
Public funds financed 98 percent of the total relief expenditure. Only
7 percent of the total expenditure was provided in the form of special
allowances from public funds.
The transfer of persons to projects under the Works Progress
Administration, which got under way in August 1935, reduced rapidly
the amount of expenditure for work relief included in these summaries
and also affected expenditure for direct relief. As was the case with
projects under the Civil Works Administration during the winter of
1933-34, information on expenditure for persons in need of relief is not
available for projects under the Works Progress Administration in a
form comparable with data for work relief as defined for inclusion in
this study.
The increase in expenditure from public funds for direct relief
was 35 percent between 1934 and 1935 as compared with 44 per
cent between 1933 and 1934. Expenditure from public funds for
work relief, with excluded expenditure under the Works Progress
Administration during the latter part of the year, increased 10 percent
between 1934 and 1935. Expenditure from public funds for old-age
assistance nearly doubled between 1934 and 1935 as the result of the
enactment of new legislation in certain States and the increase of
appropriations in other States. Small increases were reported in
expenditure for mothers’ aid and for aid to the blind. The expenditures
for the three types of special allowance increased by oyer one-third
between 1934 and 1935, but the rise in other types of public relief made
the proportion used for special allowances approximately the same as
in the preceding year.
Expenditure from private funds decreased 21 percent between 1934
and 1935 as compared with 47 percent between 1933 and 1934 and 51
percent between 1932 and 1933. Only about 1 percent of the total
relief expenditure in 1935 was financed from private funds. Expendi
ture from private funds in 1935 was primarily for direct relief, and
much less was used for work relief than in preceding years.
Total changes between 1929 and 1935 were as follows:
Expenditure from public funds for direct relief increased 36 times
between 1929 and 1935. In 1929 it formed one-third of the total
expenditure from public and private funds; in 1935, nearly two-thirds.
Very little was expended from public funds for work relief in 1929.
In 1935, with expenditure under the Works Progress Administration
excluded, public expenditure for work relief formed more than onefourth of the total expenditure.
In 1929 the expenditure for special allowances from public funds
was used almost entirely for mothers’ aid and for aid to the blind.
In 1935 the expenditure for old-age assistance exceeded the amount
expended for mothers’ aid. More than twice as much was used for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
aid to the blind as was expended in 1929, and there was an increase of
45 percent in the expenditure for mothers’ aid. Total expenditure for
the three forms of special allowance was approximately three times as
large in 1935 as in 1929.
Expenditure from private funds for direct and work relief increased
between 1929 and 1932 and decreased to about the same extent between
1932 and 1935. The total expenditure from private funds in 1935 was
13 percent more than in 1929 but 80 percent less than in the peak year
of 1932.
SEASONAL CHANGES IN MONTHLY EXPENDITURE
The various types of relief showed significant differences in the ex
tent to which the monthly expenditure was affected by seasonal
factors (table A, chart 3, pp. 69, 15).
Expenditure from pubhc funds for direct relief tended to increase
in the fall and winter months and to decrease in the spring and summer
months. During the summer of 1932, however, there was an upward
trend instead of the usual seasonal decrease. The regularity of the
trend was affected also by the removal of individuals from the rolls
for direct relief who received employment on projects under the Civil
Works Administration during the winter of 1933-34 and under the
Works Progress Administration during the latter part of 1935.
Because of the many changes in local, State, and National programs
for work relief and the impossibility of obtaining data on the earnings
of relief workers on projects under the Civil Works Administration and
the Works Progress Administration, it is difficult to determine the
extent of the influence of seasonal factors upon expenditure from
pubhc funds for work relief. The indications of seasonal trend, how
ever, are similar to those for direct relief. During 1929, 1930, and
1932 there was a reduction during the summer months below the
amount expended in preceding months. With the exception of the
months when the trend in the figures here presented was affected by
the exclusion of earnings under the Civil Works Administration and
the Works Progress Administration, the expenditure increased es
pecially rapidly during the fall and winter months of all the years
included in the study.
As the amount of a grant for mothers’ aid, old-age assistance, and
aid to the blind is usually constant from month to month unless
conditions affecting the grant are changed, there is no indication of
seasonal trend in the amounts expended. However, the enactment of
legislation authorizing payment in additional States and the granting
of larger appropriations under existing legislation caused rapid in
creases at certain times during the period studied, especially in oldage assistance and in aid to the blind.
Expenditure from private funds for direct and also for work relief
showed a strong tendency toward seasonal increase in the fall and
winter months and decrease in the spring and summer months during
the period between 1929 and 1932 when expenditure from private
funds was increasing. Between 1932 and 1935, when the trend was
downward, seasonal variations were less evident.
The trend in total expenditure from public and private funds re
flected the combined effect of the seasonal differences in expenditure
from public and from private funds for direct and work rehef. The
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 3
-MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FROM PUBLIC AND FROM PRIVATE FUNDS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF RELIEF IN 120 URBAN AREAS,
JANUARY 1929-DECEMBER 1935
»
PUBLIC FUNDS
PUBLIC FUNDS
SPECIAL ALLOWANCES
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1 9 35
PRIVATE FUNOS
WORK RELIEF
1 9 29
1930
1931
1932
1 9 33
1934
1935
1934
19 35
PRIVATE FUNDS
DIRECT RELIEF
1939
1 9 29
1 9 30
1931
1932
1933
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
15
»T h e iroken line Indicates the exclusion of expenditure for employment on projects under the Civil W orks Administration, November 1933-March 1934, and under the Works
Progress i ammistration, August-December 1935.
EXPENDITURE FROM PUBLIC AND FROM PRIVATE FUNDS
t o ta l r e l ie f
16
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929 -3 5
seasonal trend was quite regular throughout the period except during
the months for which the figures here presented are incomplete be
cause of the exclusion of expenditure for wages to relief workers on
projects under the Civil Works Administration and the Works Progress
Administration.
ANNUAL CHANGES IN PER-CAPITA EXPENDITURE
Expressed in terms of expenditure per capita of the population of
the reporting areas as shown in the 1930 census,10 the annual expendi
ture from public and private funds for relief increased from 96 cents
in 1929 to $18.44 in 1935. For expenditure from public funds the
rise during this period was from 73 cents'to $18.19; for expenditure
from private funds, from 23 cents to 25 cents (table 1).
Annual data on total and per-capita expenditure from public and
from private funds are presented in table B (p. 72) for each urban
area for which substantially complete reports on expenditure from
both public and private funds for relief could be obtained. For 111
of these areas comparable information on per-capita expenditure was
available for all years from 1929 to 1935, inclusive, although, in certain
instances, changes in plans for relief administration modified the
territory to which reports related and necessitated the use of different
figures in the calculation of the per-capita expenditure.11
In each year the amount expended per capita of. the population
varied widely in this group of areas (table 2). In 1929 an annual
expenditure from public and private funds of less than 50 cents per
capita was reported in 30 of the 111 areas, and in none of the areas
did the expenditure exceed $5. In 1935 only six areas reported an
expenditure of less than $5 per capita and eight areas reported an
expenditure of $25 or more.
If the 111 areas are arranged each year in the order of the amount
of the annual expenditure from public and private funds per capita
of the population, one-fourth of the areas will be found to have
expended less than the amount (the lower quartile) shown in the first
column in the following table. One-half of the areas will be found to
have expended less than the amount (the median) shown in the second
column. All but one-fourth of the areas will be found to have expended
less than the amount shown in the last column (the upper quartile).
Year
1929............ ......... ....................... ....................... ............. .....................
1930
................................................- __________ _______ ___________ ________
1931
______________________________________________________
1 9 32 ...______________ ___________________________________________
1933 2____________________ __________ ___________________ ______
1934 3_________ _________ _______ ______________________________________
1935 4......... : ................................. ........................... ............................... .......... ....................
Per-capita1 expenditure from
public and private funds in
111 urban areas
Lower
quartile
M edian
$0.49
.58
L 17
2.56
5.18
8.38
9.99
$0.83
1.14
2.35
5.13
7.90
11.28
15.19
Upper
quartile
$1.28
1.89
4.90
8.08
9.92
14.31
20.25
1 Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
* Excludes expenditure under the Civil Works Administration, November and December.
* Excludes expenditure under the Civil Works Administration, January-March.
4 Excludes expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December.
i° Because there were no official estimates of population for the urban areas for later years, the per-capita
expenditures presented in this report have been calculated on the basis of the population shown in the
1930 census. In areas with increasing population the per-capita expenditure would have been larger in
1929 and smaller in 1931 and later years than the figures here presented. In areas with decreasing popu
lation the per-capita expenditure would have been smaller in 1929 and larger in 1931 and later years.
11 See appendix A (p. 65), for information on territory and population to which reports for each urban area
relate and changes n territory during the period of the study.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
EXPENDITURE FROM PUBLIC AND FROM PRIVATE FUNDS
17
Six areas reported no expenditure from public funds in 1929
(table 3). The number of areas without expenditure from public
funds was decreased to four in 1930 and to two in 1931. Beginning
with 1932 all areas reported expenditure from public funds, and in 1935
only six reported expenditure from public funds of less than $5 per
capita. The lower quartile, median, and upper quartile were as
follows in per-capita expenditure from public funds:
Per-capita 1 expenditure from
public funds in 111 urban areas
Year
Low er'
quartile
Median
$0.24
.29
.57
1.47
4.89
8.29
9.95
$0.60
.79
1.62
4.20
7.62
11.10
15.08
Upper
quartile
$0.96
1.54
4.17
7.03
9.54
14.12
19.98
1 Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
2 Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, November and December.
3 Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, January-March.
* Excludes expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December.
Expenditure from private funds for relief was reported in all the
111 areas each year (table 4). In 1929, 21 areas reported expenditure
from private funds of less than 10 cents per capita, and in no area was
the expenditure as much as $1 per capita. In 1932, the peak year of
expenditure from private funds, only four areas expended less than
10 cents per capita, and in 27 areas the expenditure was $1 per capita
or more. In 1935 the number of areas expending less than 10 cents
per capita was 48, or more than twice as many as in 1929. In two
areas, however, the per-capita expenditure in 1935 was $1 or more, as
compared with no areas reporting as large an expenditure in 1929.
The lower quartile, median, and upper quartile in per-capita expendi
ture from private funds were as follows:
Per-capita1 expenditure from
private funds in 111 urban
areas
•
Year
Lower
quartile
M edian
$0.12
.15
.26
.32
.10
.05
.04
$0.22
.28
.49
.57
.24
.14
.12
Upper
quartile
$0.34
.45
.79
.94
.47
.31
.29
i Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
The changes between 1929 and 1935 in the proportion of the total
expenditure for relief in the reporting areas that was financed from
public funds are shown in table 5. In 1929 only 8 of the 111 areas
financed 95 percent or more of the total expenditure from public
funds; in 1935, the number had increased to 107. The lower quartile,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
18
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
median, and upper quartile in percent of total expenditure from public
funds were as follows:
Year
1929..
1930..
1931..
1932..
19331
1934 *
1935 3.
Percent of the total expendi
ture for relief provided from
public funds in 111 urban
areas
Lower
quartile
Median
47.4
52.8
49.8
68.8
91.3
97.4
98.2
72.5
71.0
75.7
88.1
97.0
98.9
99.2
Upper
quartile
86.3
87.5
89.6
93.4
98.5
99.6
99.7
1 Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, November and December.
2 Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, January-March.
3 Excludes expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December.
REGIONAL DIFFERENCES
Although the direction of the trend between 1929 and 1935 in
expenditure from public and from private funds for relief was similar
in areas located in various sections of the United States, there were
significant regional differences in the amount expended per capita of
population and in the extent to which public or private funds were
used for financing relief costs (tables 2-5 and B, pp. 19-22, 72).
The areas in the New England Division of the United States ranked
comparatively high throughout the period in the per-capita expendi
ture and in the proportion financed from public funds. None of the
areas in this division, even in 1929, were at the low levels of percapita expenditure from public funds reported in all the other divisions
of the United States, except the Mountain and Pacific Division.
Per-capita expenditure from private funds was small in certain areas
in New England, but in other areas it was at a high level as compared
with reporting areas throughout the United States.
Areas in the Middle Atlantic and North Central Divisions showed
a wide variation in per-capita expenditure from both public and private
funds. Certain areas had very low levels of expenditure while others
had high levels. During 1934 and 1935, however, the number report
ing a comparatively small amount expended per capita from private
funds increased. In both divisions all areas reported that 95 percent
or more of the total expenditure for relief was financed from public
funds in 1935, and in the Middle Atlantic Division also in 1934.
The amount expended per capita of the population and the method
of financing were quite different in the areas located in the South
Atlantic and South Central Division from those in the divisions just
discussed. In all areas in the South Atlantic and South Central
Division the per-capita expenditure was comparatively small, and
prior to 1932 relief in most of these areas was financed largely or
entirely from private funds.
The range in the amount of the per-capita expenditure and the
method of financing were similar in the areas in the Mountain and
Pacific Division to those found in areas in the New England Division.
In none of the areas in these divisions was the per-capita expenditure
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
EXPENDITURE FROM PUBLIC AND FROM PRIVATE FUNDS
19
from public funds at the low levels reported by certain areas in other
divisions. Per-capita expenditure from private funds was compara
tively small during most years, and in both 1934 and 1935 all areas
in the Mountain and Pacific Division reported 95 percent or more of
the total expenditure financed from public funds.
2 . — N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the per-capita 1 expenditure
fro m public and private fu n d s f o r relief, by geographic division; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
T able
Num ber of urban areas in which the per-capita expenditure was—
Geographic division, number of
urban areas, and year
United
areas:
States— 111
$0.50, $ 1 ,less $ 5 ,less $10, less $15,less $20, less
than
than
than
than
less
than $5
$25
$20
$15
$10
than $1
Less
than
$0.50
urban
30
20
9
3
39
28
14
6
1934 3
1935«
N ew England— 18 urban areas:
2
42
59
64
45
26
9
6
16
16
6
2
1034 3
4
22
37
60
32
22
2
17
15
45
25
3
10
17
29
6
21
2
8
1
7
3
11
4
1
2
4
6
7
1
1
1
7
4
8
4
1
7
6
8
6
8
4
1
5
14
21
11
6
3
4
15
10
1
1
5
11
4
1
1
2
8
13
16
2
4
4
1
1
2
7
3
1
3
2
2
2
11
8
13
2
1035 4
M iddle Atlantic— 24 urban areas:
9
9
i
JLVoU._____- - - - - - - — ------- - - - - --------
1034
3
1935
4
North Central—32 urban areas:
3
1
18
6
1
1032
H
13
17
8
1
11
24
26
14
6
1935 1
South Atlantic and South Central—
27 urban areas:
23
17
9
3
1Q22
4
10
12
6
1034 3
1035 4
Mountain
areas:
and
$25 or
more
6
16
17
9
6
5
8
12
4
Pacific— 10 urban
1020
6
1030
3
1031
1034 3
1935 4
4
6
9
5
2
1
1
5
6
2
1 Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
» Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, November and December.
> Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, January-March.
* Excludes expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929 -3 5
T able
N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the per-capita 1 expendi
ture fr o m public fu n d s fo r relief, by geographic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
3 .—
Number of urban areas in which the per-capita1 expenditure was—
Geographic division, number
of urban areas, and year
United States— 111 urban areas:
1929_ ........................ ..
1930.............................1931__________ _______
1932................................
1933 « . . . .........................
1934 *..............................
1935 »..............................
No
relief
6
4
2
Less
than
$0.25
$0.25,
less
than
$0.50
$0.50,
less
than
$1
$1,
less
than
$5
$5,
less
than
$10
$10,
less
than
$15
$15,
less
than
$20
$20,
less
than
$25
22
20
11
4
19
14
12
4
39
27
12
9
25
43
55
49
28
9
6
3
18
30
59
35
23
1
14
16
43
25
1
8
17
29
20
N ew England— 18 urban areas:
1929.............................................
1930.................- .......................
1931.............................................
1932.............................................
1933».........................................
1934».........................................
1935 »..........................................
5
2
M iddle Atlantic— 24 urban
areas:
1929.............................. .............
1930.............................................
1931...... ................................... 1932............................................
1933 *..........................................
1934»....................................... .
1935 4.....................................
1
North Central— 32 urban areas:
1929..........................................._
1930.............................................
1931............................................
1932............................. .............
1933»..........................................
1934»..........................................
1935»..........................................
South Atlantic and South
Central— 27 urban areas:
1929_______ _________________
1930.............................................
1931....................... ....................
1932.............................................
1933»..........................................
1934».................................. ..
1935»..........................................
Mountain and Pacific— 10
urban areas:
1929.........................................
1 9 3 0 ........................................
1931.............................................
1932...........................................
1933»..........................................
1934»..........................................
1935»..........................................
1 Based on
* Excludes
s Excludes
* Excludes
4
2
6
4
2
18
17
11
4
10
6
1
6
2
2
9
7
3
16
14
4
3
13
14
8
2
5
10
16
10
1
6
13
21
18
7
2
10
9
14
3
7
2
10
4
2
4
i
i
5
6
g
4
8
i
5
9
20
12
7
2
4
15
9
1
4
12
7
13
16
2
4
4
1
1
3
8
12
5
1
5
3
6
9
4
4
6
1
13
18
9
6
9
4
1
1
6
6
9
2
4
6
2
2
6
4~1
2
oH
population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, November and December.
expenditure under the Civil Works Administration, January-March.
expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$25 or
more
8
i
EXPENDITURE FROM PUBLIC AND FROM PRIVATE FUNDS
T a b l e 4 .—
21
N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the p er-ca p ita » expenditure
fro m private fu n d s f o r relief, by geographic division; 1929—35
Num ber of urban areas in which the per-capita1 expendi
ture was—
Geographic division, number of urban
areas, and year
United States1929............
1930...........
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Less
than
$0.10
$0. 10,
less
than
$0.25
$0.25,
less
than
$0.50
$0.50,
less
than
$1, less $2.50,
less
than
than $5
$2.50
$1
$5 or
more
- I l l urban areas:
................................................
........................
................................................
................................................
........................
N ew England— 18 urban areas:
1929
.........................................
1930
.........................................
1931
...............- ........................
1932
.........................................
1933
........................................
1934
.........................................
1935
.........................................
M iddle Atlantic—24 urban areas:
1929
.............................................
1930
.............................................
1931
.............................................
1932
.............................................
1933
.............................................
1934
.............................................
1935
............................................
North Central—32 urban areas:
1929
..........................................
1930
..........................................
1931
........................................
1932
.........................................
1933
.........................................
1934
........................................
1935
.......................................
South Atlantic and South Central— 27 urban
areas:
1929
.............................................................
1930
............................................................
1931
............................................................
1932
............................................................
1933
............................................................
1934
............................................................
1935
............................................................
Mountain and Pacific— 10 urban areas:
1929..............................................................
1930— , .......................................................
1931
.........................................................
1932
.........................................................
1933
.........................................................
1934
.........................................................
1935
.............- .........................................
1
Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3
7
7
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
22
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 192ÎH35
T able 5.— N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the percent o f the total
expenditure f o r relief provided fr o m public fu n d s, by geographic division; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
total expenditure was—r
Oeographic division, number of urban areas, and year
Zero
tJnited States— 111 urban areas:
1929____ _____________________ ______
1930..................................................
1931_______ __________ _____________
1932
.................. _ ............... ...............
1933 1........... - ........................... ...............
1934 2............. .................. ....... ...............
1935 3............... ................. ................. .............
6
4
2
Less
2 5 ,less 50,less 75,less
than 25 than 50 than 75 than 95
5
9
7
2
N ew England— 18 urban areas:
1929_____ ______ ________ _______ ______
1930........ ................. ..................... ................. .............
1 9 3 1 ................................ ......... ............. ...............
1932................ ......... .........................................
1933«............. ............................. .............. ...............
1934»___________ _____ ___________ ___________
1935*............................................. .................. ...................
17
13
20
10
1
15
8
8
8
.
2
1
6
4
2
5
9
5
2
12
1
1
1 Excludes expenditure under the Civil Works Administration, November and December
2 Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, January-March.
3 Excludes expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8
6
10
20
1
North Central—32 urban areas:
1929____ ____________________ ________ _______
1930........ ............. ................................. ...............
1931........ ......................... ............ .............
1932............ ............... ................... ........... .............
1933 ' ...................................................................
1934*........................... ............. ...................
1935»................. ....................................................
M ountain and Pacific— 10 urban areas:
1929_____ ____________ ________
1930__________________ _____ _
.
1931.............. ..................... ...............
1932_____ ____________________
1933 «............... .............
1934»________ _______ ______ _____
1935»............... ........... .........................
43
44
45
52
1n
1
M iddle Atlantic— 24 urban areas:
1929.................................. ......... ........... ...................
1930____ _________________ _____ _______
1931................ ......................... ............... .................
1932____________ ________ ____________________
1933«...........................................................................
1934*....................... ......... ......... ............................
1935»......... .......................................... ................
South Atlantic and South Central— 27 urban areas:
1929______ _________ ______ _________ _____
1930.................................................................
1931............................................. .........
1932_____ ________________ ______ ______
1933«.............................................................
1934*........... ................. .................
1935»..................... .......
32
35
27
27
95 or
more
1
ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC AND OF PRIVATE FUNDS
BY PUBLIC AND BY PRIVATE AGENCIES
During 1929 relief from public funds was usually administered by
public agencies and relief from private funds by private agencies.
In several areas, however, private agencies carried responsibility for
administering all or part of the relief financed from public funds.
The expenditure from public funds for relief administered by private
agencies was $498,520 in 1929— 3 percent of the total expenditure
from public funds for direct and work relief in the 120 urban areas
and about 5 percent of the total expenditure for relief administered
by private agencies. A small amount from private funds ($6,622)
was used for relief administered by public agencies (tables 1,6, and 7.)
Between 1929 and 1932 the amount and proportion of the public
funds expended by private agencies and the amount and proportion
of the private funds expended by public agencies increased rapidly.
In 1932, $27,783,151 from public funds was administered by private
agencies. This amount was about 13 percent of the total expended
during the year from public funds for direct and work relief and 36
percent of the total expended for relief administered by private
agencies. The amount expended from private funds for relief ad
ministered by public agencies was $6,590,791 in 1932, or 12 percent
of the total expenditure for relief from private funds and 3 percent
of the total expenditure for relief administered by public agencies.
The availability of Federal funds under the provisions of the
Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933 caused changes in a number of
areas in procedures in financing and administering relief. ^ Following
a requirement of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in
August 1933 that public funds for relief be administered by public
agencies, the amount expended from public funds by private agencies
dropped sharply, but the rise prior to August had been large enough
to make the total for the year larger than that for the preceding year.
During 1934 and 1935 the proportion of the total expenditure from
public funds for direct and work relief that was administered by private
agencies was negligible, but the proportion of the total expenditure
from public funds for such relief that was administered by private
agencies was tbe same as in 1929.
Expenditure from private funds for relief administered by public
agencies decreased rapidly between 1932 and 1935. In 1935 the
amount was negligible in relation both to the total amount expended
by public agencies and to the total amount expended from private
funds.
23
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able 6.— Expenditure fro m public and fro m private fu n d s fo r different types o f relief adm inistered by public and by private agencies in 120
urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
1929
Public
funds
1930
Private
funds
Public
funds
1931
Private
funds
Public
funds
1932
Private
funds
Public
funds
Private
funds
1933
Public
funds
1934
Private
funds
Public
funds
1935
Private
funds
Public
funds
Private
funds
Expenditure
D o lla r s
D o lla r s
D o lla r s
D o lla r s
D o lla r s
D o lla r s
D o lla r s
D o lla r s
D o lla r s
D o lla r s
D o lla r s
T o t a l .................... 33,448,803 10,296,198 54,754,066 16,670,551 123,320,040 49,429,179
D o lla r s
D o lla r s
251,104,365 57,081,178 1421,042,236 27,878,308 1 652,367,025 14, 785,876
»829,223,503 11,643,416
Public agencies............... 32,950,283
6,622 53,878,502
23,367 118, 111, 987
485,411 223,321, 214 6,590,791 >389,537,237 1,428, 759 »651,636,082
160,851 »828,623,566
21,437
Direct relief:
General relief......... 12,127,234
6,622 26,867, 297
23,367 53,131,138
321,681 122,449,811 6,350, 746 237,918,957 1,394,650
Veterans’ relief___
2, 222,181
4,011,362
7,728,884
160,851 533,264,805
11,883,294
2,676
21,437
12,835,318
5,591 J393,840,005
W ork relief...............
4,784
1,755,980
22,527,557
163,730 46,578,521
237,369 1 97,472,637
28,518 »214, 209,074
»236,391,492
Special allowances:
Mothers’ aid.......... 17,073,547
18, 271, 794
22,107,359
24,282,472
23,343,440
23, 739,594
Old-age assistance..
24,681,872
8,909
1,059,978
10,423,001
15,652,297
15,292,684
16,654,495
Aid to the blind___ 1,513,628
30, 385,535
1,912,091
2,196,048
2,474,819
2,674,201
3,192,914
3,899,862
Private agencies.............
498,520 10,289,576
875,564 16,647,184 5,208,053 48,943,768 27, 783,151 50,490,387
31,504,999 26,449,549
730,943 14,625,025
599,937 11,621,979
Direct relief:
General relief by—
N o n s e c ta r ia n
agencies............
406,120 5,051,824
671,077 7,935,418
3,970,390 1?, 645,423 14,190, 744 17, 721,316
16,843,088 10,207,939
405,738 6,859, 541
Jewish agencies..
192 2,495,847
319,331 5,791,571
3,235 2,695,135
171,920 3,448,056
755,417 3,928,381
1,188,307 3,306,427
18,817 2,651, 235
Catholic agencies
5,166 1,183,493
2,370 2,136,179
6,663 1,540,127
69,551 3,952,546 2,245,858 2,834,242
2,560,830 1,115, 700
35,525 1,646, 797
Salvation A r m y ..
4,114
7,610 1,427, 832
439,578
5,095
669,295
78,176 2,114,445
623,638 1,484,951
504,480 1,191,201
37,720
Emergency-relief
726,744
8,799
688,954
committees__
470,632
4,972,862
3, 762,906 8,888,370
933,626 2,850,940
Other
private
agencies..............
Veterans’ relief____
W ork relief...........
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6,401
56,527
737,477
377,368
6,204
65,646
940,360
441,750
57,686 1,384,113
90,078
612,431
341,175 1,270,801
297,339
646,167
20,000
3,989
117,644
1,954,467
578,022 13,813,892
5,566,074 13, 716,159
1,127,043
698,237
420,481
439,610
7,639,388 6,927,251
11,045
120,895
1, 265,003
324,250
7,130
161,635
760,510
319,297
101,203 1,151,455
93,062
497,636
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF,' 1929—35
Administrative agency
and type of relief
to
^
Percent distribution
76.8
100.0
Direct relief:
General relief______
99.9
100.0
23.5
76.7
100.0
(‘)
0.1
99.9
100.0
23.3
(«)
0.1
2.2
28.6
81.5
18.5
> 93.8
6.2
»97.8
0.4
97.1
2.9
>99.6
0.4
2 100.0
(‘ >
» 100.0
99.4
100.0
.6
95.1
100.0
4.9
99.4
100.0
.6
100.0
100.0
(*>
(‘ )
100.0
100.0
.7
1 100.0
(‘ )
2 100.0
» 100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.5
(«)
.5
1.4
* 98.6
71.4
99.6
«
(4)
Special allowances:
Private agencies.............
Direct relief:
General relief b y —
N o n s e c ta r ia n
agencies. ...........
Jewish agencies..
Catholic agencies
Salvation A rm y .
Emergency-relief
<‘ )
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
95.4
5.0
95.0
9.6
90.4
35.5
64.5
54.4
45.6
4.8
95.2
4.9
7.4
92.6
100.0
99.6
99.1
7.8
92.2
82.4
95.3
98.3
96.4
44.5
16.1
44.2
29.6
55.5
83.9
55.8
70.4
62.3
26.4
69.7
29.8
37.7
73.6
30.3
70.2
94.4
99.3
97.9
95.1
5.2
94.8
99.6
99.2
17.6
4.7
1.7
3.6
5.6
.7
.4
.5
1.3
99.5
98.7
100.0
3.7
96.3
29.7
70.3
24.7
75.3
100.0
99.1
72.8
33.6
99.1
66.4
91.9
15.8
84.2
.4
.9
.1
.8
100. C
9 9 .9
Other
private
agencies. ...........
Veterans’ relief____
13.0
99.1
87.0
.7
12.9
99.3
87.1
12.8
96.0
87.2
31.5
78.8
68.5
72.8
61.4
27.2
38.6
W ork relief..................
83.4
16.6
6.7
9 4 .3
4.0
96.0
28.9
71.1
52.4
47.6
.9
4 .0
21.2
1Excludes expenditure under the Civil Works Administration, November and December.
2Excludes expenditure under the Civil Works Administration, January-March.
3Excludes expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December.
*
95.1
4.6
Less than one-tenth of 1 percent.
2.1
4.9
.9
27.2
8.1
.1
9 9 .9
100.0
.9
ADMINISTRATION BY PUBLIC AND BY PRIVATE AGENCIES
Total.......................
Public agencies________
25
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
\
T a b l e 7.
E xpenditure fro m public and private fu n d s f o r different types o f r elie f adm inistered by public and by private agencies in 120 urban
areas; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
Administrative agency and type of relief
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Total_____________________ __________
$43,745,001
$71,424,617
$172,749,219
Public agencies4_______________ . . . _______
32,956,905
53,901,869
118,597,398
229,912,005
Direct relief:
General relief_____________________
Veterans’ relief___________________
12,133,856
2,222,181
26,890,664
4,011,362
53,452,819
7,726,884
128,800,557
11,885,970
W ork relief___________________________
4,784
1,755,980
22,691,287
46,815,890
i 97,501,155
> 214,209,074
>236,391,492
Special allowances:
Mothers’ aid_____________________
Old-age assistance_____________ __
Aid to the blind___________ ______
17,073,547
8,909
1,513,628
18,271,794
1,059,978
1,912,091
22,107,359
10,423,001
2,196,048
24,282,472
15,652,297
2,474,819
23,343,440
15,292,684
2,674,201
23,739,594
16,654,495
3,192,914
24,681,872
30,385,535
3,899,862
Private agencies •_________________________
1 390,965,996
1 651,796,933
239,313,607
‘ 12,840,909 j» 394,000,856
> $840,866,919
3 828,645,003
« 533,286,242
10,788,096
17,522,748
54,151,821
78,273,538
57,954,548
15,355,968
12,221,916
Direct relief:
General relief by—
Nonsectarian agencies_______
Jewish agencies_______________
Catholic agencies____________
Salvation A rm y ______________
Emergency-relief committees.
Other private agencies........ ..
Veterans’ relief______ ______ ______
5,457,944
2,496,039
1,188,659
443,692
22,615,813
3,619,976
4,022,097
2,192,621
31,912,060
4,683,798
5,080,100
2,108,589
6,110,902
2,138,549
1,435,442
697, 753
1,441,799
702,509
1,611,976
943,506
27,051,027
4,494,734
3,676,530
1,695,681
3,784,566
1,547, 524
1,137,847
7,265,279
2,670,052
1,682,322
764,464
743,878
433,895
8,606,495
2,698,370
1,546,790
674,390
470,632
946,564
507,396
1,276,048
445,145
767,640
480,932
W ork relief____________________________
23,989
2,072, 111
14,391,914
19,282,233
14,566,639
1,252,658
590,698
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Expenditure
$308,185,543 1$448,920,544 J$667,152,901
fcO
Oi
«o
Total________________________________
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Public agencies *-----------------------------------------
75.3
75.5
68.6
74.6
187.1
»97.7
»98.5
Direct relief:
General relief_____________________
Veterans' relief____________________
W ork relief________________________ ___
27.7
5.1
36.6
6.6
2.5
30.9
4.5
13.1
41.8
3.8
15.2
53.3 I
2.9
‘ 21.7
*59.0
* 63.4
*32.1
»28.1
30.0
3.5
25.6
1.5
2.7
12.8
6.0
1.3
7.9
5.1
.8
5.2
3.4
.6
3.6
2.5
.5
2.9
3.6
.5
24.7
24.5
31.4
25.4
12.9
2.3
1.5
12.6
6.7
2.7
1.0
12.0
3.8
2.2
.9
.7
L3
.7
13.1
2.1
2.3
1.3
3.0
.9
.4
10.4
1.5
1.6
.7
4.1
.5
.3
6.0
1.0
.8
.4
.8
.3
.3
1.1
.4
.2
.1
.7
.2
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
2.9
A3
6.3
3.3
.2
.1
Special allowances:
Mothers’ aid______________________
Old-age assistance________________
A id to the blind__________________
0
O
Private agencies •__________ ________ _______
Direct relief:
General relief by—
Nonsectarian agencies________
Jewish agencies.........................
Catholic agencies_____________
Salvation A rm y _______ _______
Emergency-relief committees.
Other private agencies_______
Veterans’ relief.. . . . . . . . . . -----------W ork relief__________ . . . . . . . __________
See footnotes at end of table.
1.7
1.0
0
ADMINISTRATION BY PUBLIC AND BY PRIVATE AGENCIES
-Z£—oööiflOt
Percent distribution
to
•<1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e 7 .—
E xpenditure fr o m public and private fu n d s f o r different types o f relief adm inistered by public and by private agencies in 120 urban
areas; 1 9 2 9 -8 5 — Continued
Administrative agency and type of relief
1929
1930
1932
1931
1934
1935
1932 to 1933
1933 to 1934
1934 to 1935
Percent change from—
Total_________ ____ __________________
1929 to 1930
1930 to 1931
1931 to 1932
+63
+142
+78
» +46
1 » +49
* +26
Public agencies *___________________________
+64
+120
+94
i +70
1 2+67
»+27
Direct relief:
General relief________________ ____
Veterans’ relief___________________
+122
+81
+99
+93
+141
+54
‘ +56
«+ 35
W ork relief____________________________
+267
+29
+106
1 +108
12+120
*+10
Special allowances:
Mothers’ aid______________________
Old-age assistance________________
Aid to the blind__________________
+7
+ 1 ,0 9 0
+26
+21
+883
+15
+10
+50
+13
-4
-2
+8
+2
+9
+19
+82
+22
Private agencies *_________________________
+86
}
+8
+ 209
+45
-2 8
-7 4
-2 0
+57
+8
+30
+52
+ 41
+29
+26
-4
+145
+12
+34
-1 5
-4
-2 8
-2 0
—70
-4
+21
-7 3
-4 1
-5 4
-5 5
-1 6
-2 0
—15
-9
+27
+17
+163
+34
+160
+225
+10
+52
+39
-1 8
-6 1
-4 0
+8
W ork relief____________________________
+764
+595
+34
-2 5
-9 1
-5 3
i Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, November and December.
* Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, January-March.
* Excludes expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December.
4 Includes expenditure from public funds administered b y joint public and private agencies, 1929-33.
* Expenditure for general relief and for veterans’ relief was not reported separately in certain areas in which local administration of the 2 types of relief was combined in 1934 and
1935.
4 Includes expenditure from private funds administered b y joint public and private agencies, 1929-33.
7 Less than one-tenth of 1 percent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 9 2 9 -3 5
+62
Direct relief:
General relief by—
Nonsectarian agencies_______
Jewish agencies_______________
Catholic agencies....... ............... .
Salvation A rm y ______________
Emergency-relief committees.
Other private agencies_______
Veterans’ relief___________________
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF,
1933
to
00
29
ADMINISTRATION BY PUBLIC AND BY PRIVATE AGENCIES
Because of the use of public funds for relief administered by private
agencies and the use of private funds for relief administered by public
agencies, the expenditure for relief administered by pubbc and by
private agencies shown in table 7 is significantly different, especially in
1931,1932, and 1933, from the expenditure from pubbc and from private
funds shown in table 1 (p. 10).
The difficulties involved in maintaining a record system showing
the number of cases aided from pubbc and from private funds by
agencies financing relief costs from both sources made it impossible to
secure data on the number of cases aided except in relation to the
total expenditure for relief by the agency. For certain agencies,
especially during the earber years, reports on the number of cases
aided were not available, although information on the monthly
amount expended could be reported.
The data presented in table 8 on the average monthly number of
cases aided during the year through different types of relief and the
average monthly relief per case follow the plan of classification used
in the summaries of agency expenditure shown in table 7. The group
of agencies is smaber, however, as only the agencies were included
for which comparable data were available for ab years included in
the study. No totals of data on cases are presented because of the
dupbcation in the cases aided by more than one agency during the
same month and the varying extent of this dupbcation during the
period studied with its rapidly changing programs of relief adminis
tration in many areas.
A verage m onthly num ber o f cases aided by public and by private agencies
through different types o f relief and average monthly relief per case in 120 urban
areas; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
T a b l e 8 .—
Administrative agency and
type of relief
1029
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Average monthly number of cases aided
Direct and work relief:
Public agencies:
General relief................
Veterans’ relief............
34,180
6,605
73,244
10,719
178,066
19,623
463,157
36,731
» 875,655 Ì .
>38,601
2,281
6,931
13,289
31,367
44,920
21,536
5,046
3, 706
9,040
33,502
5,622
4,942
13,554
89,207
7,976
9,550
24,799
168,316
11,664
12,974
19,853
151, 043
12,359
11,266
17,202
640
5,891
17,538
8,679
4,298
2,692
5,017
3,714
8,378
4,632
13,904
7,508
Private agencies..................
16
1,089
3; 591
22,461
23| 377
Special allowances:
Mothers' aid.........................
Old-age assistance..............
Aid to the blind................
31,849
52
6,546
33,683
2 ,834
7,711
38,443
27,305
8,542
Joint public and private
Private agencies:
General relief by—
N o n s e c ta r ia n
agencies..............
Jewish agencies. .
Catholic agencies.
Salvation A r m y ..
E mergencv-relief
committees____
Other
private
agencies..............
Veterans’ relief_______
25,616
7,664
5,179
9,902
21,010
6,519
4,628
9,141
27,683
10,642
7,231
4,388
5,507
4,264
54,243
30^858
112,072
24; 730
(«)
2,429
V 1,152
43,667
44,693
9,429
46,647
49,518
10,030
47,499
61,329
10Î 226
48,817
119,492
12,062
Work relief only:
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Average monthly num ber o f cases aided by public and by private agencies
through different types o f relief and average m onthly relief per case in 120 urban
areas; 1 9 2 9 -3 5 — Continued
T a b l e 8 .—
Administrative agency and
type of relief
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Average m onthly relief per case
Direct and work relief:
Public agencies:
General relief......... ..
Veterans’ relief........ __
$23.02
27. 21
$24.67
30.17
$21. 34
32.01
$20.71
26.39
> $21.41
>26.12
14.38
16.63
16.19
13.22
16.08
17.17
37.86
16.75
36.86
17.96
35.07
16.24
31.64
16.55
29.14
21.94
28.89
22.49
27.77
15.80
3.27
15.85
3.10
16.46
5.84
14.96
6.92
15.49
7.19
19.18
6.27
19.06
6.21
5.56
17.27
12.54
9.06
12.78
12.61
12.55
10.55
11.08
11.33
8.91
8.77
6.07
. 8.59
10.20
7.68
10.79
8.68
(•)
22.31
41.17
24.57
43.75
42.30
35.41
36.14
26.17
(0
30.72
(4)
31.89
42.23
14.25
16.09
42.95
24.20
17.40
45.80
30.10
18.26
44.23
27.51
18.74
39.55
23.98
19.07
39.86
21.62
22.83
40.22
20 57
24.01
Joint public and private
Private agencies:
General relief b y —
N o n s e c ta r ia n
agencies...............
Jewish agencies..
Catholic
agencies__...................
Salvation A r m y ..
Emergency-relief
O th er p riv a te
agencies...............
Veterans’ relief............
W ork relief only:
Private agencies. ...............
Special allowances:
Mothers’ aid___________
Old-age assistance..............
Aid to the blind_________
Percent change in average m onthly number of cases aided from—
1929 to
1930
1930 to
1931
1931 to
1932
1932 to
1933
1934 to
1935
Direct and .work relief:
Public agencies:
+114
+66
+143
+83
+160
+87
I +89
»+5
+204
+92
+136
+43
+ 11
+33
+50
+166
+42
+93
+83
+ 89
+46
+36
-2 0
-1 0
+6
-1 3
-1 3
+821
+198
-5 1
+67
+25
+66
+62
+99
+42
+ 1,9 63
+551
+141
+32
+107
-2 0
+14
+864
+ 11
+14
+64
+10
47
+11
+6
}
* 8 * +100
8 « « +12
Joint public and private
Private agencies:
General relief b y —
N o n s e c ta r ia n
Jewish agencies..
Catholic agencies.
-8 3
-3 8
-5 4
-4 2
-1 8
-1 5
-1 1
-8
-7 4
-5 9
-2 4
-3
Emergency-relief
Other p r i v a t e
+17
+38
W ork relief only:
(•)
(*)
(«)
-9 0
-5 3
42
+24
+2
+3
+95
+18
Special allowances:
Aid to the blind..................
+6
(*)
+ 18
1 Excludes cases aided only through employment under the Civil W orks Administration, November
and December.
* Excludes cases aided only through employment under the Civil Works Administration, January-March.
8 Cases aided through general relief and through veterans' relief were not reported separately in certain
areas in which local administration of the two types of relief was combined in 1934 and 1935.
* Cases aided only through work relief are included in the unduplicated count of cases receiving direct
and work relief.
1 Excludes cases aided only through employment under the W orks Progress Administration, AugustDecember.
8 N ot computed.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ANNUAL CHANGES AND REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN
RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
G E N E R A L R E L IE F
Obtaining comparable data on cases receiving general relief adminis
tered by public agencies was especially difficult for the early years of
tlje study. Case-record systems were poorly organized in many areas,
and the large number of applications being received, in combination
with the inadequate staff for their handling, prevented much attention
from being given at first to the establishment of good procedures in
statistical reporting.
The development of work-relief projects also created problems in
the preparation of counts of cases aided. In certain agencies emphasis
was placed upon knowing the total number of cases aided, and infor
mation was not secured sèparately on the number receiving direct and
work relief if both types of assistance were provided. In other agencies
emphasis was placed on knowing the number of cases receiving direct
relief and on the number receiving work relief, and information was not
secured on the number of different cases aided. Gradually it was
recognized as desirable to know the number of cases receiving direct
relief and work relief and also the unduplicated total of cases aided.
Following the establishment of this method of counting cases in reports
of State relief administrations to the Federal Emergency Relief
Administration, the comparability of reports of cases aided was greatly
increased in both public and private agencies.
Other factors affecting comparability were present in later years.
Veterans’ relief in certain areas became part of the expenditure for
general relief, and separate data on expenditure and cases in general
relief and in veterans’ relief could no longer be secured to continue the
trend series for earlier years. The exclusion of expenditure under the
Civil Works Administration in the winter of 1933-34 and under the
Works Progress Administration in the last 5 months of 1935 reduced
the amount of the expenditure here reported and also affected the
counts of cases aided and the average monthly expenditure for relief
per case. The transfer to public agencies of large numbers of cases
in the latter part of 1933 that had been reported previously by private
agencies administering public funds contributed to the increase in the
case loads of public agencies, although the total number of relief cases
in the local community was not affected by the transfer.
In the agencies with data on cases aided sufficiently comparable to
be included in the annual summaries presented in table 8, the ex
penditure for general relief and veterans’ relief increased more rapidly
than the number of cases aided, so that the average monthly expendi
ture for relief was much more per case— $31.20 in 1935 as compared
with $23.69 in 1929— for combined general and veterans’ relief.
Between 1929 and 1930 the average monthly expenditure per case
for general relief increased about 7 percent. It then dropped to about
90 percent of the 1929 average and remained about the same through
1933. During 1934 and 1935, when nearly all public agencies reported
the unduplicated total, the average monthly relief per case was much
31
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
larger than in preceding years, even with expenditure excluded for
employment on projects under the Civil Works Administration and
the Works Progress Administration.
Detail on the number of cases aided, the case rate per 10,000
population, and the average monthly relief per case is shown in table
F (p. 96) for public agencies and for joint public and private agencies
included in the summary tables and for other agencies for which com
parable reports were not available for all years between 1929 and 1935.
In 77 areas the case data for public agencies administering general
relief were sufficiently comparable for use in studying annual changes
and regional differences in the number of cases aided per 10,000
population and the average monthly relief per case (tables 9 and 10).
In 1929 no general relief was administered by a public agency in
26 of the 77 areas, although public funds in certain areas were used
for general relief administered by private agencies. More than half
the areas with no public agency administering general relief were
in the South Atlantic and South Central Division, but one or more
areas in each of the geographic divisions, with the exception of New
England, reported no public agency administering such relief.
Between 1929 and 1932 the number of areas without a public agency
decreased from 26 to 20. In areas with public agencies the case rates
climbed steadily. In 1929 no area reported a rate of 100 or more
cases per 10,000 population; in 1932, 3 areas reported rates of 500 or
more, and 42 reported rates of 100 or more.
T a b l e 9 .—
N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly number
per 10,000 p op u la tion ,1 o f cases receiving general relief adm inistered by public
agencies, by geographic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
Number of urban areas in which the average monthly number of cases per 10,000
population 1 was—
Geographic division,
number of urban
areas, and year
Zero
United States— 77
urban areas:
1929.....................
1 9 3 0 ..................
1931.....................
1932.....................
1933»...................
19343...................
1935 * ...................
26
24
22
20
N ew England— 13 urban areas:
1929................... .........
1930......... ............... ..
1931.............................
1932.............................
19333...........................
19343...........................
1935 ‘ .....................
M iddle Atlantic— 12
urban areas:
1929.............................
1930......... .................
1931.............................
1932.............................
19333...........................
19343...........................
1935 * ...........................
8
4
4
1
100,
10, less 20, less 30, less 50, less
less
than
than
than
than
than
20
30
60
100
200
17
11
4
3
4
2
13
6
2
1
1
1
9
15
6
4
2
4
14
18
7
7
5
3
1
1
3
6
2
2
1
1
See footnotes at end of table
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Less
than
10
2
1
1
4
1
1
4
2
1
5
2
6
1
3
19
16
15
3
3
2
9
4
3
1
1
4
3
2
200,
less
than
300
300,
less
than
400
400,
less
than
500
600
or
more
2
21
28
16
9
1
16
28
21
1
4
19
19
3
5
U
25
2
5
7
2
3
2
4
7
2
4
5
4
7
6
5
8
6
1
i
1
33
RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
T a b l e 9 .—
N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly num ber
;per 10,000 popu lation , o f cases receiving general relief adm inistered by public
agencies, by geographic d ivision ; 1929—35 — Continued
Num ber of urban areas in which the average monthly number of cases per 10,000
population was—
Geographic division,
number of urban
areas, and year
Zero
North Central— 22 ur
ban areas:
1029
1030
1031
1932 .
1933 *
1934*
1935 < _
South Atlantic and
South
Central— 22
urban areas:
1020
1030
1931
1032
1933 * .......................
1934*
1935« .......................
M o u n t a i n a n d P a
cific—8 urban areas:
1020
1030
1931
1032
1933 *
1934*
1935*
Less
than
10
7
7
6
6
10, less 20, less 30, less 50, less
than
than
than
than
20
30
50
100
2
2
2
5
3
2
1
5
1
3
4
1
2
100,
less
than
200
1
6
5
1
4
4
3
15
14
14
12
3
l 1
l 1
3
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
]
1
2
2
4
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
4
2
3
2
1
200,
less
than
300
300,
less
than
400
400,
less
than
500
500
or
more
2
4
8
2
2
1
5
9
3
1
2
7
8
i
3
4
9
2
7
1
2
1
4
7
6
4
6
8
2
2
1
1
1
6
5
2
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
5
> Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
» Excludes cases aided only through employment under the Civil W orks Administration, November and
December.
3 Excludes cases aided only through employment under the Civil W orks Administration, January-March.
* Excludes cases aided only through employment under the W orks Progress Administration, A u gustDecember.
T a b l e 1 0 .—
N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly
relief per case receiving general r elief adm inistered by public agencies, by geo
graphic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
Num ber of urban areas in which the average m onthly relief per
case was—
Geographic division, number of
urban areas, and year
N o re
lief
United States— 77 urban areas:
1929..
1930..
1931..
1932..
1933«.
1934».
1935 *.
New England— 13 urban areas:
1929..
1930..
1931..
1932..
1933«.
1934 ».
1935>.
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Less
than
$5
$5, less $10, less $15, less $20, less $25, less $30 or
than
than
than
than
than
more
$25
$30
$10
$15
$20
26
24
1
1
10
12
22
4
1
10
13
15
20
1
1
14
11
10
7
13
15
7
5
8
11
14
25
16
14
8
7
4
10
9
12
13
4
3
7
8
9
10
10
9
11
9
4
6
23
32
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
4
2
1
7
8
7
4
5
9
12
3
1
2
34
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF,
1 9 2 9 -3 5
1 0 . — N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly
relief per case receiving general r elief adm inistered by public agencies, by geo
graphic division; 1 9 2 9 -8 5 — Continued
T able
Num ber of urban areas in which the average m onthly relief per
case was—
Geographic division, number of
urban areas, and year
N o re
lief
M iddle Atlantic— 12 urban areas:
1929.........................................................
1930.........................................................
1931.........................................................
1932.........................................................
1933 i......................................................
1934 *......................................................
1935»......................................................
North Central— 22 urban areas:
1929........................................................
1930.........................................................
1931.......................................................
1932.........................................................
19331......................................................
1934»......................................................
1935 »......................................................
South Atlantic and South Central—
22 urban areas:
1929..........................._•...........................
1930.........................................................
1931.........................................................
1932.........................................................
1933 i................................................
1934»......................................................
1935 *......................................................
Mountain and Pacific—8 urban areas:
1929........................................................
1930....... .................................................
1931.........................................................
1932.....................................................
1933 >......................................................
1934 >....................................................
1 9 3 5 »....................................................
Less
than
$5
1
1
2
$5, less $10, less $15, less $20, less $25, less
$30 or
than
than
than
than
than
more
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
i
2
4
2
3
5
4
2
4
1
7
7
6
6
15
14
14
12
1
1
2
1
3
5
5
7
12
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
7
7
7
2
3
1
3
1
1
6
14
7
5
12
10
3
4
3
1
3
3
1
1
2
4
10
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
4
3
4
n
9
3
2
1
4
2
1
i
1
i
i
i
3
2
2
i Excludes cases aided only through employment under the Civil Works Administration, November
and December.
* Excludes cases aided only through employment under the Civil W orks Administration, January-March.
* Excludes cases aided only through employment under the W orks Progress Administration, AugustDecember.
Beginning with 1933 the administration of general relief by public
agency was reported in every area. Case rates (with cases aided only
through employment under the Civil Works Administration and
under the Works Progress Administration excluded) became rapidly
larger. In 1935 no area reported a case rate of less than 100, and
in 25 areas it was 500 or more. All geographic divisions were repre
sented by areas with case rates of 500 or more, but in the Mountain
and Pacific Division and in the North Central Division the proportion
of the total number of areas with a case rate of 500 or more was larger
than in the other divisions.
Average monthly relief per case showed a noticeable upward trend
between 1929 and 1935 as the responsibility for financing and ad
ministration was placed increasingly upon public agencies. Also as
relief programs became better organized a larger proportion of cases
received assistance under a continuing plan, and the average monthly
relief grant made by the agency was not reduced by so many emergency
grants covering brief periods of time. As was previously noted, the
comparability of data for 1934 and 1935 was affected by the inclusion
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
35
of work relief that previously had been reported separately, and the
comparability of data for 1933, 1934, and 1935, by the exclusion of
cases aided only through employment under the Civil Works Admin
istration and under the Works Progress Administration.
In 1929 no area in the New England Division reported average
monthly relief per case of less than $10, and 7 of the 13 areas reported
$30 or more. In the Middle Atlantic Division 2 of the 12 areas re
ported an expenditure between $5 and $10, and only 1 reported $30
or more. In the North Central Division most of the areas providing
general relief under public administration expended less than $15
per case per month, and all areas in the South Atlantic and South
Central Division expended less than this amount. None of the areas
in the Mountain and Pacific Division expended less than $10 or as
much as $30 per case.
In 1935 all areas in the New England and Middle Atlantic Divisions
reported an average monthly relief per case of $25 or more. In the
North Central Division the largest number of areas reported an aver
age between $20 and $25. In the South Atlantic and South Central
Division the largest number of areas reported an average between $15
and $20.
Twelve of the 32 areas reporting in 1935 an average monthly relief
per case of $30 or more were located in the New England Division,
but all divisions were represented by at least one area at this level
of expenditure per case.
V E T E R A N S ’ R E L IE F
In 1929 the expenditure for veterans’ relief administered by public
agencies totaled about $2,000,000 in the reporting areas— one-fifth as
large as the expenditure for general relief administered by public
agencies. Between 1929 and 1933 (the last year for which comparable
reports on veterans’ relief were available for certain areas) there was
a marked increase in expenditure for veterans’ relief although far less
than the increase in general relief (table 7). In the group of agencies
reporting both the number of cases and the amount of expenditure,
the rise was more rapid in expenditure than in cases between 1929
and 1931, and average monthly relief per case became larger. In
1932 the rise was more rapid in cases, and average monthly relief per
case became less. In 1933 the rise was about the same in cases as in
expenditure, and average monthly relief was approximately the same
as in the preceding year (table 8).
Detail on the average monthly number of cases receiving relief, the
case rate per 10,000 population, and average monthly relief per case
is given in table G (p. 102) for urban areas from which reports on cases
and expenditure were received for one or more years from public
agencies administering veterans’ relief.
In 86 areas comparable information was available on cases and
expenditure for the years from 1929 to 1933, inclusive (tables 11 and
12). In only 26 of these areas was separately organized relief to
veterans provided under public auspices in 1929. Only one area in the
South Atlantic and South Central Division reported such relief and
only one area in the Mountain and Pacific Division. It was provided
in about half the areas in the Middle Atlantic Division and in the
North Central Division and in nearly two-thirds of the areas in the
New England Division.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
36
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
In 1930 and again in 1932 the number of areas providing veterans*
relief under public administration was increased by an additional area
m the Middle Atlantic Division. In 1933 an additional area in the
South Atlantic and South Central Division provided such assistance.
The case rate in half the areas was less than 5 per 10,000 population
m 1929 and in no area was it as much as 30 per 10,000 population.
In 1933 case rates of less than 5 per 10,000 population were still
reported in three areas, but in 13 areas the rate was 30 or more and in
1 area, 100 or more.
Throughout the period average monthly relief per case was larger
m the New England and Middle Atlantic Divisions than in the other
divisions. In these divisions nearly all areas reported the average
monthly relief per case to be $20 or more. In the North Central
Division nearly all areas reported an average of less than $20.
11.— N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly
num ber p er 1 0 ,000 popu lation , 1 o f cases receiving veterans’ relief administered
by public agencies, by geographic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -8 8
T able
Num ber of urban areas in which the average m onthly number of cases
per 10,000 population1 was—
ber of urban areas, and
year
Zero
Less
than 6
United States—86 urban areas:
1929............ ...............
1930............................
1931................ ...........
1932____ __________
1933............................
60
69
69
58
67
13
8
4
2
3
New England— 16 urban
areas:
1929.............................. .........
1930..................................
1931..............................
1932___ _________ ________
1 9 3 3 ....................................
6
6
6
6
6
2
r
1
1
1
M iddle Atlantic— 10 urban
areas:
1929.................... ................
1930........................ ...............
1931................ ............. .........
1932.................... ...........
1933.......... .......................
6
6
6
4
4
3
2
North Central— 22 urban
areas:
1929........................ .. .
1930..............................
1931.............. .................
1932.............. ................ ..
1933___________________
12
12
12
12
12
6
4
2
South Atlantic and South
Central— 28 urban areas:
1929.................... , _____
1930.................... ...................
1931............ .................
1932..............................
1933................................
27
27
27
27
26
1
1
1
M ountain and Pacifle— 10
urban areas:
1929............................ ............
1930..................................
1931........ ........... ........... .
1932..................................
1933......................................
9
9
9
9
9
1
6, less 10, less 20, less 3 0 ,less 4 0 ,less
than 10 than 20 than 30 than 40 than 60
8
7
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
3
7
6
6
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
2
•3
6
1
2
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
2
i
1
1
1
i
4
6
4
3
3
1
1
1
4
6
3
1
i
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
• Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4
4
100 or
more
1
1
1
6
9
10
6
4
60, less
than
100
1
37
RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
12.— N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average m onthly relief
per case receiving veterans' relief adm inistered by public agencies , by geographic
d ivision ; 1929—S3
T able
Num ber of urban areas in which the average monthly relief per case was—
Geographic division, num
ber of urban areas, and
year
United States— 86 urban areas:
1929............................
1930............................
1931
1932
1933.................... .
New England— 16
areas:
Less
than $5
No
relief
60
59
59
58
57
2
1
1
$5, less $10,less $15,less $20,less $25,less $30,less
than
than
than
than
than
than
$30
$40
$25
$20
$15
$10
3
2
4
5
6
2
4
3
2
1
$40 or
more
3
3
5
5
5
8
3
2
2
3
4
7
5
5
6
3
6
6
6
6
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
4
3
4
5
4
4
2
4
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
4
2
urban
1Q31
1932
M iddle Atlantic— 10 urban
areas:
North Central— 22 urban
areas:
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
12
12
12
12
12
2
2
i
3
2
4
4
5
2
4
2
2
1
3
2
4
4
2
South Atlantic and South
Central— 28 urban areas:
27
27
27
27
M ountain and Pacific— 10
urban areas:
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
9
9
9
1
1
1
1
M O T H E R S ’ A ID »
During 1929, slightly more than $17,000,000 was expended for
mothers’ aid in the areas reporting its provision under State laws
authorizing aid from public funds to preserve for dependent children
care by their own mothers (or a relative) under conditions tending to
make possible normal family life (tables 7 and H, pp. 26, 104). This
was about one-fifth larger than the amount expended during the year
from public funds for direct and work relief. The expenditure for
mothers’ aid in 1935 totaled nearly $25,000,000— more than in 1929
but only 3 percent of the amount expended from public funds in 1935
for direct and work relief.
ii Fed 9ral funds were not available under the Social Security A ct until February 1936, and the trends in
mothers’ aid shown in this report are not affected b y grants in aid to States from Federal funds for aid to
dependent children under title I V of the act.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ili
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Chart 4 .— MONTHLY EXPENDITURE FOR MOTHERS' AID FROM PUBLIC FUNDS AND MONTHLY NUMBER OF FAMILIES AIDED IN 85 URBAN
AREAS, JANUARY 1929-DECEMBER 1935, AS COMPARED W ITH THE MONTHLY AVERAGE IN 192 9
RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
39
Comparable reports on the monthly amount expended for mothers’
aid and on the monthly number of families aided are available for the
entire period covered in the study in 85 of the 108^ areas reporting
expenditure for mothers’ aid during the period. As is shown in chart
4, the monthly expenditure for mothers’ aid increased steadily from
the beginning of 1929 through March 1932. During the spring and
summer months of 1932 the shortage of funds available for mothers’
aid in certain areas caused a reduction or termination of grants.
During the fall months expenditure again increased, and the yearly
total in 1932 was more than in the preceding year. The trend during
nearly all of 1933 was downward, and the total expenditure for the
year was less than in 1932.13 During 1934 and 1935 the amount
expended increased slowly. In December 1935 the expenditure was
slightly more than in March 1932, the last month of upward trend
preceding the first period of reduced expenditure. As compared with
the monthly average in 1929, the expenditure in December 1935
showed an increase of 50 percent.
Chart 5.— AVERAGE MONTHLY ALLOWANCE PER FAMILY FOR MOTHERS’ AID FROM
PUBLIC FUNDS IN 85_URBAN AREAS, 1 9 2 9 -3 5
AVERAGE MONTHLY ALLOWANCE PER FAMILY
$o
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
1929.. $42.23...|
1930.. $42 .95 ...j
1931.. $45.80...|
1932.. $44.23...|
1933.. $39.55...)
1934.. $39.86... |
1935.. $ 4 0 2 2 ...!
The number of families aided in the 85 areas having comparable
monthly reports increased through April 1933. A slight decrease
then occurred that was followed by a period of little change. Begin
ning with January 1934 the trend has again been upward. In Decem
ber 1935 the number of families aided was 64 percent more than the
monthly average in 1929.
Between 1929 and 1931 the percentage increase in expenditure was
larger than in the number of cases aided, and the amount of the average
monthly allowance per family increased noticeably (table 8, chart 5).
In 1932 and 1933 more cases were aided in relation to the amount ex
pended, and average monthly allowance per family dropped to less
than was expended in 1929. In both 1934 and 1935 the average
monthly allowance increased slightly.
According to data assembled by the Children’s Bureau in a Nation
wide survey,14 $33,885,487 was expended during the year ended June
30, 1931, for grants to mothers in the 44 States^ and the District of
Columbia from which reports were received. This was considered an
i* For discussion of reasons for the decreases in mothers’ aid during 1932 and 1933 and of relationships
between expenditure for mothers’ aid and general public relief, see Recent Trends in Mothers’ A id by
Grace Abbott in the Social Service Review, vol. 8, no. 2 (June 1934), p. 191.
“ M others’ A id , 1931, p. 14. U . S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o. 220. Washington, 1933.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
understatement of what was actually spent in grants in aid, as com
plete figures were not available for California and New Jersey, and no
information was received from a few localities known to be granting aid.
During the same period covered in the Bureau’s Nation-wide study,
$19,891,597 was expended for mothers’ aid in the urban areas of 50,000
or more population included in the monthly relief series, or about 59
percent of the total expenditure for mothers’ aid in the United States.
The average expenditure per capita of the population in the areas
reporting grants was 46 cents in the urban areas as compared with 38
cents in the Nation-wide study. The per-capita expenditure in the
urban areas in 1931 ranged from 2 cents to $1.35 (table C, p. 86); in
the States included in the Nation-wide study it was from 3 cents to 82
cents. The average monthly grant per family in the urban areas was
$46.08 in the month of June 1931 as compared with $31.97 in the
Nation-wide study. The average monthly grant per family during
1931 ranged from $10.86 to $75.80 in the reporting areas (table H, p.
104). In the Nation-wide study the range in average monthly relief
per family during June 1931 was from $4.33 to $69.31.
Because case rates per 10,000 population were calculated for the
urban areas on the basis of the average monthly number of cases
aided, they are slightly different from those shown in the Nation
wide study in relation to the number of families aided on a specified
date. The case rate in urban areas providing grants was 8.9 per
10,000 population in 1931 and the range in rates in these urban areas
was from 0.5 to 27.5. In the Nation-wide study the case rate for
families was 10 per 10,000 population and the range in rates in the
States was from 1 to 24.
These comparisons show the differences between data on mothers’
aid assembled for large urban areas and State-wide data covering urban
areas of all sizes of population and rural districts. The number of
cases per 10,000 population was smaller in the urban areas included
in the monthly relief series than in the State-wide data assembled in
the Bureau’s survey, but the expenditure per capita of the population
was larger in the urban areas because of the larger amount expended
per case.
Regional differences in expenditure for mothers’ aid were as follows
for the areas included in the study of relief trends:
No expenditure for mothers’ aid was reported in 1929 for 13 of the
102 urban areas for which comparable information on cases aided was
available for all years included in the study (tables 13 and 14). All
the areas without expenditure for mothers’ aid were located in the
South Atlantic and South Central Division with the exception of
one in the North Central Division. Between 1929 and 1935 the
number without expenditure for mothers’ aid was decreased by two in
the South Atlantic and South Central Division and was increased by
two in the North Central Division.
In the areas providing mothers’ aid the trend in the number of
cases per 10,000 population was upward between 1929 and 1935. In
1929,13 areas reported case rates of less than 2.5 per 10,000 population;
in 1935, 7 areas. The number of areas reporting case rates of 20 or
more per 10,000 population rose from 1 in 1929 to 8 in 1935.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
41
RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
13.— N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly
num ber per 10,000 p o p u l a t i o n o f fa m ilies receiving mothers’ aid fro m public
fu n d s, by geographic d ivision ; 1929—85
T able
Number of urban areas in which the average monthly
number of families per 10,000 population1 was—
Geographic division, number of urban areas,
and year
Zero
Less
than
2.5
2.5,
less
than
5.0
United States— 102 urban areas:
1929
...........................................
1930
...........................................
1931
...........................................
1932
...........................................
1933
..........................................
1934
..........................................
1936................................................
N ew England— 13 urban areas:
1929
..............................................
1930
..............................................
1931
..............................................
1932
.........................................—
1933
..............................................
1934
..............................................
1936....................................................
M iddle Atlantic— 24 urban areas:
1929
.............................................
1930
.............................................
1931
............................................
1932
.............................................
............................................
1933
1934
.............................................
1936...................................................
North Central— 33 urban areas:
1929
..........................................
1930
....................................—
1931
.........................................
1932
.........................................
1933
.........................................
1934
...........................- ............
1936...............................................
South Atlantic and South Central— 23 urban
areas:
1929
...................................................................
1930
..................................................................
1931
...................................................................
1932
...................................................................
1933
...................................................................
1934
..................................................................
1936.........................................................................
Mountain
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
i
and Pacific—9 urban areas:
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10.0,
5.0,
less
than
less
than
10.0
20.0
20. 0,
less
than
30.0
30.0
42
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929 -3 5
T able
14.— N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average m onthly allowV f? fa m ily receiving mothers’ aid fr o m public fu n d s, by geographic division;
1 a & y —O O
Num ber of urban areas in which the average monthly allowance per family was—
Geographic division,
n u m b er o f urban
areas, and year
United States—
102 urban areas
1929............. .
1930 ...............
1931.................
1 9 3 2 .............
1 933 ...............
1934
193.5
N o al $5, less
low
than
ance
$10
13
12
12
11
11
$10,
less
than
$15
$15,
less
than
$20
$20,
less
than
$25
$25,
less
than
$30
$30,
less
than
$40
$40,
less
than
$50
$50,
less
than
$60
$60,
less
than
$70
6
6
9
7
9
14
15
14
11
9
8
10
10
9
8
22
24
25
27
25
24
23
20
17
18
15
14
18
20
10
12
12
9
11
6
6
7
6
6
9
6
8
8
4
1
1
3
J
*
N ew England— 13 ur
ban areas:
1929........... ................
1930.........................
1931............. .
1932......... ..
1933
..
1934
........
1935.............................
South Atlantic and
South Central— 23
urban areas:
1929......................
1930.............
1931........... ..
.
1932...............
1933...................
1934............ ........
1935...................
M o u n ta in and E aciflc—9 urban areas:
1929.....................
1930...............
1931.......................
1932...............
1933.....................
1934__________
1935.............
2
4
4
2
1
1
3
4
2
3
1
5
4
3
4
3
5
3
3
1
1
1
1
14
12
15
14
15
13
4
6
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
4
8
8
8
9
6
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
10
8
7
8
8
8
8
7
4
8
8
1
4
4
i
3
1
2
1
i
1
M id d le A tlan tic— 24
urban areas:
1929...........................
1930.............................
1931........................
.....
1932
1933
...........
1934............. ............
1935.....................
North Central— 33 ur
ban areas:
1929.......................
1930......... ............
19 3 1 ...
1932..
1933____
1934........... ..
1935......... ....................
$70
or
more
6
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
i
i
12
ii
ii
10
10
11
10
i
2
2
i
i
2
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
4
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
—
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
Case rates of less than 2.5 per 10,000 population were reported
mostly in areas in the North Central Division and the South Atlantic
and South Central Division (the divisions in which areas with no
expenditure for mothers’ aid were reported), but one area in the New
England Division and one area in the Middle Atlantic Division had
this low rate in both 1929 and 1930. Case rates of 30 or more per
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
43
RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
10,000 population in the Middle Atlantic and the North Central
Divisions were reported.
The amount of the average monthly allowance for mothers’ aid
varied widely in the reporting areas. Except for one area in the Mid
dle Atlantic Division in 1935, all areas reporting an average monthly
allowance of less than $20 were located in the North Central, South
Atlantic and South Central, and Mountain and Pacific Divisions.
Most of the average monthly grants of $60 or more were found in the
New England Division, but one or more areas in each division with the
exception of the Mountain and Pacific Division reported such an
average during the period studied.
O L D - A G E A S S I S T A N C E 15
The widespread interest in providing allowances from public funds
granted on a continuing basis to aged persons no longer able to work
and without means of support is reflected in the rapid increase between
1929 and 1935 in this'form of assistance (tables 7 and D, pp. 26, 90).
In 1929 very little was expended for specially organized old-age assist
ance; in 1935 the expenditure totaled $30,385,535, or about one-fourth
more than the amount used during the year from public funds for
mothers’ aid.
Between 1929 and 1931 the average monthly allowance per individ
ual for old-age assistance more than doubled (tables 8 and I, pp. 29
and 108, chart 6).
Chart 6 .— AVERAGE MONTHLY ALLOWANCE PER INDIVIDUAL FOR OLD-AGE
ASSISTANCE FROM PUBLIC FUNDS IN 68 URBAN AREAS, 1 9 2 9 -3 5
AVERAGE MONTHLY ALLOWANCE PER INDIVIDUAL
tO
$5
$ io
$ L5
r---------- i----- ----- i-----------i
$20
»
$25
•
$30
»
$35
1
l9 3 4 ..$ 2 l.6 2 ...| | H H H B M H H iH H ^ ^ ^ H H i
19
.-
5 7 ... ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ¡ ■ ¡ ¡ ■ ■ ¡ ^ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1
Since then, as areas in different sections of the United States have been
included among those providing old-age assistance, the trend has been
downward. In 1935 the average monthly allowance was less than in
1930 but more than in 1929.
In 1929 only 2 of the 112 areas having comparable reports through
1935 provided old-age assistance (tables 15 and 16). By 1934 the
number of areas reporting such assistance had increased to 68.
Between 1934 and 1935 there was no change.
is Federal funds were not available under the Social Security Act until February 1936, and the trends
in old-age assistance shown in this report are not affected by grants in aid to States from Federal funds
for old-age assistance under title I of the act.
109759 ° — 37-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
■4
44
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929 -3 5
Nearly all the areas in the South Atlantic and South Central Division
reported no expenditure for old-age assistance in 1935. Expenditure
was made in all areas in the Middle Atlantic Division; in three-fourths
of the areas in the Mountain and Pacific Division; and in two-thirds
of the areas in the New England and North Central Divisions.
1 5 . — N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly
num ber per 10,000 popu lation,1 o f individuals receiving old-age assistance from
public fu n d s, by geographic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -8 5
T able
Number of urban areas in which the average monthly number of
individuals per 10,000 population i was—
Geographic division, number of
urban areas, and year
Zero
United States— 112 urban areas:
1929.....................
1930............. ......... .............
1931..................... ..
1932..................... .................
1933................................
1934...................
1935..............................
N ew England— 17 urban areas:
1929........... ............................
1930.........................
1931.............................................
1932.........................
1933.....................
1934...........................
1935...................
M iddle Atlantic— 26 urban areas:
1929.................
1930............... ..........
1931.........................
1932_______________
1933_______ ______
1934......... ............ .................
1935____________
110
105
80
77
77
44
44
Less
than 5
5, less
than
10
10, less
than
20
1
3
4
2
2
5
1
1
1
10
2
2
o
11
1
7
4
1
11
8
14
10
5
2
2
3
17
17
6
6
6
6
6
3
1
1
32
31
28
28
28
10
9
South Atlantic and South Central—
29 urban areas:
1929.................... ..
1930................
1931.................................
1932................... ..........
1933_________________
1934________ _____
1935................ .............
28
28
26
26
26
26
27
Mountain and Pacific—8 urban
areas:
1929.................................. ...........
1930...................... ................ ...............
1931_________ ________ __________
1932............................................
1933................................... .
1934........................ ..
1 9 3 5 ...................... ..............
7
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
1
5
4
3
2
i
2
1
7
5
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
6
4
3
21
13
6
13
7
22
3
2
I
12
1
3
10
1
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1 Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
50 or
more
1
26
26
17
14
14
North Central— 32 urban areas:
1929..............................
1930.....................................
1931.........................
1932.............................
1933............. ..
1934_________
1935..................
20, less 30, less 4 0 ,less
than
than
than
30
40
50
1
2
2
2
2
i
3
1
-------
45
RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
1 6 . — N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly
allowance per individual receiving old-age assistance fro m public fu n d s , by geo
graphic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
T able
Number of urban areas in which the average monthly
allowance per individual was—
Geographic division, number of urban
areas, and year
No
allow
ance
United States— 112 urban areas:
3929
..................................................
1930
........................................ - .........
1931
...........................................
1932
........................ ..................... .........
1933
............................ ........... .
1934 .............................................. - ...........
1936
............................................
110
106
80
77
77
44
44
N ew England— 17 urban areas:
1929 .........................................■_.............................
1930
...................................................
1931
................................................................
1932
____________________________
1933
........................................................ ..
................ - ................. .......
1934
.
1936
................................ ................................
17
17
6
6
6
6
6
M iddle Atlantic—26 urban areas:
1929
........................................................
1930
..........................................
1931
1932
........................ ....................................
1933
.............................................. .
1934
.............................................. .........
1936
.................................................. ..
North Central—32 urban areas:
1929
.................. .........
1930
.
............................................
1931
....................................
..................................
1932
1933
.............................. .................
1934.............................. ........................... ...............
1936 ......................................................................
South Atlantic and South Central— 29 urban
areas:
1929
............................................ ...............
1630
1931
1932
....................................
1933..........................................................................
1934
1936..........................................................................
M ountain and Pacific—8 urban areas:
1929
..................................................
1930 .
...................................
1931 ........................................................................
1932
1933..........................................................................
1934
1936..
. ............................................................
$5,less
than
$10
$ 10,
$20
1
1
2
1
1
6
4
1
3
10
10
26
26
17
14
14
32
31
28
28
28
10
9
28
28
26
26
26
26
27
6
4
2
8
7
$25,
less
than
$30
$30 or
.m ore
1
1
6
12
10
26
23
1
9
12
12
19
22
2
12
6
9
8
8
3
3
2
2
1
2
4
6
5
7
6
3
4
4
3
5
7
16
12
4
4
2
8
10
3
2
3
3
4
2
3
1
8
10
2
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
3
3
3
3
2
2
$20,
less
than
$25
$15,
less
than
less
than
$15
1
2
2
3
• 3
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
The case rate per 10,000 population increased rapidly in the
reporting areas as new programs got under way. The propQrtion of
areas with case rates o f 50 or more per 10,000 population was espe
cially large in 1935 in the North Central and New England Divisions.
Case rates of less than 10 per 10,000 population were reported in
1935 only in the North Central Division and in the South Atlantic and
South Central Division.
In no areas in the New England and Middle Atlantic Divisions
did average monthly grants for old-age assistance drop below $15
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
46
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
per month in any year reported and in a number of areas they were
$25 or more. In the North Central Division no area reported an
average of $25 or more, and several reported average grants of $5 to
$10. In the South Atlantic and South Central Division the few
areas reporting showed a wide variation in the average amount of
the grant provided in different years. During 1935 one area reported
an average grant of less than $15 and the other area an average grant
of $30 or more. In the Mountain and Pacific Division 2 areas re
ported in 1935 an average grant of less than $15, and 4 areas an
average grant of $20 or more.
AID TO THE BLIND »«
Expenditure from public funds for aid to the blind increased more
rapidly between 1929 and 1935 than for mothers' aid but much less
rapidly than for old-age assistance (tables 7, C, D , and E, pp. 26, 86,
90, and 93). _The average monthly allowance per individual mcreased
steadily and in 1935 was approximately half again as large as in 1929
(tables 8 and J, pp. 29 and 111, chart 7).
In 58 of the 109 areas for which comparable information is available
for all years included in the study, no expenditure for aid to the blind
Chart 7.— AVERAGE MONTHLY ALLOWANCE PER INDIVIDUAL FOR AID TO THE
BLIND FROM PUBLIC FUNDS IN 64 URBAN AREAS, 1 9 2 9 -3 5
AVERAGE MONTHLY ALLOWANCE PER INOIVIOUAL
$ ?
i
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
i----------- ;----------------------- 1----------------------------------- 1----------------------------------- 1----------------------------------- 1
i93o..
•933 ..$ 1 9 .0 7 ..
1934 . . $22 .83..-I
1935 . . $ 24 .01. ..|
was reported in 1929 (tables 17 and 18). Between 1929 and 1934
the number of areas reporting such assistance was increased by 16.
The number was the same in 1935 as in the preceding year.
Nearly all the areas in the New England, Middle Atlantic, and
Mountain and Pacific Divisions reported aid to the blind in 1934
and 1935. In the North Central Division a smaller proportion of
areas provided such aid, but the number of cases per 10,000 popula
tion was larger in the areas providing aid to the blind in this division
than in the other divisions.
This form of special allowance from public funds, as was shown also
in the reports on mothers' aid and old-age assistance, was given in
few of the areas in the South Atlantic and South Central Division.
A* Federal funds were not available under the Social Security Act until February 1936, and the trends in
54
the blind shown in this report ar© not affected b y grants in aid to States from Federal funds for aid
to the blind under title X of the act,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
47
RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES
17.— N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly
number per 10,000 popu lation .* o f individuals receiving aid to the blind adm inistered by public agencies, by geographic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
T able
'
Num ber of urban areas in which the average monthly num
ber of individuals per 10,000 population » was—
Geographic division, number of urban areas,
and year
United States— 109 urban areas:
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
................................................
.....................................................
.
.............................................
.....................................................
. ............................................
...................................................
N ew England— 18 urban areas:
South Atlantic and South Central— 28 urban
areas:
M ountain and Pacific— 9 urban areas:
19 29
.................................
1930
.....................................
1933
1934
1935
........................................
_
....................................
13
13
11
8
7
6
4
20
17
17
17
17
18
19
12
14
15
18
17
27
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
6
6
5
4
2
2
7
6
5
6
7
8
8
3
4
5
5
6
6
6
15
15
15
15
15
2
3
5
5
5
3
3
4
2
4
4
4
6
6
7
6
10
12
1
1
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1
1
6
3
4
4
3
3
4
7
8
7
7
6
6
4
2
3
5
4
5
5
5
1
1
2
27
25
25
25
25
25
25
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
3
3
2
1
1
3
5
7
6
7
11
10
10.0
or
more
3
3
1
1
2
3
6
1
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
1
1
2
3
5
1
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1 Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7.5,
less
than
10.0
5.0,
less
than
7.5
58
56
56
56
56
42
42
M iddle Atlantic— 24 urban areas:
North Central— 30 urban areas:
1929
................................................
1930
......................................................
1931
................................................
1932
................................................
1933
............................................
1934
....................................................
..................................................
1935
2.5,
less
than
5.0
1.0,
less
than
2.5
Less
than
1.0
Zero
1
1
3
4
3
4
5
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
48
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
18.— N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly
allowance per individual receiving aid to the blind adm inistered by public agencies ,
by geographic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -8 5
T able
Number of urban areas in which the average monthly allowance per
individual was—
ber of urban areas,
and year
United States— 109 urban areas:
1929_______________
1930...........................
1931............................
1932............................
1933............................
1934............................
1935........ ....................
No
allow
ance
58
56
56
56
56
42
42
New England— 18 urban
areas:
1929__________________ _
1930........ ...............................
1931........................................
1932................................ .......
1933........................................
1934........................................
1935........................................
1
1
1
Middle Atlantic— 24 urban
areas:
1929.............. .............. ..........
1930............ ...........................
1931........................................
1932............ ...........................
1933.............................. .........
1934......................................
1935........................................
15
15
15
15
15
2
3
North Central— 30 urban
areas:
1929........................................
1930............... ....................
1 9 3 1 ............... : ...................
1932........................................
1933........................................
1934........................................
1935........................................
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
South Atlantic and South
Central— 28 urban areas:
1929___________ __________
1930........................................
1 9 3 1 .....................................
1932........................................
1933........................................
1934........................................
1935........................................
27
25
25
25
25
25
25
Mountain and Pacific—9
urban areas:
1929........................................
1930........................................
1931........................................
1932.......................................
1933........................................
1934........................................
1935........................................
Less
than
$5
1
1
$5,
less
than
$10
2
1
1
2
4
3
2
7
8
10
10
11
14
15
1
2
3
6
4
5
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
$10,
less
than
$15
2
1
1
2
3
3
2
2Ù
20
20
22
20
21
18
$20,
less
than
$25
17
16
14
12
ii
15
13
12
12
11
13
11
9
10
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
7
7
7
7
6
10
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
6
5
5
6
7
7
7
7
4
4
4
3
8
7
1
1
$15,
less
than
$20
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
6
$25,
less
than
$30
2
2
2
2
2
9
13
$30,
less
than
$40
$40 or
more
2
4
4
3
4
5
6
1
1
1
2
i
1
8
11
2
2
2
2
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
i
3
4
5
1
1
1
2
i
The average monthly allowance per individual varied in areas in
the North Central Division from less than $5 to $30 or more. In the
New England Division and the South Atlantic and South Central
Division the average in nearly all areas was between $10 and $20
throughout the period studied. In the Middle Atlantic Division and
the Mountain and Pacific Division in 1035 the average was $25 or
more in about half of the areas reporting.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ANNUAL CHANGES AND REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN GEN
ERAL RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PRIVATE AGENCIES
N O N S E C T A R IA N
P R IV A T E
A G E N C IE S
During 1929 slightly more than half of the approximately $11,000,000
expended for relief administered by private agencies in the reporting
areas was administered by charity-organization societies, associated
charities, family-welfare bureaus, and other nonsectarian private
agencies. Although nonsectarian private agencies in most areas
administered only relief from private funds, in certain areas they were
carrying responsibility also for the administration of all or part of
the relief from public funds. About 93 percent of the total expendi
ture administered by nonsectarian private agencies in the reporting
areas in 1929 was from private funds, and 7 percent was from public
funds (tables 6, 7, and K , pp. 24, 26, and 114).
Between 1929 and 1932 the expenditure for direct relief administered
by nonsectarian private agencies increased rapidly, although not as
rapidly as the rise in expenditure for general relief administered by
public agencies. The proportion of the expenditure financed from
public funds also increased. In 1932, 45 percent of the expenditure
for direct relief administered by nonsectarian private agencies was
from public funds.
#
. . .
The requirement of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration
in August 1933 that relief from public funds be administered by
public agencies caused marked reductions during the latter part of
the year in the relief administered by nonsectarian private agencies
in a number of areas. The increase during the early part of the year,
however, made the annual expenditure thus administered only 15
percent less in 1933 than in 1932. In 1934, when nearly all relief
from public funds was administered by public agencies throughout
the year, the total expenditure administered by nonsectarian private
agencies decreased to about one-fourth of the amount expended in
the preceding year (table 7, p. 26). In 1935 a further decrease was
reported. The expenditure in 1935, however, was 12 percent more
than in 1929. Although nonsectarian private agencies in nearly all
of the areas administered only private funds in 1935, part of the
relief administered by these agencies was financed in certain areas
from local public funds. The total amount expended for direct relief
from public funds administered by nonsectarian agencies in the report
ing areas in 1935 was three-fourths as much as in 1929 and 1934.
As is shown in table 8 (p. 29), the average monthly number of cases
aided during the year through relief administered by nonsectarian
private agencies increased a little more rapidly between 1929 and 1932
than the amount of the relief expended. The decrease between 1932
and 1933 was nearly the same for the number of cases aided as for the
amount expended. During the years from 1929 through 1933 the
average monthly relief per case varied comparatively little. Between
49
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
50
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
1933 and 1934 the reduced expenditure for relief administered by
nonsectarian private agencies decreased less rapidly than the number
of cases aided, with the result that average monthly relief per case was
much larger in 1934. The downward trend between 1934 and 1935
was approximately the same for the number of cases aided as for the
amount expended, and average monthly relief per case remained
relatively unchanged.
Regional differences in the number of cases aided per 10,000 popu
lation are shown in table 19 for the 94 areas in which comparable
reports on the number of cases aided through relief administered by
nonsectarian private agencies are available for all years included in
the study.
In the North Central Division and in the South Atlantic and South
Central Division the change during the latter part of 1933 from
private to public administration of public relief funds caused a notice
able increase between 1933 and 1934 in the number of areas in which
no relief was administered by nonsectarian private agencies. In
1933, 5 of the areas in these divisions and in 1934, 17 of the areas
reported no general relief as being administered by nonsectarian
private agencies.
T
1 9 . — N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly
num ber per 10,000 popu lation ,* o f cases receiving general relief adm inistered by
nonsectarian private agencies, by geographic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
able
Num ber of urban areas in which the average m onthly number of cases
per 10,000 population 1 was—
Geographic division, number
of urban areas, and year
Zero
United States— 94 urban
areas:
1929___________ ______
1930_________________
1931_________________
1 9 3 2 ...______________
1933__________ _______
1 9 3 4 ............................
1936................................
7
7
7
8
9
22
20
N ew England— 17 urban areas:
1929____________ ___________
1930........................ ...........
1931.......................... .................
1932.......................................... ..
1933............................. .............
1934__________ _________ ____
1935......................... ................
Less
than 5
5 , less 10, less 20, less 30, less 50, less
than
than
than
than
than
10
20
30
50
100
26
12
7
7
13
29
31
32
28
11
9
13
11
16
21
29
25
11
10
19
20
5
11
14
18
14
11
4
2
4
17
12
8
2
3
6
3
2
2
2
4
4
8
7
2
1
3
2
4
3
7
8
5
4
7
7
4
8
7
4
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
M iddle Atlantic— 19 urban
areas:
1929............................................
1930.________ _______________
1931...........................................
1932............................................
1933_____________ _____ _____
1934_________ _______________
1935............................................
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
11
4
1
1
3
9
9
2
9
6
5
6
3
3
3
2
6
3
2
2
3
North Central— 27 urban areas:
1929......................................
1930.......................... .............
1931.......................................
1932............................................
1933................................ ...........
1934____ _____ __________
1935__________ ______________
1
1
1
2
2
7
6
5
1
11
9
3
2
2
5
5
7
7
6
1
1
5
6
1
5
8
10
200,
less
than
300
300 or
more
4
16
8
3
10
2
5
1
1
1
3
7
4
4
3
2
1 Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
3
9
8
4
100,
less
than
200
1
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
7
5
2
4
3
2
7
5
1
1
2
1
3
51
GENERAL RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PRIVATE AGENCIES
T
19.— Num ber o f urban areas classified according to the average m onthly
num ber per 10,000 population, o f cases receiving general relief adm inistered by
nonsectarian private agencies, by geographic d ivision ; 1929—35 — Continued
able
Num ber of urban areas in which the average m onthly number of cases
per 10,000 population was—
Geographic division, number
of urban areas, and year
South Atlantic and South
Central— 23 urban areas:
1929............................................
1930.............................................
1931.............................................
1932.............................................
1933............................................
1934 ........................................
1935............................................
M ountain
and
Pacific—8
urban areas:
1929 ..........................................
1930 ........................................
1931.............................................
......................................
1932
1933............................................
1934.............................................
1935.............................................
Zero
Less
than 5
3
3
3
3
3
10
9
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
4
4
2
2
5, less 10, less 20, less 30, less 50, less
than
than
than
than
than
10
20
30
50
100
9
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
6
11
3
2
3
5
3
2
3
4
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
6
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
4
3
100,
less
than
200
200,
less
than
300
300 or
more
2
7
2
1
6
i
2
2
2
1
Between 1929 and 1933 the average monthly number of cases aided
per 10,000 population increased markedly in all divisions. In 1929
only 1 area had a case rate of more than 50 per 10,000 population, and
more than half of the areas reporting relief administered by non
sectarian private agencies had case rates of less than 10. In 1933
only about one-fourth of the areas reporting such relief had case rates
of less than 10, and in about one-fourth of the areas the rate was 100
or more.
In 1934 and 1935 the range in case rates was similar in all divisions
to that reported in 1929. In the New England Division the number
of areas reporting a case rate of 10 or more was much larger in 1935
than in 1929; and in the North Central Division and the South At
lantic and South Central Division the number was smaller. In the
other divisions the number of areas with case rates of 10 or more was
approximately the same in 1929 and 1935.
The average monthly relief provided per case by nonsectarian
private agencies in the reporting areas varied widely each year in all
of the geographic divisions (table 20). As was indicated in the
summanes presented in table 8, there was comparatively little change
in the average monthly relief per case in nonsectarian agencies from
1929 through 1933. In 1934 and 1935 the number of areas reporting
an average monthly relief of $30 or more per case increased in the
Middle Atlantic and North Central Divisions. In the New England
Division a monthly average of less than $10 per case was reported in
a larger number of areas in 1934 and 1935 than in preceding years; in
the North Central Division and in the South Atlantic and South
Central Division such a monthly average was reported in a smaller
number of areas. In the other divisions the number of areas with
average grants of less than $10 per case fluctuated irregularly and
showed no consistent differences between the earlier and the later
parts of the period.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
52
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
T a b l e 2 0 .—
N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average m onthly relief
per case receiving general relief adm inistered by nonsectarian private agencies, by
geographic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -8 5
Number of urban areas in which the average monthly relief per case
was—
Geographic division, number of
urban areas, and year
N o re
lief
United States— 94 urban areas:
1929.............................................
1930........... ........... ....................
1931.............................................
1932.............................................
1933............. ..............................
1934......... ................................. ..
1935................. ..........................
Less
than $5
7
7
7
8
9
22
20
N ew England— 17 urban areas:
1929.......................................................
1930........... _......... ................................
1931....................... .................................
1932.........................................................
1933.........................................................
1934........................... _...........................
1935................... _...................................
M iddle Atlantic— 19 urban areas:
1929.........................................................
1930.........................................................
1931.........................................................
1932.........................................................
1933.........................................................
1934.........................................................
1935.........................................................
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
North Central— 27 urban areas:
1929.........................................................
1930......... ...............................................
1931......... ...............................................
1932.........................................................
1933.........................................................
1934.........................................................
1935.........................................................
1
1
1
2
2
7
6
South Atlantic and South Central—
23 urban areas:
1929............. ...........................................
1930......... ................................................
1931.........................................................
1932.........................................................
1933....................... .................................
1934..................... ...................................
1935................. .......................................
3
3
3
3
3
10
9
M ountain and Pacific—8 urban
areas:
1929............. ...........................................
1930.........................................................
1931.........................................................
1932......... . .............................................
1933................. ........................... ...........
1934............. ..................... .....................
1935......................... ...............................
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
J E W IS H
$5, less $10, less $15, less $20, less $25, less
$30 or
than
than
than
than
than
more
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
4
4
4
3
10
5
5
16
19
29
31
19
17
18
29
27
22
24
24
15
14
2
3
2
1
3
3
6
3
3
6
7
3
6
5
6
s
4
3
1
i
2
4
i
4
2
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
14
18
11
9
14
12
12
12
11
11
9
7
8
13
10
6
8
8
8
8
3
2
2
2
2
3
7
9
2
5
2
2
3
5
1
4
1
4
4
10
9
5
2
3
U
11
7
9
9
5
5
4
6
3
3
4
2
4
2
1
2
i
2
3
2
1
4
1
i
2
4
7
11
9
11
9
4
5
6
4
4
4
3
1
2
3
2
3
2
3
5
3
2
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
1
2
2
i
i
i
3
1
2
3
3
i
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
5
1
1
A G E N C IE S
During 1929 nearly one-fourth of the total expenditure for relief
administered by private agencies in the reporting areas was adminis
tered by the United Hebrew Charities, Jewish social-service bureaus,
and other agencies established under Jewish auspices to provide finan
cial or other assistance to Jews. Practically all the relief expenditure
administered by Jewish agencies in 1929 was financed from private
funds (tables 6, 7, and L, pp. 24, 26, and 118).
Between 1929 and 1932 the expenditure for relief administered by
Jewish agencies increased but much less rapidly than in nonsectarian
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
GENERAL RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PRIVATE AGENCIES
53
private agencies— 88 percent as compared with 485 percent. The
proportion of the total relief expenditure financed from public funds
also increased less rapidly than m nonsectarian private agencies. In
1932,16 percent of the amount expended for direct relief administered
by Jewish agencies was financed from public funds, as compared with
45percent in nonsectarian private agencies.
The requirement of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in
August 1933 that public relief funds be administered by public agencies
reduced the expenditure administered by Jewish agencies during the
latter part of the year. Because of the smaller proportion expended
previously from public funds, the reduction in annual expenditure
between 1933 and 1934 was less for relief administered by Jewish
agencies than for relief administered by nonsectarian private agencies.
The decrease between 1934 and 1935 was slightly larger in Jewish
agencies than in nonsectarian private agencies.
The expenditure for relief administered by Jewish agencies in 1935
was 14 percent less than the amount reported in 1929. The amount
expended from public funds was larger in 1935 than in 1929, but it
formed a negligible part of the total expenditure for relief administered
by Jewish agencies Doth in 1929 and m 1935.
In contrast with the trend in relief administered by other types of
agencies, the average monthly number of cases aided by Jewish
agencies increased more rapidly between 1929 and 1932 and decreased
less slowly between 1933 and 1935 than the amount of the relief
expenditure, with the result that the average monthly relief per case
dropped steadily. In 1929 it averaged $37.86 per case; in 1935, $27.77.
In 105 areas information on the number of cases aided by Jewish
agencies was available during the period covered in the study (table
21). In about half of the areas in the New England Division, the
Middle Atlantic Division, and the South Atlantic and South Central
Division, there was one or more Jewish agency. In the North Central
Division the proportion of areas having Jewish agencies was smaller.
The average monthly number of cases aided showed a much smaller
range per 10,000 population for relief administered by Jewish agencies
than for that by nonsectarian private agencies. Throughout the
period the case rate in Jewish agencies in most of the areas was less
than 5 per 10,000 population. In one area in 1933 the case rate was
10 or more. In other years the case rate in all areas was less than 10#
T
2 1 . — N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly
num ber per 10,000 popu lation , 1 o f cases receiving general relief adm inistered by
Jew ish agencies, by geographic d ivision ; 1929—35
able
Num ber of urban areas in which the average m onthly number of cases per
10,000 population was—
Geographic division, num
ber of urban areas, and
year
Zero
United
States— 105
urban areas:
1929.............. ...........
1930........... .......... 1931...... .....................
1932........................ ..
1933.......... .................
1934....
1935............................
47
46
47
47
47
49
49
Less
than
0.5
8
6
3
1
3
2
3
0 .5 ,less 1.0,less 1.5,less 2.5,less 5.0,less 7.5,less
than
than
than
than
than
than
10.0
2.5
6.0
7.5
1.5
1.0
16
16
14
11
7
12
10
12
14
9
7
10
12
7
12
14
14
11
9
12
18
Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
9
16
17
18
14
13
1
2
9
4
3
2
2
6
1
1
10.0 or
more
i
54
T
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
2 1 . — N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average m onthly
num ber per 10,000 population, o f cases receiving general relief administered by
Jew ish agencies, by geographic division; 1 9 2 9 -3 5 — Continued
able
Num ber of urban areas in which the average m onthly number of cases per
10,000 population was—
ber of urban areas, and
year
Zero
N e w England— 17 urban
areas:
1929.......................................
1930_____________ ________
1931........................................
1932........................................
1933........ ..............................
1934...................... .................
1935........................................
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
M iddle Atlantic— 22 urban
areas:
1929................ ................ . . .
1930............. .........................
1 9 3 1 ............................... .
1932........................................
1933........................................
1934........................................
1935........................ ...............
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
Less
than
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
4
4
3
5
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
2
4
6
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
10.0 or
more
1
4
N o r t h Central— 33 urban
areas:
1929.................. .....................
1930.......................................
1931........................................
1932........................................
1933........................................
1934________ ________ _____
1935 . .
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
4
3
2
1
1
South Atlantic and South
Central— 25 urban areas:
1929........................................
1930..........................
1931
1932___
1933 ...
1934 ...
1935...................
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
3
2
M ountain and
urban areas:
1929
1930 . .
1931
1932 ...
1933 .
1934
1935
0.5,less 1.0,less 1.5,less 2.5, less 5.0,less 7.5,less
than
than
than
than
than
tnan
1.5
2.5
1.0
5.0
7.5
10.0
3
1
1
1
3
2
4
3
3
6
4
6
8
3
2
3
4
3
4
4
6
4
2
3
3
3
3
5
6
7
6
6
6
7
7
5
4
5
3
1
3
4
2
2
2
2
6
2
1
1
2
3
3
4
2
i
Pacific—8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
3
2
3
1
The number of areas in which Jewish agencies reported the larger
case rates increased between 1929 and 1933. In 1929, 10 areas re
ported rates of 2.5 or more; in 1933, 29 areas. Although the down
ward trend in expenditure reduced the amount expended by Jewish
agencies in 1935 to less than was expended in 1929, there were six
more areas in which case rates of 2.5 or more were reported in 1935
than in 1929.
Average monthly relief per case varied widely in all the geographic
divisions throughout the period of the study (table 22). In all the
divisions, however, the number of areas in which the larger amounts
of relief per case were provided decreased steadily between 1929 and
1935. In 1929, 39 areas reported an average monthly expenditure
of $25 or more per case aided by Jewish agencies. In 1935, only 14
areas reported such an expenditure. Average monthly relief was less
than $10 per case in 1 area in 1929; in 10 areas, in 1935.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
GENERAL RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PRIVATE AGENCIES
T
55
2 2 . — N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly relief
case receiving general relief adm inistered by Jew ish agencies, by geographic
division ; 1929—85
able
-p e r
Number of urban areas in which the average monthly relief per case was—
Geographic division, num
ber of urban areas, and year
N o re
lief
United States— 105 ur
ban areas:
_________
1929
1930
1031
1032
1933...........................
1934........................
1935 ____________
N ew England— 17
areas:
1020
1030
1031
1932
1033
1034
1935
47
46
47
47
47
49
49
Less
than $5
2
3
1
$5, less
than
$10
1
1
3
5
6
6
9
$ 10 ,
less
than
$15
$15,
less
than
$20
$20,
less
than
$25
$25,
less
than
$30
3
7
5
8
12
8
11
10
6
7
7
12
14
13
5
10
5
19
15
11
8
9
5
16
9
6
7
4
19
19
16
8
3
5
8
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
1
2
$40 or
more
1L
11
6
2
2
2
2
urban
10
9
9
9
9
9
1
9
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
10
10
1
11
11
11
11
11
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
N orth Central— 33 urban
areas:
1929
1030
1031...
1032.
1933
1934.......................................
1035
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
2
2
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
3
6
2
2
3
3
5
7
1
3
1
7
9
6
3
South Atlantic and South
Central— 25 urban areas:
1929
1930
1 9 3 1 ...
1032
1933
1034
1035
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
3
5
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
M iddle Atlantic—22 urban
areas:
1020
1030
1031
1032
1933
1034
1935.
Mountain and
urban areas:
$30,
less
than
$40
2
1
3
1
3
4
2
4
3
4
2
1
1
2
4
5
2
2
1
1
1
3
5
9
7
2
2
2
3
5
3
1
6
4
3
3
1
2
2
6
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
Pacific— 8
19 29
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
.
1
1
2
2
1
4
2
1
1
2
CATHOLIC AGENCIES
During 1929 about one-tenth of the total expenditure for relief
administered by private agencies in the reporting areas was provided
by the Catholic Charities, Catholic social-service bureaus, and other
agencies established under Catholic auspices to provide financial or
other assistance to Catholics. Nearly all the relief expenditure
administered by Catholic agencies in 1929 was from private funds
(tables 6, 7, and M, pp. 24, 26, and 121).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
56
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Between 1929 and 1932 the amount expended for direct relief
increased nearly as rapidly in Catholic agencies as in nonsectarian
private agencies and much more rapidly than in Jewish agencies. The
proportion of the total expenditure financed from public funds also
increased in Catholic agencies, especially between 1931 and 1932. In
1932, 44 percent of the total administered by Catholic agencies was
from public funds as compared with 45 percent in nonsectarian
private agencies and 16 percent in Jewish agencies.
As was shown for nonsectarian private agencies and Jewish agen
cies the amount of the expenditure by Catholic agencies decreased
between 1932 and 1935, especially between 1933 and 1934. As com
pared with 1929, the expenditure was 21 percent more in 1935. All
but a very small proportion in 1935 came from private funds.
The average monthly number of cases aided by Catholic agencies
increased nearly as rapidly between 1929 and 1932 as the amount of
the expenditure (table 8, p. 29). The percentage from between 1932 to
1933 was about the same for the number of cases aided as for the
amount expended. The average monthly relief per case, therefore,
was nearly the same from 1929 through 1933. In 1934 the number of
cases aided decreased more rapidly than the amount expended, and
the average monthly relief per case became considerably larger. The
average monthly relief per case in 1935 was approximately the same
as in the preceding year.
In 93 areas comparable information on the number of cases aided
by Catholic agencies was available during the period covered in the
study (table 23). In about two-thirds of these areas there was no
central agency or group of agencies from which monthly reports on
relief expenditure and number of cases could be obtained, although
in certain instances a considerable amount was probably expended for
relief to individuals and families by Catholic churches and lay groups.
In the New England Division and the Mountain and Pacific Divi
sion, reports from one or more Catholic agencies were received from
about half of the areas. In the other divisions, especially the South
Atlantic and South Central Division, the proportion of areas from
which reports were received from Catholic agencies was much smaller.
The average monthly number of cases aided by Catholic agencies
per 10,000 population showed a much wider range than those aided
by Jewish agencies, but a smaller range than those aided by nonsectarian private agencies.
Case rates of 20 or more per 10,000 population were reported in
all areas with the exception of those in the South Atlantic and South
Central Division. Case rates of less than 10 were reported, however,
in all divisions in a large proportion of the areas from which reports
were received from Catholic agencies. The number of areas with
case rates of larger amount increased through 1933. In the New
England Division the number remained about the same in 1934 and
1935. In the other divisions the distribution of areas in relation to
the case rate was about the same in 1935 as in 1929.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
GENERAL RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PRIVATE AGENCIES
57
23.— N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly
num ber p er 10,000 popu lation ,1 o f cases receiving general relief adm inistered by
Catholic agencies, by geographic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -8 5
T able
Num ber of urban areas in which the average
monthly number of cases pert 0,000 population1
was—
Geographic division, number of urban areas, and year
Zero
United States— 93 urban areas:
1929........................ ................................... ..................
1930.................................. ..................... .......................
1931........ ............. ..................... ............. .....................
1932............................................................................... •i1933.................................... ........... ...............................
1934___________ _________ ______________________
1935................................................................................
Less
than
5
5, less
than
10
10, less
than
15
61
61
60
61
61
62
62
20
17
12
5
7
16
17
9
9
11
10
9
8
10
2
3
5
4
4
3
1
N ew England— 16 urban areas:
1929............................................................................................
1930........................................ ..................... ......... ...................
1931..................................................
1932........................................... ...............................................
1933.................. ......................... ............. ............. ...................
1934.................... ........................ .............................................
1935...................... ............. .......................................................
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
3
2
M iddle Atlantic— 22 urban areas:
1929.............................................. ............... ............. ...............
1930................................ ............... ................... ............. .........
1931......................................
1932................................... ........... ...................................... .
1933........................ ........................... ....................................
1934.............................................. ....... ..................... ...............
1935............................................................................................
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
5
3
3
2
3
5
6
1
2
3
3
2
1
1
North Central— 27 urban areas:
1929.................................... .......................................................
1930........................... ......... ......................... ................... ..
1 9 3 1 ................ : ................................... ..................... -s.............
1932............................................................................................
1933............................................................................................
1934................ ................................................................... ..
1935...................... ................................................. ..................
15
15
15
15
16
17
17
9
8
3
3
3
2
3
2
6
South Atlantic and South Central— 22 urban areas:
1929.................... ............... ................... ...................................
1930________________ __________ ___________ __________
1931..........................................................................................
1932.................................................... ........................... ...........
1933........................ ........... ......... ................. ......... .................
1934...................... ................. ........... ......... ................. ...........
1935.............. - ................... ............... ............. ............. .........
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
Mountain and Pacific— 6 urban areas:
1929..'.......................................................................................
1930.............................. .................................. ......... ...............
1931.............................................. ............................................
1932.................................... ............. ................... .....................
1933...................... ......... ................... ............. ................. ..
1934............ ................................. ............................... .............
1935.................................. .......................... .........................
2
2
6
5
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
15, less
than
20
2
2
i
i
i
8
7
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
X
2
1
2
1
2
4
5
5
1
1
1
2
i
1
1
1
3
3
20 or
more
2
2
1
i
i
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
i
i
1 Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
Average monthly relief per case varied widely in Catholic agencies
in all the geographic divisions throughout the period of the study
(table 24). The number of areas in which the average monthly relief
per case was less than $5 increased during the period. The number
in which the average monthly relief per case was $20 or more decreased
between 1929 and 1933 but increased in 1934 and 1935. The areas
in which the average monthly relief was less than $5 in 1935 were
located in the New England Division, the South Atlantic and South
Central Division, and the Mountain and Pacific Division. Those in
which the average monthly relief per case was $20 or more in 1935
were located in the New England, Middle Atlantic, and North Central
Divisions,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
58
24 .— N um ber o f urban areas classified according to the average monthly relief
per case receiving general relief adm inistered by Catholic agencies, by geographic
division; 1929—85
T able
Geographic division, number of urban areas,
and year
United States—93 urban areas:
1929..............................................................
1930........................................................... 1931..............................................................
1932..............................................................
1933...................................................... .......
1934.............................................................
1935..............................................................
Number of urban areas in which the average monthly relief
per case was—
$5, less 110, less 115,less 120,less $25 or
Less
than $5 ;han$10 ;han $15 ;han $20 ;han $25 more
N o re
lief
61
61
60
61
61
62
62
1
3
2
4
3
5
5
9
7
12
12
10
6
8
10
7
8
7
9
11
7
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
New England— 16 urban areas:
1Q30
_ ........................................
1932
..........................................
1934
1935
..................................
_ ........................................
M iddle Atlantic— 22 urban areas:
1929
________ ______ ______
1930
1931
_
..............................................
1933
19 3 4
........................................................
............................
North Central— 27 urban areas:
1929
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
1934
South Atlantic and South Central— 22 urban
areas:
Mountain and Pacific— 6 urban areas:
1 9 3 5 .............................................................. — -
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
5
6
4
5
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
5
4
5
6
4
3
4
4
4
5
4
3
4
2
3
2
2
4
2
2
1
1
15
15
15
15
16
17
17
19 3 5
O T H E R P R IV A T E
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
A G E N C IE S A D M IN IS T E R IN G
3
2
3
2
4
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
5
1
2
1
1
2
3
5
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
G E N E R A L R E L IE F
About one-tenth of the total expenditure for relief administered byprivate agencies in 1929 was used for general relief administered by
the Salvation Army, the Volunteers of America, and other private
agencies not included in the classifications discussed in preceding
sections. All but 1 percent of the expenditure of these agencies was
financed from private funds in 1929 (tables 6 and 7, pp. 24 and 26). ^
Between 1929 and 1931 the expenditure for direct relief adminis
tered by the Salvation Army increased nearly five times, and a slightly
larger proportion (4 percent) was financed from public funds. In 1932
the total expenditure was approximately the same as in 1931, but 30
percent came from public funds. Between 1932 and 1935 the total
expenditure decreased, especially between 1933 and 1934. The propor
tion financed from public funds was about the same in 1933 as in 1932.
In 1934 it dropped to 5 percent and in 1935 was only about 1 percent.
The total expenditure in 1935 was 57 percent more than in 1929.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
GENERAL RELIEF ADMINISTERED BY PRIVATE AGENCIES
59
Because of the large proportion of cases in which emergency or
special relief was provided, monthly relief per case averaged much less
in the Salvation Army than in agencies providing continued relief
in a large proportion of the cases taken under care (table 8, p. 29).
Between 1929 and 1933 the monthly amount expended per case in
creased. In 1929 it was $3.27; in 1933, $7.19. In both 1934 and 1935
it was less than in 1933 but more than in the years preceding 1932.
Problems arising in the financing and administration of the rapidly
increasing relief load led to the organization of various types of emer
gency-relief committees in 1930 and 1931. In 1932 about one-sixth of
the expenditure for direct relief administered by private agencies was
administered by these committees and also a large part of the ex
penditure for privately administered work relief. The reorganization
of relief programs in a number of areas during the latter part of 1933
resulted in the transfer to permanent agencies of the relief work
organized under emergency-relief committees. The expenditure for
relief administered by such committees was much less in 1933 than in
1931 or 1932, and no expenditure was reported in 1934 and 1935.
In 1930 all direct relief administered by emergency-relief commit
tees, and in 1931 all but 4 percent, was financed from private funds.
In both 1932 and 1933 about one-fourth of the expenditure for direct
relief administered by emergency-relief committees was financed from
public funds.
Average monthly relief per case was comparatively small in 1930 in
emergency-relief committees reporting an unduplicated total of cases
receiving direct relief and work relief. In 1931 the average was about
the same as in nonsectarian private agencies— a much larger amount
than was reported in 1930. In both 1932 and 1933 the average
decreased markedly. Emergency-relief .committees administering
work relief only or unable to report an unduplicated total of cases
receiving direct relief and work relief had a much larger expenditure
per case. The average per case for work relief administered by these
and other private agencies was much larger throughout the period of
the study than in publicly administered work relief.
Expenditure for relief administered by other types of private
agencies more than doubled between 1929 and 1932, but in 1935 it had
decreased to approximately the same expenditure as in 1929. Except
in 1932 and 1933, when much of the relief administered by private
agencies was financed from public funds, nearly all the relief adminis
tered by this group of private agencies was financed from private
funds. Average monthly relief per case decreased markedly in these
agencies between 1929 and 1933. In 1929 the average was $12.78; in
1933, $6.07. In 1934 and 1935 the trend was upward. . The average
in 1935 was $10.79— more than in 1932 but less than in preceding years.
Detail on the average monthly number of cases receiving rehef and
the average monthly rehef per case is shown in table N (p. 124) for the
Salvation Army, the Volunteers of America, and the group of other
private agencies in the areas for which comparable reports were
available on the number of cases aided. Because of the wide varia
tions in area totals due to differences in rehef procedures in different
types of agencies and the absence of substantiahy complete reports
on the cases aided in a number of areas, tabulations are not presented
on regional differences in case rates per 10,000 population and in
average monthly rehef per case.
109759 ° — 37—— 5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ANNUAL CHANGES IN VETERANS’ RELIEF ADMINISTERED
BY PRIVATE AGENCIES
During 1929 about 4 percent of the total expended for relief adminis
tered by private agencies was used for veterans’ relief administered by
local units of the American National Red Cross, the American Legion,
and other organizations providing relief to service and ex-service men
and their families. About one-eighth of the expenditure for veterans’
relief thus administered was financed in 1929 from public funds— a
much larger proportion than was used from public funds for general
relief administered by private agencies (tables 6 and 7, pp. 24 and 26).
Between 1929 and 1932 the expenditure for veterans’ relief adminis
tered by private agencies increased 117 percent— much less rapidly
than general relief administered by nonsectarian private agencies.
Through 1931 the proportion financed from public funds remained
approximately the same as in 1929. In 1932 the proportion thus
financed increased to nearly one-third.
Although the expenditure for veterans’ relief administered by private
agencies was affected by the reorganization of local relief programs in a
number of areas during the latter part of 1933, the total expenditure
was larger in 1933 than in 1932 and nearly two-thirds was financed from
public funds.
In 1934 the amount expended for veterans’ relief administered by
private agencies was less than half the amount expended in 1933, and
the proportion financed from public funds dropped to about one-fourth.
In 1935 the expenditure was somewhat more than in the preceding
year and the proportion financed from public funds increased to onethird. As compared with 1929, the expenditure in 1934 was approxi
mately the same; in 1935, slightly larger.
Because of the large proportion of cases in which relief was provided
to veterans or to veterans and their families in relation to a temporary
need for assistance or pending arrangements for continued relief under
other administration, the average monthly relief per case was less in
privately administered veterans’ relief than in general relief adminis
tered by nonsectarian private agencies (table 8, p. 29).
Between 1929 and 1933 the number of cases aided through privately
administered veterans’ relief increased much more rapidly than the
amount expended, with the result that average monthly relief per case
decreased markedly. In 1929 the average was $12.61; in 1933, $8.59.
Between 1933 and 1934 the average monthly relief per case continued
to decrease. Between 1934 and 1935 the amount expended increased
but the number of cases decreased. Average monthly relief per case
in 1935 was approximately the same as in 1933.
As the variations in relief procedures in different organizations ad
ministering veterans’ relief affect area totals, no tabulations of regional
differences in case rates per 10,000 population and in average monthly
relief per case are presented here. Detail on differences m the case
rates and in the average monthly relief per case in veterans’ relief
administered by the American National Red Cross, the American
Legion, and other private agencies are shown separately for each area
in table O (p. 130).
60
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ANNUAL AND MONTHLY CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF
MEALS AND LODGINGS PROVIDED TO HOMELESS AND
TRANSIENT INDIVIDUALS
In addition to the relief expenditures reported in preceding sections,
a considerable amount was expended in most areas for the temporary
institutional care of homeless and transient individuals. Because of
the difficulties involved in obtaining comparable data on the monthly
cost of such care, annual and monthly trends were studied in the
terms of the number of meals and of lodgings provided by the report
ing agency in its own institution or through arrangement with hotels,
lodging houses, or restaurants.
The many changes in the local organization of the care of the tran
sient and homeless following the establishment of the Federal Tran
sient Service by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration made
difficult the collection of monthly data on meals and lodgings in a
number of areas in relation to the same territory covered in reports
for preceding months. In January 1934 the Children’s Bureau dis
continued, therefore, the collection of reports on meals and lodgings
from agencies not included in the Bureau’s project for the registration
of social statistics and the current publication of monthly data show
ing trends in the volume of this phase of community rehef programs.
The summaries here presented cover the 5-year period from 1929
through 1933 instead of the 7-year period through 1935 covered in
the summaries of relief expenditure and cases.
During 1929 nearly 2,000,000 meals and slightly more than 1,000,000
lodgings were provided to homeless and transient individuals in the
67 urban areas of 50,000 or more population from which reports on
meals and lodgings were available. Eighty-one percent of the meals
and 83 percent of the lodgings were provided by private agencies
(table 25, chart 8).
Between 1929 and 1930 the number of meals increased more rapidly
than the number of lodgings (65 percent as compared with 50 per
cent), and the number of meals provided per lodging increased from
1.8 to 2.0. The rise in the number of meals was approximately the
same in public and in private agencies, but the rise in the number of
lodgings was much more rapid in public agencies.
The emergency situation created in many areas by the large num
ber of individuals moving from place to place in search of work brought
a rapid increase in 1931 in the number of meals and of lodgings pro
vided to the homeless and transient. The number of meals increased
169 percent between 1930 and 1931 and the number of lodgings, 79
percent. The number of meals provided per lodging increased to 3.
A much larger proportion of meals was provided by public agencies
in 1931, but the proportion of lodgings thus provided remained
approximately the same.
61
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
62
T R E N D S IN
P U B L IC
AND
P R IV A T E
R E L IE F , 1 9 2 9 -3 5
Ì
Chart. 8.— ANNUAL NUMBER OF MEALS AND OF LODGINGS PROVIDED TO HOME
LESS AND TRANSIENT INDIVIDUALS BY PUBLIC AND BY PRIVATE AGENCIES IN
67 URBAN AREAS, 1 9 2 9 -3 3 .
NUMBER
0 N M IL L IO N S )
0
5
10
15
1 ------------- 1-------------- 1-------------- 1
TO TAL
1929______ -------- 7 7 Z X
1930_____
*
--- T 7 7 7 A
1931......... ---- T P 7 / / / / 7 / A
1932____ ---- V S 7 7 / 7 / / / / / / / S A
1 9 3 3 ....
PUBLIC
‘ 'T 7 / 7 / J / / / / 7 / / / / / / / / / A
AGENCIES
1929................J
■
1930______---- B
1931......... —
1932------
m
Eza
1933----- ----- Y///A
PRIVATE A G E N C IE S
1929.............
1930------■ ------ V 7 7 A
1931......... ---------V 7 7 7 7 7 A
1932_____
-------- V 7 / 7 7 7 7 7 7 / S A
19 33 ---------------T / 7 7 7 7 7 / 7 7 7 7 7 / A
MEALS
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7777% L OD G I N G S
20
»
63
MEALS AND LODGINGS FOR THE HOMELESS AND TRANSIENT
T
25.
Meals, lodgings, and number of meals per lodging provided to homeless
and transient individuals by public and by private agencies in 67 urban areas1929-38
able
Administrative agency and type of service
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
N um ber provided
Total:
M eals..-..
Lodgings.
Public agencies:
M eals__________
Lodgings______
Private agencies:
M eals__________
Lodgings______
1,917,056
1,073,700
3,165,292
1,608,533
8,527,816
2,884,280
14,402,184
4,757,195
18,885,197
6,302,150
358,561
181,673
579,999
341,809
2,696,318
614,995
4,847,097
1,069,434
6,260,353
1,646,925
1,558,495
892,027
2,585,293
1,266,724
5,831,498
2,269,285
9,555,087
3,687,761
12,624,844
4,655,225
Percent distribution
Total:
M eals___
Lodgings.
Public agencies:
M eals__________
Lodgings.........
Private agencies:
M eals__________
Lodgings______
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.7
16.9
18.3
21.2
31.6
21.3
33.7
22.5
33.1
26.1
81.3
83.1
81.7
78.8
68.4
78.7
66.3
77.5
66.9
73.9
Percent change from—
1929 to 1930 1930 to 1931 1931 to 1932 1932 to 1933
Total:
M eals_____
Lodgings..
Public agencies:
M eals____________
Lodgings________
Private agencies:
M eals_______
Lodgings________
+65
+50
+169
+ 79
+69
+65
+31
+33
+62
+88
+365
+80
+80
+74
+29
+54
+66
+42
+126
+79
+64
+63
+32
+26
N um ber of meals per lodging
1929
Total_____
Public agencies..
Private agencies.
1.8
2.0
1.7
1930
2.0
1.7
2.0
1931
3.0
4.4
2.6
1932
3.0
4.5
2.6
1933
3.0
3.8
2.7
Between 1931 and 1932 the number of meals and lodgings increased
much less rapidly than between 1930 and 1931 but somewhat more
rapidly than between 1929 and 1930. In both public and private
agencies the rise in the number of meals was about the same between
1931 and 1932 as the rise in the number of lodgings.
The increase between 1932 and 1933 in the number of meals and
of lodgings was only about half as large as that reported between
1931 and 1932. The number of meals provided by public agencies
increased about as rapidly between 1932 and 1933 as the number
provided by private agencies, but the number of lodgings provided
mcreased more rapidly for public than for private agencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
64
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Between 1929 and 1933 the number of meals provided by public
agencies increased nearly 18 times and the number of lodgings about
9 times. In private agencies the number of meals increased eight
times and the number of lodgings five times. In 1929, 19 percent of
the meals were provided by public agencies; in 1935, 33 percent. In
1929, 17 percent of the lodgings were provided by pubbc agencies;
in 1935, 26 percent.
Chart 9 — DAILY AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEALS AND OF LODGINGS PROVIDED TO
HOMELESS AND TRANSIENT INDIVIDUALS BY PUBLIC AND BY PRIVATE AGEN
CIES IN 67 URBAN AREAS, JANUARY 1929-DECEMBER 1933
P U B L IC
A G E N C IE S
...............
LODG IN G S
1
i, i
■
TTTTTTTTTTT
<0
Q
...r .K .« .» “ » « I * « » "
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
P R IV A T E
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
A G E N C IE S
</>
a
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
As is shown in chart 9 and table P (p. 135), there was a strong
tendency throughout the period toward increase in the number of
meals and of lodgings in the fall and winter months and decrease in the
spring and summer months. This seasonal change is the same as
that indicated in monthly expenditure for direct and work relief (see
chart 3, table A, pp. 15, 69).
Detail on the number of meals and lodgings provided by public
and private agencies in the reporting areas is shown in table Q (p. 138).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIX A
Cities included in plan f o r reporting current relief statistics and the territory and
population to which reports relate, by geographic d ivision ; 1 9 2 9 -8 5
Territory of urban area to which
reports relate 1
Population
of urban
area 2
fl929-33— city of Bridgeport,
towns of Fairfield and Strat| ford.
[1934-35— city_____
City______
183, 146
Geographic division, State, and
city
New England:
Connecticut:
Bridgeport__________ .
Hartford______________
New Britain_________
New Haven________ _
Maine:
Portland_____
____
Massachusetts:
Boston________ _______
Brockton_______________
Cambridge_____________
Fall River____________■
Lawrence. _ ___________
Lowell_________________
Lynn________ _ _ _
Malden_____________
New Bedford_________
Newton________________
J
716
072
128
655
70, 810
f1929-33— city of Springfield,
towns of Longmeadow and
I West Springfield.
[1934-35— city____________
Worcester______________ City_________
Rhode Island:
Providence___________ _
Middle Atlantic:
New Jersey:
Jersey City_____________
Newark____ _____
The Oranges________
Cities of Orange and East
Orange, town of West Orange,
village of South Orange,
township of Maplewood.
Trenton________________ Citv...................
New York:
Albany__________ ______
Bufi alo_______________
Erie County __
New Rochelle_______ _ City______ ____
New York________ _____
Niagara Falls____ __ .
Rochester___ _ _
Syracuse_____
___
Utica_____ _ _ ____
Yonkers___
_________ _____do______
Pennsylvania:
Allentown ___________ Lehigh County
Altoona_______ ■_____
Blair County
f 1929-33— city____
1.1934-35— Northampton County.
Springfield______________
146,
164,
68,
162,
J
781,188
63, 797
113, 643
115, 274
85, 068
100, 234
102, 320
58, 036
112, 597
65, 276
171, 021
149, 900
195, 311
252, 981
316, 715
442, 337
162, 697
123, 356
127, 412
762, 408
54, 000
6, 930, 446
75, 460
328, 132
209, 326
101, 740
134, 646
172, 893
139, 840
57, 892
169, 304
1 In certain urban areas reports were available for special allowances from public funds only in relation to
the territory shown in tables C , D , and E , pp. 86, 90, 93.
* Eased on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
65
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
66
TRENDS
IN
P U B L IC
AND
P R IV A T E
R E L IE F , 1 9 2 9 -3 5
Cities included in plan for reporting current relief statistics and the territory hnd
population to which reports relate, by geographic division; 1929-85 — Continued
Geographic division, State, and
city
Middle Atlantic— Continued.
Pennsylvania— Continued.
Chester_______ ______
Erie_________________
Harrisburg*__________
Johnstown*___________
Lancaster.
Philadelphia.
Pittsburgh...
Reading____
Scranton.
Sharon.
Wilkes-Barre.
North Central:
Illinois:
Chicago.
Springfield. _
Indiana:
Evansville..
Fort Wayne.
Indianapolis.
South Bend.
Terre Haute.
Iowa:
Des Moines.
Sioux City...
Kansas:
Kansas City.
Topeka_____
Wichita____
Michigan:
Detroit_____
Flint_________
Grand Rapids.
Pontiac______
Saginaw______
Territory of urban area to which
reports relate
Delaware County______________
Erie County___________________
Dauphin County, Perry County,
and part of Cumberland
County.
Cambria County_______________
1929-33— Lancaster, city and
township.
1934-35— Lancaster County____
Philadelphia County___________
Allegheny County______________
Berks County__________________
1929-33— city of Scranton and
borough of Dunmore.
1934-35— Lackawanna County..
("1929-33— city of Sharon, 4 bor
oughs in Mercer County, and
Masury, Ohio.
(1934-35— Mercer County______
[ 1929-33— city of Wilkes-Barre,
I and 13 boroughs and 5 town| ships in Luzerne County.
[1934-3&-—Luzerne County_____
Cook County__________________
[1929-33— city of Springfield,
1 townships of Springfield and
| Woodside.
[1934-35— Sangamon County___
280, 264
175, 277
200, 584
203, 146
64, 827
196, 882
1, 950, 961
1, 374, 410
231, 717
166, 060
310, 397
53, 660
99, 246
227, 442
445, 109
3, 982, 123
82, 367
111, 733
Vanderburgh County___________
/1929-33— city__________________
\1934-35— Allen County________
Marion County________________
/1929-33— city__________________
\1934-35— St. Joseph County___
/1929-33— c ity ..._______________
1.1934-35— Vigo County_________
113,
114,
146,
422,
104,
160,
62,
98,
320
946
743
666
193
033
810
861
/1929-33— city________________
\ 1934-35— Polk County_______
/1929-33— city__________________
\1934-35— Woodbury County___
142,
172,
79,
101,
559
837
183
669
Wyandotte County__________
Shawnee County_____________
/1929-33— city________________
\ 1934-35— Sedgwick County__
141, 211
85, 200
[1929-33— cities of Detroit, Ham1 tramck, Highland Park, and 4
| villages in Wayne County.
[1934-35— Wayne County______
City--------- -------------------------------Kent County__________________
City................... ..............................
_____do_________________________
i Johnstown replaced Harrisburg in the group of reporting areas in 1933.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Population
of urban
area
111, 110
136, 330
1, 698, 390
1, 888,
156,
240,
64,
80,
946
492
511
928
715
A P P E N D IX
67
A
Cities included in plan for reporting current relief statistics and the territory and
population to which reports relate, by geographic division; 1929-35 — Continued
Geographic division, State, and
city
North Central— Continued.
Minnesota:
Duluth
Minneapolis.
St. Paul____
Missouri:
Kansas City
St. Louis___
Nebraska:
Omaha_____
Ohio:
Akron
Canton_________________
Cincinnati______________
Cleveland______________
Columbus______________
Dayton________________
Springfield_____________
Toledo_________________
Youngstown____________
Wisconsin:
Territory of urban area to which
reports relate
f 1929—33— city__ ______________
\1934-35— St. Louis County____
f1920-33— city of Minneapolis
< and village of Edina.
[1934-36— city................................
Ramsey County_______________
101, 463
204, 596
467, 494
City___________________________
St. Louis— city and county____
399, 746
1, 033, 553
Douglas County_______________
232, 982
f1929-33— cities of Akron and
I Cuyahoga Falls, township of
| Tallmadge.
[1934-35— Summit County______
f1929-33— city of Canton and
J environs, village of North
| Canton.
[1934-35— Stark County________
Hamilton County______________
Cuyahoga County______________
Franklin County_______________
Montgomery County___________
1929-33— city.................... ............
1934-35— Clark County________
1929-33— city__________________
1934—35— Lucas County________
1929-33— city.................................
1934-35— Mahoning County___
281, 274
f1929-33— cities of Kenosha and
Kenosha_______________ 1 Pleasant Prairie, town of
I Somers.
[1934-35— Kenosha County_____
Madison_______________ Dane County__________________
Milwaukee_____________ Milwaukee County_____________
Racine_________________ Racine County_________________
South Atlantic and South Central:
Alabama:
Birmingham___________ Jefferson County______________
Mobile_________________ Mobile County________________
Delaware:
Wilmington____________ New Castle County____________
District of Columbia:
Washington____________ City— ...........................................
Florida:
Jacksonville____________ Duval County_________________
Miami_________________ Dade County__________________
Georgia:
Atlanta________________ Fulton County and the part of
Atlanta in DeKalb County.
Kentucky:
Louisville______________ City------------------------- -------------Louisiana:
New Orleans___________ Orleans Parish_________________
Shreveport_____________ 1929-33— city_________________
1934-35— Caddo Parish________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Population
of urban
area
464, 356
286, 721
344, 131
114, 054
221,
589,
1, 201,
361,
273,
68,
90,
290,
347,
170,
236,
784
356
455
055
481
743
936
718
709
002
142
56, 765
63,
112,
725,
90,
277
737
263
217
431, 493
118, 363
161, 032
486, 869
155, 503
142, 955
343, 330
307, 745
458, 762
76, 655
124, 670
68
TRENDS
IN
P U B L IC
AND
P R IV A T E
R E L IE F , 1 9 2 9 -3 5
Cities included in plan for reporting current relief statistics and the territory and
population to which reports relate, by geographic division; 1929-35 — Continued
Geographic division, State, and
city
South Atlantic and South Cen
tral— Continued.
Maryland:
Baltimore.. _____ ____
North Carolina:
Oklahoma:
Tulsa__________________
South Carolina:
Tennessee:
Knoxville____________
Memphis_______ _______
Nashville__ ________
Texas:
D a llas.______________
E1 Paso_____________
Fort Worth___________
Houston____
______
San Antonio___
Virginia:
Norfolk_____________
Richmond. ________
Roanoke______
West Virginia:
Huntington__
Mountain and Pacific:
California:
_ _
Territory of urban area to which
reports relate
City________
/1929-33— city________ _________
\ 1934-35— Buncombe County___
/1929-33— city___________
\1934—35— Mecklenburg County.
/1929-33— city________ _
\1934r-35— Guilford County____
/1929—33— city_______
11934-35— Forsvth County
Tulsa County
f 1929-33— city___________ _.
\ 1934—35— Charleston County__
Los Angeles___ __
Sacramento_______ __
San Diego_______
San Francisco__
Colorado:
Denver _____
_ _
Oregon:
Portland___________ __
Utah:
Salt Lake City____
Washington:
Seattle__________ __
Tacoma. _ _ ________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
804, 874
50, 193
97, 937
82, 675
127, 971
53, 569
133, 010
75, 274
111, 681
187, 574
62, 265
101, 050
Knox County _
Shelby County. _
Davidson County
155, 902
306, 482
222, 854
Dallas County
El Paso County
Tarrant County
Harris County.
Bexar County.. .
325,
131,
197,
359,
292,
f1929-33— cities of Norfolk and
{ South Norfolk.
(.1934—35— city__________
f1929-33— city of Richmond and
J remainder of Henrico County
1 and Chesterfield County.
[1934-35— city_______
City_______
Cabell County. .
f 1929—33— cities of Berkeley and
Berkeley___________
Population
of urban
area
Albany.
11934-35— combined with Oak[ land in Alameda County.
Los Angeles County
f 1929-33— city_____
11934-35— Alameda County _ _
Sacramento County
San Diego County
San Francisco Coiunty
691
597
553
328
533
137, 567
129, 710
239, 288
182, 929
69' 206
90, 786
90, 678
2, 208, 492
284, 063
474, 883
141' 999
209, 659
634, 394
Denver County
287, 861
Multnomah County
338, 241
Salt Lake County.
194, 102
King County.
Pierce C ou n ty___
463, 517
163, 842
APPENDIX B
T
able
A .—
A nnual and monthly expenditure from public and from private fu n d s fo r different types of relief in 120 urban areas; 1929—35
Expenditure from private funds
Expenditure from public funds
Year and month
Total
1929
$43,745,001
Total.
January___
February. . .
M arch_____
April______
M a y . . ........
June_______
July..............
August____
September.
October___
November..
December..
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$33,448,803
$14,827,935
W ork relief
Mothers’
aid
$24,784 $17,073,547
Old-age
assistance
Aid to
the blind
337
405
566
293
218
325
241
357
219
242
388
398
14,620,725
2,049,826
1,185,805
1,153,320
1,176,777
1,157,641
1,088,093
1,017,416
984,473
954,247
981,969
1,079,269
1,315,394
2,526,321
357
404
556
532
465
303
280
426
319
324
271,586
1,774,274
3¡ 298,187
3’ 266, 561
3 , 489,314
3’ 785Í 580
4| 620Í 061
254
71,424,617
54,754,066
31,731,938
1,778,265
18,271,794
1,059,978
1,912,091
1,468,248
1,455,742
1,496,963
1,484,267
1,495,899
1,504,801
1,523,355
1,524,996
1,543,470
1,560,995
1,575,085
1,637,973
37,319
54,901
66,247
73,905
82,861
85,908
107,841
104,803
104,722
109,656
112,080
119,735
148,880
150,071
152,087
154,064
154,975
160,058
161,086
162,267
164,696
166, 760
167,191
169,956
3 ,486j 148
5,173,004
5 ’ 281,020
5 ' 649j 837
5 , 467,845
4 , 969,384
4,670, 289
4,681,187
4 , 813' 745
5,119,763
5 , 940,036
7 , 296^830
1 2 , 361,677
3,986,842
4,127,296
< 472; 504
4,309,672
3,880,826
3,652,570
3,696,434
3; 859,072
4,137,475
4,860,443
5,709,850
8,061,082
2,316,453
2,440,558
2,706,415
2,553,034
2,114,060
1,883,885
1,872,249
2,039,908
2,293,422
2,916,144
3,469,896
5,125,914
15,942
26,024
50,792
44,402
33,031
17,918
31,903
27,098
31,165
106,888
385, 598
1,007,504
W ork
relief
$3,989
120,113
120,679
122,208
122,070
122,591
124,441
125,630
125,793
127,658
130,888
133,672
137,885
1,409,178
1,387,064
1,421,166
1,413,144
1,432,331
1,418,317
1,415,709
1,430,891
1,417,525
1,436,460
1,430,947
1,460,815
3 , 317| 707
3 , 285| 163
Direct
relief
981,928
971,391
951,407
853,367
800,406
739,553
737,257
726,315
724,239
780,931
856,641
1,168,774
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
38
265
1, 211
2,679
4,569
6,510
6,510
6,510
2,500
2,500
3 , « 7 2 , 079
3 , 618,062
Total
$8,909 $1,513,628 $10,296,198 $10,292,209
1,327,446
1,374,536
1,370,201
1,226,667
1,128,081
1,035,050
1,006,305
1,014,793
996,655
1,139, 582
1,361,253
1,847,366
3 , 860,606
1930
Total.
Direct relief
2,863,268
2,888,810
2 , 920,106
2; 764,402
2,685; 524
2 , 577,829
2,547,665
2 , 57i; 515
2 , 542,103
2,708,141
2 , 928,551
3; 450,889
3,845, 533
January___
February. . .
M arch_____
April_______
M a y _______
June_______
July..............
August____
September..
October___
November..
December..
Total
982,265
971,796
951,973
853,660
800,624
739,878
737,498
726,672
724,458
781,173
857,029
1,169,172
16,670,551
1,186,162
1,153, 724
1,177, 333
1,158,173
1,088,558
1,017,719
984, 753
954,673
982, 288
1,079,593
1,586,980
4,300,595
T
able
A.
A n n u a l and monthly expenditure fr o m public and fr o m private fu n d s f o r different types o f relief in 120 urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -3 5 — C o n .
Expenditure from public funds
Year and month
Expenditure from private funds
Total
Direct relief
W ork relief
Mothers*
aid
Old-age
assistance
$22,569,689 $22,107,359
$10,423,001
Aid to
the blind
Total
Direct
relief
Work
relief
Total.
$172,749,219
$123,320,040
$66, 023,943
January___
F ebruary...
M arch_____
A pril______
M a y _______
June_______
July.............
14,355,156
15,130,975
16,709,747
14,346,336
13,236, 582
12,310,524
12,084,096
11,129,330
11,759,168
13, 023,937
15,750,344
22,913,034
9,392,696
9,614,424
10,446,217
9,574,896
9,815,031
9,697,857
9,848,633
8,970,357
9,457,514
10,212,739
11,513,424
14,776, 252
6,104,018
6,035,032
6,408,967
5,367,738
4,683,881
4,378,090
4,279,824
4,421,142
4,742,864
5,211,841
6,068,726
8,321,820
898,332
1,113,019
1,398,697
1,482,730
2,305,054
2,414,957
2,588,059
1,535,138
1,648,584
1,860,263
2,237,491
3,087,365
1,676,022
1,658,819
1,771,944
1,785,155
1,801,409
1.832,374
1,888,687
1,887,501
1,900,786
1,923,052
1,945,818
2,035,792
540,894
633,244
688,862
760,272
844,989
889,706
907,129
939, 731
978,645
1,028,636
1,071,146
1,139,747
173,430
174,310
177,747
179,001
179,698
182,730
184,934
186,845
186,635
188,947
190,243
191,528
4,962,460
5,516, 551
6,263,530
4,771,440
3,421,551
2,612,667
2,235,463
2,158,973
2,301,644
2,811,198
4,236,920
8,136, 782
2,801,870
3,265,105
3,629,602
3,118,145
2,730, 783
1,975,582
2,007,612
1,970,766
2,086,875
2,465,349
3,276,751
5,513,985
2,160,590
2,251,446
2,633,928
1,653,295
690, 768
637,085
227,851
188,207
214,769
345,849
960,169
2,622, 797
T otal.
308,185,543
251,104,365
156,643,441
52,051,336
24, 282,472
15,652,297
2,474,819
57,081,178
43,034,391
14,046,787
January___
February...
M arch_____
A pril_______
M a y _______
June_______
July.............
August_____
Septem ber..
October____
N ovem ber..,
D ecem ber...
24,223,499
26,334,996
29, 399,871
24,809,751
23,400, 237
23, 561, 736
21,572,724
23,486,889
23,805,893
24,816,887
28,869,679
33,903,381
15,509,159
18,386,675
21,376,805
19,460,044
19,715,189
20,068,934
18,197,480
20,214,913
20,620,554
22,138,013
25,610,648
29,806,051
7,938,151
10,307,593
12,482,263
11,911,519
12,087,919
12,850,635
11,237,840
12,805,297
13,125, 238
14,051,281
17,351,677
20,494,228
4,164,270
4,612,004
5,355,541
4, Oil, 699
4,108,442
3,703,330
3,471,866
3,892,701
3,957,064
4,515,991
4,628,402
6,630,026
2,022,870
2,046,471
2,088,006
2,067,482
2,029,776
1,998,497
1,967,174
1,966,913
1,967,488
1,994,893
2,049,817
2,083,085
1,189,823
1,224, 550
1,252,193
1,269,388
1 , 2 8 7 ,819
1,310, C35
1,313,709
1,340,891
1,358,404
1,361,276
1,364,603
1,379,606
194,045
195,957
198,802
199,956
201,233
206,537
206,891
209, 111
212,360
214,572
216,249
219,106
8,714, 340
7,948,421
8,023,066
5,349, 707
3,685, 048
3,492,802
3,375,244
3,271,976
3,185,339
2,678,874
3,259, 031
4,097,330
6,540,056
5,745,902
5,901,591
3,595,368
2,900,733
2,688,605
2,595, 035
2,471,232
2,412,928
2,282,633
2,705,344
3,194,964
2,174, 284
2,202, 519
2,121,475
1,754,339
784,315
804,197
780,209
800,744
772,411
396,241
653,687
902,366
Total.
• 448,920,545
1 421,032,236
274,258,447
i 105,463,464
23,343,440
15,292,684
2,674,2C1
27,888,308
21,152,721
6,735,587
January___
February...
M arch_____
A pril______
M a y _______
June_______
34,907,544
37,524,636
43,378,376
40,008,559
39, 550,489
38,319,126
31,164,677
33,734,427
39,716,076
37,257,284
37,386,457
36,361,311
21,319,337
23,092, 784
26,197,136
23,089,597
23,091,645
21,905, 700
2,097,449
1,958, 781
1,994,132
1,954,176
1,956,657
1.914 337
1,354, 739
1,356,999
1,323, 536
1,294,087
1,273,849
1,263,934
218,610
219,289
221,848
222,727
223,922
224,012
3,742,867
3,790,209
3,662,300
2,751, 275
2,164,032
1,957,815
2,660,570
2,686,938
2,371,052
1,970,947
1,649,990
1.606,223
1,082,297
1,203, 271
1,291,248
780,328
514,042
351,592
August.........
September..
October____
N ovem ber..
D ecem ber..
$2,196,048 $49,429,179 $34,842,425
$14,586,754
1932
1933
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6,174,542
7,106,574
9,979,424
10,696,697
10,840,384
11,053,328 1
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Total
July---------August—
September.
O cto b e r...
November.
December.
1934
Total............................
1935
Total............................
January----------------------------February_________________
March____________________
April------------ --------------------M a y .........................................
June_______________________
July..........................................
August.....................................
September___ . . . . . . . . -----October___________________
November______ ______ —
December____ . . . . . . . —
33,270,108
34,495,990
33,023,487
36,087,105
i 38,294,867
1 30,240,447
19,693,283
20,464,391
20,298,257
23,020,868
26,541,152
25,544,297
i 667,152,901
i 652,467,025
394,599,340
i 30,552,190
i 31,949,219
i 37,893,735
56,059,319
60,370,100
57,218,484
59,391,125
63,640,524
59,666,601
65,437,161
70,281,518
74,692,925
i 29,028,611
i 30,631,016
i 36,474, 561
54,742,876
59,053,106
56,067,220
58,291,820
62,564,749
58,609,134
64,357,951
69,190,167
73,455,814
24, 583,539
26,390,810
31,485,081
31,051,021
33,027,964
31,058,914
31,520,595
34,267,006
32,763,582
36,674,062
38,658,897
43,117,869
2 840,866,919
> 829,223,503
533,795,259
84,782,045
77,652,642
79,288,016
78,536,281
77,623,100
72,479,159
76,108,526
» 70,725,268
«60,302,616
»60,718,075
* 50,396.370
» 40,611,405
48,596,720
45,308,542
46,883,238
45,591,453
43,877,970
41,918,942
44,812,112
46,215,993
46,157,276
48,345,836
41,571,974
34,515,203
85,955,255
78,733,845
80,363,637
79,572,426
78,612,041
73,351,960
76,969,479
2 71,590,243
»61,130,121
« 61,602,033
2 51,280,412
2 41,705,467
Excludes expenditure under the Civil Works Administration.
Excludes expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIX B
January___________________
February_________________
March____________________
April...........................- ............
M a y ___________ ______ ____
June---------------------------------J u ly ...........- ---------------------August.......................... .........
September________________
October___________________
N o v e m b e r ....____________
December________________
35,034,188
36,265,460
34,681,895
37,600,952
i 39,759,061
i 31,890,258
T ablb B.
Total and per-capita 1 expenditure fr o m public and fro m private fu n d s f o r relief in 117 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
to
Total expenditure
Per-capita 1 expenditure
State and urban area 1
1029
$61,387
61,387
Public funds....................
Los Angeles..............
Public funds_________
Private funds__________
Oakland.......................
Public funds..................
Private funds________
Sacramento________
Public funds_________
Private funds..................
San Diego_________
Public funds___________
Private funds.............
San Francisco_____
Public funds..............
Private funds..................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1933*
1934
*
1935*
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933 *
1934 «
1935 8
$0.14
$0.18
$0.99
$2 . 1 2
$4.26
$9.78
$10.50
1.48
.64
4.14
9.78
10.50
(8)
$425,603
$916,228
$1,837,505
$4,219,075
$4,531, 255
77,270
229,115
196,488
636,662
279,566
1, 788,398
49,107
4, 218,811
264
4, 530, 772
483
.14
.18
.53
.46
.07
.1 0
. 10
.45
4.70
9.33
8.51
.0 1
.07
.0 2
.09
4.69
.08
.03
.42
9.33
8.44
.07
.95
1.73
2.99
6 .1 2
6 .1 0
.87
.08
1.63
. 10
2.61
. 48
5.33
5.99
8,660
11,984
12,180
53,811
555,988
1,104,613
1,007,466
8,660
800
11,184
2,975
9,205
3,860
49,951
554,610
1,378
1,104,613
999,440
8,026
Public funds_________
California:
Berkeley_______
1932
$77,270
Public funds..............
M obile....................
1931
.1 2
00
.0 1
85,903
156,932
270,994
554,891
552,897
79,142
6,766
147,808
9,124
227,710
43, 284
482,948
71,943
543,321
9,576
2,167,143
3, 350,846
8,806,900
9,368, 230
23, 276,679
34,055, 064
59,262,313
.98
1.52
3.99
4.24
10.54
15.42
26.83
1,957,132
210, Oil
3,116,467
234, 379
8,058,505
748,395
8,427,318
940,912
22,737,046
539,633
33, 700,266
354,798
59,003, 771
258, 542
.89
.09
1.41
.1 1
3.65
.34
3.81
.43
10.30
.24
15.26
. 16
26.71
511,456
800,591
1,312,209
2,396, 740
2,724, 732
» 4,869,901
810,060,141
1.80
2.82
4.62
8.44
9.59
8 10.25
8 21.18
459,843
51,613
759,806
40,785
1,283,037
29,172
2,356, 783
39,957
2, 702,758
21,974
4,841,617
28,284
10,026,180
33,961
1.62
.18
2 .6 8
4.52
.14
8.30
.14
9.51
.08
10.19
.06
2 1.11
.1 0
259,913
369,227
399,079
483,629
762,947
2,329,313
00
1.83
2.53
2.81
3.41
5.37
16.40
236,175
23,738
323,189
36,038
358,173
40,906
468,058
15,571
740,442
22,505
2,304,491
24,822
1 .6 6
2.28
.25
2.52
.29
3.30
00
5.21
. 16
16.23
. 17
(•)
120,874
(•)
(7)
(0
.85
.17
79
.1 1
.1 1
.1 2
.07
179,620
328,342
497,322
912,672
973,240
2,963, 521
6,809,790
.8 6
1.57
2.37
4.35
4.64
14.13
32.48
136,078
43,542
307, 543
20,799
472,295
25,027
883,028
29,644
956,183
17,057
2,949,889
13,632
6 , 792,972
. 65
16,818
2.25
.2 1
1.47
. 10
4. 21
. 14
4.56
.08
14.07
.06
32.40
.08
911,303
1,349, 222
3,289,748
4, 745,942
6,319,389
9, 059, 710
13,561,635
1.44
2.13
5.19
7.48
9.96
14.28
21.38
978,384 I 2,818,010
370,838 1
471,738
4, 281,402
464,540
6,128,478
190,911
8,802,166
257,544
13,315,696
245,939
.85
.59
1.54
.59
4.44
.75
6.75
.73
9.66
.30
13.87
.41 j
20.99
.39
541,134
370,169
.1 2
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Alabama:
Birmingham................
1930
c
386,145
321,517
461,433
1,078,039
2,303,052
4,585,880
5,217,251
1.34
1.12
1.60
3.74
8.00
15.93
18.12
Public funds....................
Private funds..................
286,193
99,952
224,498
97,019
254,634
206,799
524,258
553,781
2,225,427
77,625
4,558,267
27,613
5,185,937
31,314
.99
.35
.78
.34
.88
.72
1.82
1.92
7.73
.27
15.83
.10
18.01
.11
Connecticut:
Bridgeport.............................. .
183, 099
565,003
1,002,769
1,644,162
1,602,265
1,940,860
2,444,186
1.00
3.08
5.48
8.98
8.75
13.23
16.66
Public funds____ ______
Private funds..................
157,724
25,375
519,241
45,762
923,706
79,063
1,524,205
119,957
1,536,389
65,876
1,888,621
52,239
2,397,130
47,056
.86
.14
2.83
.25
5.05
.43
8.32
.66
8.39
.36
12.87
.36
16.34
.32
Hartford.................................. -
334,601
570,295
1,254,039
1,942,555
1,747,841
2,136,420
3,060,225
1.46
2.48
5.46
8.45
7.61
13.02
18.65
Public funds___________
Private funds..................
135,962
198,639
397,477
172,818
974,386
279,653
1,280,376
662,179
1,232,851
514,990
1,865,472
270,948
2,824,655
235,570
.59
.87
1.73
.75
4.24
1.22
5.57
2.88
5.37
2.24
11.37
1.65
17.22
1.43
N ew Britain............................
72,316
113,749
397,646
926,423
673,312
759,155
1,041,104
1.06
1.67
5.84
13.60
9.88
11.14
15.28
Public fu n d s..................
Private funds..................
68,569
3i 747
106,042
7,707
317,568
80,078
859,400
67,023
537,792
135,520
756,281
2,874
1,039,198
1,906
1.01
.05
1.56
.11
4.66
1.18
12.62
.98
7.89
1.99
11.10
.04
15.25
.03
N ew H aven..................... .......
199,970
304,792
959,885
1,478,787
1,423,098
1,614,312
1,931,917
.93
1.42
446
6.87
6.61
9.92
11.88
Public funds...... ......... ..
Private funds..................
130,820
69,150
212,883
91,909
798,391
161,494
1,201,712
277,075
1,181,659
241,439
1,478,318
135,994
1,823,432
108,485
.61
.32
.99
.43
3.71
.75
5.58
1.29
5.49
L 12
9.09
.83
11.21
.67
57,703
93,612
464,065
1,302,746
2,221,795
1, 524,803
1,183,107
.36
.58
2.88
8.09
13.80
9.47
7.35
35,591
22,112
36,078
57,534
57,814
406,251
486,082
816,664
1,918,685
303,110
1,462,673
62| 130
1,121,711
61,396
.22
.14
.22
.36
.36
2.52
3.02
5.07
11.92
1.88
9.08
.39
6.97
.38
District of Columbia:
Washington__________ _____
296,209
371,744
528,477
1,367,406
2,764,909
6, 734,374
6,249,994
.61
.76
1.09
2.81
5.68
13.83
12.84
Public funds....................
Private funds..................
111,485
184,724
125,319
246,425
141,114
387,363
442,828
924,578
2,454,895
310,014
6, 599,050
135,324
6,137,136
112,858
.23
.38
.26
.50
.29
.80
.91
1.90
5.04
.64
13.55
.28
12.61
.23
Florida:
Jacksonville________________
49,780
52,670
75,864
239, 752
1,106,311
1,689,349
1,114,960
.32
.34
.49
1.54
7.11
10.86
7.17
Public funds....................
Private fu n d s.................
43,055
6,725
46,291
6,379
41,783
34,081
213,207
26,545
1,099,505
6,806
1,686,528
2,821
1,112, 743
2,217
.28
.04
.30
.04
.27
.22
1.37
.17
7.07
.04
10.84
.02
7.16
.01
Georgia:
A tla n ta .....................................
101,427
121, 722
270,753
592,660
2,108,329
4,910,428
4,676,245
.30
.35
.79
1.73
6.14
14.30
13.62
Public funds____ _____ _
Private funds__________
80,423
21,004
92, 757
28,965
142,474
128,279
463,783
128,877
2,012,255
96,074
4,871,307
39,121
4,625,896
50,349
.24
.06
.27
.08
.42
.37
1.35
.38
5.86
.28
14.19
.11
13.47
.15
Delaware:
W ilm ington________ _____
Public funds....................
See footnotes at end of table.
APPENDIX
Colorado:
Denver......................................
«<1
CO
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able
B.— Total and per-capita expenditure from public and from private fu n d s fo r relief in 117 specified urban areas; 1929-85 — Continued
Total expenditure
<1
Per-capita expenditure
State and urban area
1930
1931
1932
Illinois:
Chicago......... .............................
$2,905,102
Public f u n d s ..................
Private funds.................
1,849,971
1,055,131
2,353,901
1,701,899
4,986,398
9,126,908
36,135,791
4,125,383
Springfield................................
80,516
103,833
135,278
Public funds....................
70,098
10,418
88,971
14,862
86,181
49,097
Indiana:
Evansville.................... ...........
121,837
184,085
311,753
Public funds____ ______
Private funds..................
115,837
6,000
161, 231
22,854
255,738
56,015
Fort W a y n e .. . .
1933
1934
1935
$4,055,800 $14,113,306 $40,261,174 $57, 762,284 $56,129,375 $66,189,386
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
$0.73
$1.02
$3.54
$10.11
$14. 51
$14.10
$16.62
.46
.27
.59
.43
1.25
2.29
9.07
1.04
13.91
.60
13.69
.41
16.33
.29
1935
55,392,041
2,370,243
54,518,098
1,611,277
65,050, 267
1,139,119
215,790
234,573
8 750,016
8 1,069,525
.98
1.26
1.64
2.62
2.85
» 6.71
8 9.57
192,803
22,987
212,974
21,599
746,681
3,335
1,066,493
3,032
.85
.13
1.08
.18
1.05
.59
2.34
.28
2.59
.26
6.68
.03
9.54
.03
625,978
927,361
1,625,093
1, 732,374
1.08
1.62
2.75
5.52
8.18
14.34
15.29
541,806
84,172
925,404
1,957
1,621,916
3,177
1,725,803
6,571
1.02
.06
1.42
.20
2.26
.49
4.78
.74
8.16
.02
14.31
.03
15.23
.06
8 9.63
45,861
71,194
382,441
752,590
958,069
« 1,689,228
81,413,185
.40
.62
3.33
6.55
8.33
811.51
Public funds....................
Private funds__________
20,363
25,498
39,483
31,711
159,561
222,880
524,336
228,254
860,496
97, 573
1,650, 742
38,486
1,367, 762
45,423
.18
.22
.34
.28
1.39
1.94
4.56
1.99
7.48
.85
11.25
.26
Indianapolis...........................
255,440
494,823
1,126,484
1,827,648
2,104,184
4,714,273
5,012,990
.60
1.17
2.67
4.32
4.98
11.15
11.86
Public funds...... .............
Private funds.......... .......
150,626
104,814
336,445
158,378
913,741
212,743
1,586,848
240,800
1,954,652
149,532
4,603,886
110,387
4,899,911
113,079
.35
.25
.80
.37
2.16
.51
3.75
.57
4.63
.35
10.89
.26
11.59
.27
South Bend...........................
62,053
138,036
406,442
633,803
823, 752
8 1,405,407
8 1, 703,116
.60
1.32
3.90
6.08
7.91
«8.78
810.64
Public funds...................
Private funds..................
45,161
16,892
111,442
26,594
363,312
43,130
598,916
34,887
813,047
10, 705
1,394,958
10,449
1,686,957
16,159
.44
.16
1.07
.25
3.49
.41
5.75
.33
7.81
.10
8.72
.06
10.54
.10
9.32
.31
Terre Haute.............................
53,255
83,968
110,811
191,085
221,908
«844,399
8 996,635
.85
1.34
1.76
3.04
3.53
8 8.54
810.08
Public funds.................. .
Private funds..................
41,093
12,162
65,720
18,248
76,178
34,633
150,140
40,945
196,428
25,480
830,233
14,166
983,462
13,173
.66
.19
1.05
.29
1.21
.55
2.39
.65
3.13
.40
8.40
.14
9.95
.13
Iowa:
Des Moines________________
160,708
185,041
272,710
565,372
1,289,240
8 2,160,958
8 2,624,994
1.13
1.30
1.91
3.97
9.04
512.50
815.19
Public funds....................
Private funds__________
105,894
54,814
119,372
65,669
154,114
118,596
411,878
153,494
1,264,482
24,758
2,148,390
12,568
2, 612,615
12,379
.74
.39
.84
.46
1.08
.83
2.89
1.08
8.87
.17
12.43
.07
15.12
.07
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RÉLIËF, 1929-35
1929
109769°—37---- 6
§
g
Sioux C i t y ..............................
79,456
83,385
129,551
347,201
625,142
•602,591
•945,208
1.00
1.05
1.64
4.38
7.89
»5.93
»9 .3 0
Public funds................ ..
Private funds..................
51,722
27,734
58,641
24,744
103,295
26,256
317,233
29,968
610,413
14,729
592,626
9,965
936, 700
8,508
.65
.35
.74
.31
1.31
.33
4.00
.38
7.71
.18
5.83
.10
9.21
.0 9
Kansas:
Kansas C ity_________ ______
49,244
54,560
90,415
196,669
477,149
1, 207,352
2,192,495
.35
.39
.64
1.39
3.38
8.55
15.53
33,313
15,931
35,598
18,962
56,430
33,985
90,831
105,838
430,304
46,845
1,206,072
1,280
2,191,183
1,312
.24
.11
.25
.14
.40
.24
.64
.75
3.05
.33
8.54
.01
15.52
.01
Public funds....................
Private funds..................
<L
Topeka.......................................
76,543
78,652
136,426
257,457
458,845
738,729
967,584
.90
.92
1.60
3.02
5.39
8.67
11.36
Public funds....................
Private funds____ _____
65,976
10,568
67,257
11,395
111,964
24,462
228,165
29,292
409,974
48,871
709,833
28,896
939,764
27,820
.78
.12
.79
.13
1. 31
.29
2.68
.34
4.81
.58
8.33
.34
11.03
.33
Wichita______ ______ _______
84,627
103,860
137,433
295,623
812,994
00
(')
.76
.93
1.24
2.66
7.32
(»)
(•)
(*)
(')
.58
.18
.73
.20
.91
.33
2.14
.52
7.10
.22
1,152,823
1,325,866
.52
.80
1.69
2.45
3.56
3.75
4.31
3.31
.44
3.91
.40
Kentucky:
Louisville__________________
64, 583
20,044
81,487
22,373
101,465
35,968
237,415
58,208
788,290
2 4 , 704
160,875
245,116
490,013
752,760
1,095,833
57,119
103,756
136,923
108,193
358,813
131,200
539,499
213,261
997,920
97,913
1,017,596
135,227
1,201,891
123,975
.18
.34
.45
.35
1.16
.43
1.76
.69
3.24
.32
Louisiana:
N ew Orleans_______________
127,750
131,498
498,839
956,967
3,352,453
5,168,680
8,893,699
.28
.29
1.09
2.09
7.31
11.27
19.39
Public funds___________
Private funds__________
3,600
124,150
3,767
127,731
79,975
418,864
664,199
292,768
3,251, 781
100,672
5,054,754
113,926
8, 790,767
102,932
.01
.27
.01
.28
.18
.91
1.45
.64
7.09
.22
• 11.02
.25
19.16
.23
Shreveport...............................
27,493
44,825
57,350
97,167
»322,677
»344,950
• 294,482
.36
.58
.75
1.27
•4. 21
•2.77
»2.36
Public funds............. ..
Private funds................ .
4,922
22,571
8,049
36,776
18,263
39,087
57,238
39,929
310,278
12,399
325,477
19,473
283,791
10,691
.06
.30
.10
.48
.24
.51
.75
.52
4.05
.16
2.61
.16
2.28
.0 8
Public funds...... .............
Private funds.............. _
M aine:
Portland................................ ..
Public funds....................
Private funds__________
Maryland:
Baltimore.................................
' Private funds__________
109,197
132,367
127,347
320,078
514,342
752,905
942,708
1.54
1.87
1.80
4.52
7.26
10.63
13.31
93,413
15,784
117,063
15,304
111, 214
16,133
293,622
26,456
488,647
25,695
728,119
24,786
909,248
33,460
1.32
.22
1.65
.22
1.57
.23
4.15
.37
6.90
.36
10.28
.35
12.84
.47
(•)
448,428
1,175,179
4,449,771
8,673,439
13,136,296
10,510,074
.56
1.46
5.53
10.78
16.32
13.06
(*)
100,096
348.332
364,580
810.599
3,420,527
1,029,244
8,286,902
386,537
13,026,329
109,967
10,356,994
153,080
.13
.43
.46
1.00
4.25
1.28
10.30
.48
16.18
.14
12.87
.19
APPENDIX
A
*j*
See footnotes at end of table.
Cn
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e B .—
Total and per-capita expenditure from public and from private funds for relief in 117 specified urban areas; 1929-35 — Continued
O
Per-capita expenditure
Total expenditure
State and urban area
1933
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
$3.95
$5.74
$10.34
$17.47
$19.60
$25.97
$33.59
3.52
.43
5.25
.49
9.78
.56
14.33
3.14
17.89
1. 71
24.87
1.10
32.48
1.11
1,370,778
3.30
4.34
5.72
8.68
8.62
13.62
21.49
1,326,633
44,145
2.59
.71
3.55
.79
5.00
.72
7.95
.73
8.06
.56
13.05
.57
20.80
.69
4.27
6.61
11.08
10.72
13.47
19.13
3.90
.37
5.82
.79
9.49
1.59
9.64
1.08
13.00
.47
18.70
.43
1935
1930
Massachusetts:
Boston____ _____ ___________
$3,084,893
$4,484,604
Public funds___________
Private funds__________
2,751,829
333,064
4,101,448
383,156
7,639,439
435,555
11,194,076
2,452,597
13,975,500
1,335,791
19,426,997
856,771
25,375,971
866,930
Brockton__________ ________
210,701
276,760
364,878
554,059
549,729
869,217
Public funds.......... .........
Private funds...............
165,262
45,439
226,495
50,265
318,702
46,176
507,138
46,921
514,152
35,577
832,760
36,457
Cambridge_________________
401,072
485,381
751,231
1,258,850
1,218,626
1,530,686
2,173,750
3.53
Public funds___________
Private funds__________
365,651
35,421
442,910
42,471
660,969
90,262
1,078,864
179,986
1,096,013
122,613
1,477,465
53,221
2,124,749
49,001
3.22
.31
Fall R iver_________________
326,739
564,540
725,210
1,242,274
954,039
1,428,612
2,499,856
2.83
4.90
6.29
10.78
8.28
12.39
21.69
Public funds............ .......
Private funds__________
313,133
13,606
550,003
14,537
653,315
71,895
1,161,757
80,517
950,283
3,756
1,426,300
2,312
2,495,865
3,991
2.71
.12
4.77
.13
5.67
.62
10.08
.70
8.25
.03
12.37
.02
21.65
.04
Lawrence__________________
199,185
293,733
321,598
615,940
476,529
1,212,458
1,482,880
2.34
3.45
3.78
7.24
5.60
14.25
17.43
1,469,602
13,278
2.19
.15
3.20
.25
3.52
.26
6.94
.30
5. 42
.18
14.09
.16
17.27
.16
$8,074,994 $13,646,673 $15,311,291 $20,283, 768 $26,242,901
Public funds____ ______
Private funds__________
186,247
12,938
272,319
21,414
299,252
22,346
590,278
25,662
461,352
15,177
1,199,019
13,439
Lowell______________________
369,421
409,926
617,989
808,936
833,190
1,668,998
2,427,912
3.69
4.09
6.17
8.07
8.31
16.65
24.22
Public funds___________
Private funds__________
322,713
46,708
350,908
59,018
556,294
61,695
740,054
68,882
777, 289
55,901
1,659,889
9,109
2,417,813
10,099
3.22
.47
3.50
.59
5.55
.62
7.38
.69
7.75
.56
16.56
.09
24.12
.10
L ynn...........................................
252,389
358,034
651,637
1,084,314
1,308,041
1,902, 553
2,300, 792
2.47
3.50
6.37
10.60
12.78
18.59
22.49
Public funds.......... .........
Private funds...................
207,371
45,018
288,513
69,521
584,501
67,136
1,030,940
53,374
1,275,438
32,603
1,866,845
35,708
2,267,483
33,309
2.03
.44
2.82
.68
5.71
.66
10.08
.52
12.46
.32
18.24
.35
22.16
.33
M alden........ ............... .............
120,172
157,985
265,211
496,684
513,139
747,421
1, 207,155
2.07
2.72
4.57
8.56
8.84
12.88
20.80
Public funds....................
Private funds..................
118,857
1,315
157,144
841
260,467
4,744
494,556
2,128
512, 784
355
746,542
879
1,206,148
1,007
2.05
.02
2.71
.01
4.49
.08
8.52
.04
8.83
.01
12.86
.02
20.78
.02
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929 -3 5
1931
1932
1920
N ew Bedford...........
Public funds.............. .
Private fu n d s...............
N ew ton....................
382,107
632,687
799,075
1,199,406
1,039,040
1,349,558
2,116,396
3.39
5.62
7.10
10.65
9.23
11.99
18.80
366,570
15,537
607,635
25,052
768,766
30,309
1,169,017
30,389
1,016,479
22,561
1,329,107
20,451
2,097,167
19,229
3.25
.14
5.40
.22
6.83
.27
10.38
. 27
9.03
.20
11.81
. 18
18.63
.17
70,220
94,898
172,674
305,955
442,897
530,973
722,567
1.08
1.45
2.65
4.69
Public funds....................
Private funds...................
61,212
0,008
79,971
14,927
136,183
36,491
231,606
74,349
407,614
35,283
513,839
17,134
702,983
19,584
.94
. 14
1.22
.23
2.09
. 56
3.55
1.14
Springfield.............. ........... .. .
271,200
525,426
1,071,067
2,003,267
2,667,228
2,664,419
3,696,960
1.59
3.07
6.26
11.71
15.60
17.77
24.66
Public funds....................
Private funds.. ___
226,045
45,155
449,366
76,060
978,257
92,810
1,878,176
125,091
2,611,183
56,045
2,620,483
43,936
3,648, 757
48,203
1.32
.27
2.63
.44
5.72
. 54
10.98
.73
15.27
.33
17.48
.29
24.34
.32
6.78
6.24
. 54
8.13
7.87
.26
11.07
10.77
.30
557,116
774,806
1,427,031
2,455,278
2,552,733
3,069,419
4,226,063
2.85
3.97
7.31
12.57
13.07
15.72
21.64
Public funds_________
Private funds_______
507,088
50,028
704,458
70,348
1,314,283
112,748
2,312,681
142,597
2,460,698
92,035
2,993,354
76,065
4,155,536
70,527
2.60
.25
3.61
.36
6.73
. 58
11.84
.73
12.60
.47
15.33
.39
21.28
.36
3,040,270
10,275,476
13,492,336
11,291,156
17,608,022 8 22,380,191
8 22,606,232
1.79
6.05
7.94
6.65
10.37
8 11.85
8 11.97
2,869,133
171,137
9,963, 765
311,711
13,025,153
467,183
10,362,318
928,838
17,371,118
236,904
22,426,890
179,342
1.69
.10
5.87
.18
7.67
.27
6.10
.55
10.23
.14
11.74
.11
11.87
.10
Michigan:
Detroit............. ................
Public funds....................
Private fu n d s .............
Flint.....................................
Public funds....................
Grand Rapids.........................
Public fu n d s ..............
Private funds_________
Saginaw................... .............
Public funds__________
Private f u n d s ................
22,183,686
196,505
180,505
442,659
633,724
1,177,553
1,434,425
1,213,507
1, 559,929
1. 21
2.83
4.05
7.52
9.17
7.75
9.97
151,192
38,313
389,339
53,320
592,941
40,783
1,090, 293
87,260
1,421,752
12,673
1,204,859
8,648
1, 553,831
6,098
.97
.24
2.49
.34
3.79
.26
6.96
.56
9.09
.08
7.70
.05
9.93
.04
130,409
220,412
892,375
1,477,993
1,892, 786
3,211,445
3, 711,832
.54
.92
3.71
6.15
7.87
13.35
15.43
117,783
12,716
192,403
28,009
855,841
36,534
1,454,230
23,763
1,882,306
10,480
3,202,673
8,772
3,705,911
5,921
.49
.05
.80
. 12
3.56
. 15
6.05
.10
7.83
.04
13.31
.04
15.41
.02
120,682
219,078
524,953
507,793
489,339
671,643
859, 582
1.61
2.71
6.50
6.29
6.06
8.32
111, 510
18,172
191,666
27,412
503,861
21,092
483, 111
24,682
475,612
13,827
659, 772
11,871
845,906
13,676
1.38
.23
2.37
.34
6.24
.26
5.98
.31
5.89
.17
8.17
.15
10.65
------------- 10.48
.17
Minnesota:
D uluth......................................
(')
285,912
385,457
900,410
1,161,802
8 2,445,200
8 3,786,429
(")
2.82
3.80
8.87
11.45
8 11.95
8 18. 51
Public funds....................
Private fu n d s ...............
(•)
(')
247,348
38,564
342,308
43,149
854,526
45,884
1,132,417
29,385
2,423,399
21,801
3,775,320
11,109
(*)
(*)
2.44
.38
3.37
.43
8. 42
. 45
11.16
.29
11.84
.11
18.45
.06
421,662
504,413
1,330,279
2,983,424
4,189,433
6,696,731
8,804,118
.90
292,055
129,607
341,324
163,089 1
846,417
483,862
2,404,863
578,561
3,699,643
489,790
6,356,821
339,910
8,493,453
310, 665
.62
.28 1
18.96
—
18.29
.67
Minneapolis_______________
Public funds....................
Private funds...................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1.08
.73 |
. 35 1
2.85
6.38
8.96
14. 42
1.81
1.04
5.14
1.24
7.92
1.04
13.69
.73
APPENDIX B
Worcester______ _________
T
able
B .— Total and per-capita expenditure fro m public and fro m private fu n d s f o r relief in 117 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -8 5 — Continued
Per-capita expenditure
Total expenditure
1030
1031
1032
1933
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Minnesota— Continued.
St. Paul................................... .
$303,034
$420,820
$558,098
$1,467,085
$2,588,669
$5,132,181
$6, 748,935
$1.37
$1.50
$1.95
$5.12
$9.03
$17.90
$23.54
Public funds................ ..
Private fu n d s.................
283,600
110,325
322,520
107,300
394,549
163,549
975,981
491,104
2,363,323
225,346
5,033,926
98,255
6,667, 527
81,408
.99
.38
1.13
.37
1.38
.57
3.41
1.71
8.24
.79
17.56
.34
23.26
.28
Missouri:
Kansas C ity.............................
231,200
263,676
664,322
1,040,667
1,935,149
2,709,108
3,883,778
.58
.66
1.66
2.60
4.84
6.78
9.72
2, 518,496
190,612
3,714,183
169,595
.21
.37
.24
.42
.25
1.41
.95
1.65
3.47
1.37
6.30
.48
9.29
.43
84,124
147,175
04,699
168,977
100,355
563,967
379,984
660,683
1,389,266
545,883
St. L o u i s ................................
508,327
561,969
1,488,804
3,347,254
6,873,795
11,329,196
15,192,093
.49
.54
1.44
3.24
6.65
10.96
14.70
Private funds..................
207,988
300,330
198,519
363,450
662,633
826,171
1,395,719
1,95i; 535
6,418,069
' 455,726
10,912,562
416; 634
14,873,755
318; 338
.20
.29
.19
.35
.64
.80
1.35
1.89
6. 21
.44
10.56
.40
14.39
.31
Nebraska:
Omaha..................... ................
181,315
209,652
278,603
398,238
835,266
2,743,213
4,590,480
.78
.90
1.20
1.71
3.59
11.77
19.70
117,087
64,228
150,339
59,313
166,523
112,080
211,935
186,303
749,973
85,293
2,586,400
156,813
4,463,295
127,185
.50
.28
.65
.25
.72
.48
.91
.80
3.22
.37
11.10
.67
19.16
. 54
New Jersey:
Jersey C ity ...............................
227,090
280,933
812,002
1,982,813
2,108,294
3,863,749
4,856,868
.72
.92
2.56
6.26
6.66
12.20
15.34
Public fu n d s ..................
Private funds..................
222,510
5,480
282,535
7,398
717,870
94,222
1,783,572
199,241
2,087,512
20,782
3,855,263
8,486
4,851,106
5,762
.70
.02
.89
.03
2.26
.30
5.63
.63
6.59
.07
12.17
.03
15.32
.02
Newark.....................................
405,100
797,224
2,208,968
3,915,798
4,700,932
9,146, 727
9, 500,167
1.12
1.80
4.99
8.85
10.63
20.68
21.48
Public funds....................
Private funds..................
423,078
71,212
679, 567
117,657
1,928,984
279,984
3,677,147
238,651
4,605, 774
95,158
9,076,632
70,095
9,434,910
65, 257
.96
.16
1. 54
.26
4.36
.63
8.31
.54
10.41
.22
20.52
.16
21.33
.15
(»)
(«)
(»)
(*)
(»)
(«)
1.01
1.40
2.41
4.47
5.93
.80
.21
1.07
.33
1.89
52
3.83
.64
5.72
.21
Public fu n d s ..............
Private funds...................
Public funds........ ...........
164,136
227,386
391,435
727,023
965,406
120,572
34,564
174,698
52^688
306,855
84' 580
623,575
103^448
931,389
34,017
Trenton.....................................
156,862
212,805
642,904
1,252,924
1, 226,606
1,620,948
2,149,629
1.27
1.73
5.21
10.16
9.94
13.14
17.43
Public funds___________
Private funds__________
151,340
5,522
185,094
27,711
411,803
231,101
782,033
470,891
1,157,138
69,468
1, 594,173
26,775
2,145,860
3,769
1.23
.04
1.50
.23
3.34
1.87
6.34
3.82
9.38
.56
12.92
.22
17.40
.03
Th e Oranges.......... .................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
State and urban area
1020
^
N ew York:
A lb a n y ..__________________
217,106
492,751
786,523
1,013,102
1,436,598
1,646,229
1.27
1.70
3.87
6.17
7.95
11.28
12.92
91,278
70,144
132,131
84,975
379,192
113, 559
706,896
79,627
959,924
53,178
1,404,699
31,899
1,615,614
30,615
.72
.55
1.04
.66
2.98
.89
5.55
.62
7.53
.42
11.03
.25
12.68
.24
Buffalo________ ____________
1,414,695
2,114,615
4,706,880
10,890,465
14,091,451
17,871,867
24,359,702
1.89
2.83
6.30
14.59
18.88
23.44
31.95
Public funds___________
Private funds..................
1,196,452
218,243
1,849,387
265,228
4,195,501
511,379
10,125,381
765,084
13, 597,267
494,184
17,656,786
215,081
24,151,377
208,325
1.60
.29
2.48
.35
5.62
.68
13.56
1.03
18.22
.66
23.16
.28
31.68
.27
N ew Rochelle______________
22,973
33,205
103,184
436,378
814,366
1,250, 111
1,461,824
.43
.61
1.91
8.08
15.08
23.15
27.07
Public funds___________
Private funds..................
19,108
3,865
28,173
6,032
97,259
5,925
431,567
4,811
811,327
3,039
1,247,488
2,623
1,459,407
2,417
.36
.07
.52
.09
1.80
.11
7.99
.09
15.02
.06
23.10
.05
27.03
.04
N ew York__________________
9,318,271
13,596, 554
44,507,178
78,725, 722 107, 794,291
164,549,559
168,241,250
1.34
1.96
6.42
11.36
15.55
23.74
24.28
Public funds___________
Private funds..................
7,492,235
1,826,036
9,018,313
4,578,241
28,867,458
15,639, 720
57,972,177
20,753,545
94,800,632 159,448,318
12,993,659
5,101,241
164,830,914
3,410,336
1.08
.26
1.30
.66
4.16
2.26
8.37
2.99
13.68
1.87
23.01
.73
23.79
.49
Niagara Falls...........................
88,497
196,058
601,486
1,265,832
1,134,679
1,447,119
1,790,426
1.17
2.60
6.65
16.77
15.04
19.18
23.73
Public funds....................
Private fu n d s.................
67,093
21,404
165,205
30,853
456,750
44,736
1,244,956
20,876
1,116,153
18,526
1,437,263
9,856
1,780,025
10,401
.89
.28
2.19
.41
6.06
.59
16.50
.27
14.79
.25
19.05
.13
23.59
.14
Rochester_____________ _____
855,010
1,437,885
3,936,432
4,822,904
5,303,495
6,957,948
8,408,837
2.61
4.38
12.00
14.70
16.16
21.20
25.63
Public funds...................
Private fu n d s..— ...........
679,648
175,362
1, 235,406
202,479
3,642, 279
294,153
4,658,963
163,941
5,223,720
79,775
6,871,039
86,909
8,372,268
36,569
2.07
.54
3.76
.62
11.10
.90
14.20
.50
15.92
.24
20.94
.26
25.52
.11
Syracuse.................... ...............
192,417
343,860
1,611,017
2,856,567
4,002,983
3,991,183
4,920,092
.92
1.64
7.70
13.65
19.12
19.07
23.50
Public f u n d s .. . .. . __ _
Private funds__________
165,821
26,596
310,776
33,084
1, 546,395
64,622
2,809, 716
46,851
3,973,287
29,696
3,946,322
44,861
4,876,661
43,431
.79
.13
1.48
.16
7.39
.31
13.42
.23
18.98
.14
18.85
.22
23.29
.21
102,914
158,089
500,318
1,172,809
1,462,045
1,582,245
1,956,846
1.01
1.55
4.92
11.53
14.37
15.55
19.23
100,647
57,442
350,268
150,050
1,094, 717
78j 092
1,390,905
7l' 140
1,537,608
44^637
1,921,490
35^356
.99
.56
3.44
1.48
10. 76
. 77
13 67
70
16 11
44
Utica. .........
Public funds___________
Private funds__________
Yonkers________
Public funds___________
Private funds__________
North Carolina:
Asheville.
____
._
Public funds....................
Private funds...................
See footnotes at end of table.
(*)
(•)
152,822
239,672
631,629
1,939,419
2,658,662
2, 713,293
3,186,118
1.13
1.78
4.69
14.40
19.75
20.15
23.66
125,366
27,456
175,833
63,839
431,140
200,489
1,850,337
89,082
2,609,200
49,462
2,672,849
40,444
3,145,345
40,773
.93
.20
1.31
.47
3.20
1.49
13.74
.66
19.38
.37
19.85
.30
23.36
.30
20,183
28,033
46,249
115,395
272,937
8 544,811
< 646,818
.40
.56
.92
2.30
5.44
»5.56
*6.60
760
19,423
1,000
27,033
28,501
17,748
71,660
43,745
265,655
7,282
544,811
646,818
.01
.39
.02
.54
.57
.35
1.43
.87
5.29
.15
5.56
6.60
APPENDIX B
161,422
Public funds___________
Private fu n d s.................
«<!
CO
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able
B .— T otal and p er-ca p ita expenditure fr o m public and fr o m private fu n d s f o r relief in 117 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -8 5 — Continued
Total expenditure
Per-capita expenditure
State and urban area
1930
1931
1932
$17,634
$34,992
$59,335
$153,156
59,335
108,977
44^179
1933
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
$366,859
« $434, 225
*$487,988
$0.21
$0.42
$0.72
$1.85
$4.44
« $3.39
8 $3.81
360,511
6 , 348
434,225
487,988
4.36
.08
3.39
3.81
.21
.42
.72
1.32
.53
«867,383
.23
.27
.40
1.31
6.06
«5.82
«6.52
864,809
2,574
.20
.03
.25
.02
.37
.03
1.28
.03
6.01
.05
5.79
.03
6.50
.02
« 375,278
«485,539
.44
.59
1.08
1.07
4.51
«3.36
8 4.35
375,278
485,539
.02
.42
.03
.56
.27
.81
.60
.47
4.08
.43
3.36
4 35
1,863,443
» 3,441,178
» 4,178,225
.64
1.14
1.83
3.69
6.63
810.00
» 12.14
1,775,921
87,522
3,408,797
32,381
4,146,014
32,211
.39
.25
.62
.52
1.33
.50
3.22
.47
6.32
.31
9.91
.09
12.05
.09
646,572
« 1,860,465
« 2,216,690
1.33
2.33
4.64
6.69
5.67
«8.39
8 9.99
645,766
806
1,860,098
367
2,216,078
612
1.00
.33
1.16
1.17
1.38
3.26
2.95
3.74
5.66
.01
8.39
(•)
9.99
(•)
Private fu n d s.................
17,534
34,992
Greensboro_________________
12,059
14,708
21,679
70,079
324,848
«773,700
Public funds___________
Private funds__________
10,743
1,316
13,326
1,382
20,111
1,568
68,644
1,435
322,295
2,553
770,240
3,460
W inston-S alem____________
33,439
44,374
81,251
80,532
339,633
1,690
31,749
1,970
42,404
20,550
60,701
45,135
35,397
306,999
32,634
Ohio:
Akron______________________
180,728
320,185
514,184
1,038, 791
Public fu n d s ..................
Private funds__________
111,425
69,303
174,637
145, 548
373,051
141,133
906,143
132,648
Canton.......................................
151,958
265,844
529,359
763,558
Public f u n d s ..................
Private funds..............
114,449
37,509
132,674
133,170
157,236
372,123
336,639
426,919
Public funds....................
Private fu n d s.................
1935
Cincinnati__________________
578,607
755,517
1,960,622
4,042,578
5,502,338
8,190,967
12,081,101
.98
1.28
3.33
6.86
9.34
13.90
20.50
Public funds___________
Private funds__________
380,082
198,425
462,316
293,201
1,246,403
714,219
3,617,177
425,401
5,284,474
217,864
7,942, 283
248,684
11,853,916
227,185
.64
.34
.78
.50
2.12
1.21
6.14
.72
8.97
.37
13.48
.42
20.11
.39
C le v e la n d ..............................
1,178,684
2,563,568
4,297, 309
6.693,996
10,879,734
18,428,841
26,757, 743
.98
2.13
3.58
5.57
9.06
15.34
22.27
Public funds___________
Private funds__________
610,721
567,963
1,391, 745
1,171,823
2,546, 504
1, 750,805
5,193,008
1, 500,988
10,205, 246
674,488
17,977,768
451,073
26,329,091
428,652
.51
.47
1.16
.97
2.12
1.46
4.32
1.25
8.50
.56
14.96
.38
21.91
.36
Columbus............... .................
314,626
411,696
752,659
1,854,989
3, 272,886
4.059,158
5,479,173
.87
1.14
2.08
5.14
9.06
11.24
15.18
Public funds___________
Private fu n d s.................
277,290
37,236
355,425
56,271
631,856
120,803
1,696,667
158,322
3,181,370
91, 516
4,016,894
42,264
5,446, 006
33,167
.77
.10
.98
.16
1.75
.33
4.70
.44
8.81
.25
11.12
.12
15-09
•09
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1 9 2 9 -3 5
N orth Carolina— Continued.
C harlotte................................
1920
224.629
438,244
652,819
1,091,244
2,041,245
2,854,701
4,259,321
.82
1.60
2.39
3.99
7.46
10.44
15.57
Public fu n d s.................
Private fun ds................
136,521
88,108
148,654
289,590
512,763
140,056
1,005,262
85,962
2,005,690
35,555
2,803,199
51,502
4,240,021
19,300
.50
.32
.54
1.06
1.88
.51
3.68
.31
7.33
.13
10.25
.19
15.50
.07
Springfield.... .......................
56,959
78,072
95,481
152,926
385,506
» 772,112
« 1,147,086
.83
1.14
1.39
2.22
5.61
*8.49
* 12.61
Public funds..................
Private fun ds............ .
23,399
33,560
35,076
42,996
48,690
46| 791
94,969
57,957
375,762
9,744
771,944
168
1,143,758
3,328
.34
.49
.51
.63
.71
.68
1.38
.84
5.47
.14
8.49
(•)
12.58
.03
Toledo....................................
220,091
703,465
1,423,171
1,534,167
2,500,751
8 5,555,596
*6,482,526
.76
2.42
4.90
5.28
8.60
* 15.98
> 18.64
Private fun ds................
196,189
23,902
631,553
71,912
1,342,318
80,853
1,493,105
41,062
2,491,920
8,831
5,549,314
6,282
6,472,769
9,757
.68
.08
2.17
.25
4.62
.28
5.14
.14
8.57
.03
15.96
.02
18.61
.03
D ayton___ ______ ________
Youngstown..........................
(»)
390,980
904,766
1,737,658
8 3,087,203
8 3,705,029
2.30
5.32
10.22
» 13.07
815.69
oo
«
175,274
215; 706
832,775
7i; 991
1,692,766
44,892
3,087,180
23
3,704,670
359
1.03
1.27
4.90
.42
9.96
.26
13.07
(•)
15.69
(•)
CO
90,351
100,298
331,338
945,722
656,991
588,519
.48
.53
1.77
5.04
3.50
3.14
(8)
62,553
27,798
49,577
50;721
245,636
85,702
923,404
22,318
656,991
588,519
.33
.26
.27
1.31
.46
4.92
.12
3.50
3.14
(•)
.15
Oregon:
Portland__________________
244,623
303,462
1,581,512
3,088,813
3,701,730
4,982,689
4,989,770
.72
.90
4.68
9.13
10.94
14.73
14.75
Public fu n d s.................
Private fun ds............
191,967
52,656
239,289
64,173
1,479,301
102; 211
2,976,993
111, 820
3,676,609
25,121
4,961,351
21,338
4,972,715
17,055
.57
.15
.71
.19
4.38
.30
8.80
10.87
.07
14.67
.06
14.70
.05
Pennsylvania:
.33
Allentow n.................... ........
109,987
157,043
306,946
558,699
1,213,790
1,859,498
3, 275,667
.64
.91
1.78
3.23
7.02
10.76
18.95
Public funds..................
Private fun ds................
98,691
11,296
142,839
14,204
278,594
28,352
529,580
29,119
1,196,364
17,426
1,852,289
7,209
3,268,032
7,635
.57
.07
.83
.08
1.61
.17
3.06
.17
6.92
.10
10.72
.04
18.90
.05
Altoona...................................
67,858
66,476
146,550
496,404
691,541
1,201,130
2,120,764
.49
.48
1.05
3.55
4.95
8.59
15.17
665,982
25,559
1,188,238
12,892
2,107,467
13,297
.37
.12
.33
.15
.71
.34
2.62
.93
4.76
.19
8.50
.09
15.07
.10
.49
.27
4.91
4.18
.73
4.75
7.82
7.24
.58
811.50
11.40
.10
» 19.10
.44
.72
.49
.23
2.70
5.23
5.17
.06
7.50
7.44
.06
11.14
11.08
.06
Public funds..................
Private fun ds................
51,981
15,877
45,992
20,484
99,572
46,978
366,450
129,954
Bethlehem.... .........................
28,627
35,412
452,773
s 1,947,586
1 3,233,011
15,833
12,794
18,700
16,712
284,151
241,893
42,258
275,040
Public funds..................
Private fun ds................
227,188
47,852
418,997
33,776
1,930,973
16,613
3,217,709
15,302
.22
.61
.32
.29
Chester._____ ____________
Public funds...................
Private funds.................
89,013
71,769
17,244
124,710
203,049
136,892
66,157
757,803
709,530
48,273
1,465,574
1,447,875
17,699
2,103,326
2,086,429
16,897
3,123,321
3,106, 793
16,528
.32
.26
.06
.32
.12
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
90,258
34,452
3.92
.83
2.53
.17
19.01
.09
APPENDIX B
Oklahoma:
T u lsa.............. ......................
00
oo
(»)
T a b l e B .—
Total and per-capita expenditure fro m public and fro m private fu n d s f o r relief in 117 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -3 5 — Continued
Total expenditure
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Pennsylvania— Continued.
Erie..... .......................................
$99,872
$130,354
$385,963
$870,385
$1,055,285
$1,656, 301
$3,093,890
$0.57
$0.74
$2.20
$4.97
$6.02
$9.45
$17.65
Private fun ds........... ...
73,519
26,353
82,070
48,284
300,447
85, 516
795, 702
74,683
1,054,410
875
1,655,493
808
3,092,956
934
.42
.15
.47
.27
1.71
.49
4.54
.43
6.02
(•)
9.45
(•)
17.65
(‘ )
Harrisburg..... .........................
78,416
88,268
193,081
620,090
(•)
(')
(•)
.39
.44
.96
3.09
(*)
(»)
(•)
(»)
(«)
(•)
.28
.11
.27
.17
.57
.39
2.46
.63
53,684
114 251
78 720
492,907
126,183
Lancaster........ .........................
39,185
54,468
121,533
205,387
366,223
« 1,290,142
8 2,039,445
.60
.84
1.87
3.17
5.65
<6.55
« 10.36
Public funds....................
Private funds.................
16,780
22,405
15,783
38,685
58,661
62,872
134,572
70,815
364,995
1,228
1,287,333
2,809
2,039,244
201
.26
.34
.24
.60
.90
.97
2.08
1.09
5.63
.02
6.54
.01
10.36
(•)
1,379,152
1,703,809
7,983,595
10,066,643
17,091,445
26,617,215
46,298,209
.71
.87
4.09
5.16
8.76
13.64
23.73
2.71
2.45
8.24
. 52
13.29
. 35
23.47
.26
Philadelphia.................... ..
.33
.38
.39
.48
1.80
2.29
38,233,854
.54
.75
2.74
6.20
11.30
17.39
27.82
38,037,219
196,635
.39
.15
.42
.33
.88
1.86
2.90
3.30
11.02
.28
17.20
.19
27.68
. 14
2,320,283
3,284,567
.61
.81
1.77
6.05
9.91
10.01
14.17
2,289,251
31,032
3,255,601
28,966
.44
.17
.48
.33
1.31
.46
5.20
.75
9.76
.15
9.88
.13
14.05
.12
1,033,234
»4,765,440
« 7 ,291,852
1.11
1.15
2.06
4.03
6.22
»15.35
<23.49
4,704,904
60,536
7,238,273
53,579
.67
.44
.72
.43
1.20
.86
3.13
.90
5.67
.55
15.16
.19
23.32
.17
25,937,657
679,558
45,798,387
499,822
15,535,728
23,897,037
15,143,789
391,939
23,635,473
261,564
2,296,058
2, 262,178
33,880
669,674
Public fu n d s ..................
Private funds.................
639,439
739,713
767,881
935,928
3, 516,247
4,467,348
5,284,690
4,781,953
Pittsburgh................................
74(0,380
1,031,143
3,766,768
8,516,331
Public fu n d s...................
Private funds__________
537,159
203,221
575,172
455,971
1,205,428
2,561,340
3,984,519
4,531,812
Reading....................................
140,890
188,167
409,796
1,401,268
Public funds................ ..
Private funds...................
101,890
39,000
111, 560
76,607
302,293
107,503
1,227,590
173,678
Scranton...................................
184,434
190,262
342,358
16.071,235
1,020,210
Public funds_____ _____
Private funds____ _____
110, 729
73,705
118,660
71,602
199,440
142,918
519,182
150,492
941,133
92,101
Sharon.......................................
40,940
55,139
79,005
206,306
457,693
» 1,249,155
81,922,767
.76
1.03
1.47
3.84
8.53
» 12,59
< 19.37
Public funds___________
Private funds. ................
21,305
19,635
29,115
26,024
63,288
15,717
191,754
14,552
415,513
42,180
1,208,231
40,924
1,901,891
20,876
.40
.36
.54
.49
1.18
.29
3.57
.27
7.74
.79
12.18
.41
19.16
.21
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
l
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929 -3 5
1930
to
Per-capita expenditure
State and urban area
1920
00
Wilkes-Barre............... ...........
Rhode Island:
Providence............................. -
South Carolina:
Charleston........ - .....................
Tennessee:
Knoxville............................ ..
Nashville..................................
Texas:
Dallas................... .....................
E l Paso.......................... ...........
Private funds...............
529,782
1,657,801
2,733,630 I «5,902,547
«11,085,505
1.43
1.51
2.33
6.85
12.02
«13.26
•24.91
1.39
.04
1.46
.05
2.21
.12
6.30
.55
11.95
.07
13.21
.05
24.86
.05
316,210
9,839
332,937
11,555
501,485
28,297
1,432,386
125,415
2,716,892
16,738
5,881,263
21,284
11,066,243
19,262
208,035
274,667
1,027,917
2,038,937
2,333,306
2,582,073
3,490,491
.82
1.09
4.06
8.06
9.22
10.21
13.80
.51
.31
.62
.47
1.62
2.44
7.23
.83
8.26
.96
9.82
.39
13.45
.35
129,306
78,729
156,807
117,860
410,678
617,239
1,827,924
211,013
2,089,738
243t 568
2,483,655
98,418
3,401,574
88,917
13,136
15,388
14,706
26,491
80,659
»787,626
« 526,662
.21
.25
.24
.43
1.30
«7.79
« 5 .21
.13
.08
.16
.09
.15
.09
.23
.20
1.16
.14
7.67
.12
5.13
.08
.10
.24
.55
1.32
2.81
5.62
7.40
.19
1.18
2.78
5.57
7.37
.03
.92
.70
3.28
4.49
5.99
4.34
.15
5.79
.20
8,297
4,839
9,981
5,407
9,155
5,551
14,099
12,392
71,910
8,749
774,778
12,848
518,530
8,132
16,661
37,275
85,712
205,025
437,313
876,812
1,154,201
16,661
37,275
29,379
56,333
184,162
20,863
432,928
4,385
869,042
7,770
1,148,534
5,667
.10
.24
126,636
174,906
282,188
214,089
1,005,875
1,375,318
1,834,702
.41
.57
.14
.78
.24
.46
2.84
.44
38,866
87,779
40,680
134,226
41,564
240,624
73,657
140,432
870,341
135, 534
1,329,345
45,973
1,775,027
59,675
.13
.28
.13
.44
29,369
79,230
141,518
314,993
993,243
1,478,901
.09
.13
.36
.64
1.41
4.46
6.64
19,020
.16
.20
.38
.26
1.17
.24
4.36
.10
6.51
.13
8,355
10,666
11,978
17,391
35,232
43,998
83,338
58,180
261,273
53,720
971,568
21,675
1,451,483
27,418
.04
.05
.05
.08
82,060
95,100
191,597
467,904
1,757,750
1,925,980
1,443,827
.25
.29
.59
1.41
5.40
5.91
4.43
.17
.08
.20
.09
.46
.13
.98
.43
5.26
.14
5.77
.14
4.31
.12
1,878,266
47,714
1,404,394
39,433
66,586
26,474
65,135
29,965
148,399
43,198
317,080
140,824
1,712,944
44,806
21,864
22,910
92,771
262,960
602,527
641,464
663,342
.17
.17
.70
2.00
4.58
4.87
5.04
639,100
2,364
661,972
1,370
.11
.06
.10
.07
.55
.15
1.92
.08
4.46
.12
4.85
.02
5.03
.01
1,714,061
1,720,336
.51
.70
.99
3.37
8.68
8. 71
.63
.07
.85
.14
3.26
.11
8.65
.03
8.68
.03
14,004
7,860
Fort W orth..............................
344,492
(*)
70,276
(•)
14,004
8,906
72,959
19,812
252,293
10,667
586,603
15,924
100,734
137,835
195,254
664,978
87,797
12,937
123,385 |
14,450 1
168,473
26,781
644,586
20,392
1,708,994
5,067
1,714,004
6,332
.36
.44
.07
APPENDIX B
M em phis..................................
326,049
See footnotes at end of table.
00
03
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able
B.— Total and per-capita expenditure fr o m public and fr o m private fu n d s f o r relief in 117 specified urban areas; 1929—85 — Continued
Total expenditure
00
Per-capita expenditure
St ftI/O ftnd lii tidu ciLed
1930
Texas— Continued.
Houston____________________
$64,959
$82,315
$148,448
Public fu n d s ..................
Private funds..................
30,820
34,139
34,332
47,983
39,188
109,260
San Antonio_______________
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
$274,738
$1,262,028
$2,188,420
$2,055,062
$0.18
$0.23
$0.41
$0.76
$3.51
$6.09
$5.72
135,787
138,951
1,253,815
8,213
2,175,427
12,993
2,043,464
11,598
.09
.09
.10
.13
.11
.30
.38
.38
3.49
.02
6.05
.04
5.69
.03
1935
37,749
43,351
56,637
202,027
1,223,624
2,000,946
2,047,805
.13
.15
.19
.69
4.18
6.84
7.00
Public funds...................
Private fu n d s .................
8,000
29,749
8,058
35,293
8,576
47,961
109,094
92,933
1,194,103
29,521
1,985,910
15,036
2,030,412
17,393
.03
.10
.03
.12
.03
.16
.37
.32
4.08
.10
6.79
.05
6.94
.06
U tah:
Salt Lake C ity _______ _____
269,103
363,465
435,507
1,021, 263
1,915,634
2, 769,585
2,962,017
1.39
1.87
2.24
5.26
9.87
14.27
15.26
Public funds....................
Private fu n d s .................
119,495
149,608
194,091
169,374
217,512
217,995
827,553
193,710
1,834,902
80,732
2,683,446
86,139
2,875,025
86,992
.62
.77
1.00
.87
1.12
1.12
4.26
1.00
9.45
.42
13.83
.44
14.81
.45
Virginia:
Norfolk_____________________
34,378
39,120
50,169
64,151
259,245
512,777
1,031,333
.25
.28
.36
.47
1.88
3.95
7.95
Public funds___________
Private fu n d s .................
16,268
18,110
23,669
15,451
21,282
28,887
15,219
48,932
232,312
26,933
504,828
7,949
1,024, 207
7,126
.12
.13
.17
.11
.15
.21
.11
.36
1.69
.19
3.89
.06
7.90
.05
Richmond...............................
*'
106,674
130,516
201,864
347,979
455,606
1, 259, 475
1, 565,039
.45
.55
.84
1.45
1.90
6.89
8.56
Public f u n d s ...............
Private funds____ _____
28,732
77,942
36,311
94,205
91,678
110,186
206,502
141,477
322,949
132,657
1,165,490
93,985
1,487,600
77,439
.12
.33
.15
.40
.38
.46
.86
.59
1.35
.55
6.37
.52
8.13
.43
R o a n o k e.................................
13,482
20,547
33,875
57,123
154,414
578,388
470,084
.19
.30
.49
.83
2.23
8.36
6.79
Public funds___________
Private fu n d s .................
5,180
8,302
4,830
15, 717
15,855
18,020
33,488
23,635
134,521
19,893
566,061
12,327
469,956
128
.07
. 12
.07
.23
.23
.26
.49
.34
1.94
.29
8.18
. 18
6.79
(«)
Washington:
Seattle.................... ...................
351,303
397, 769
735,227
2,929, 235
4,615,04Ì
4,556,903
5,157, 387
.76
.86
1.59
6.32
9.96
9.83
11.13
Public f u n d s ..............
Private funds____ _____
274,786
76,517
323,597
74,172
546,451
188,776
2,783,385
145,850
4,518, 540
96,501
4,527,630
29,273
5,119,819
37,568
.59
.17
.70
.16
1.18
.41
6.01
.31
9.75
.21
9.77
.06
11.05
.08
T a c o m a .._______ __________
113,520
140,614
213,420
723,641
1,506,638
1,659,533
2,095, 263
.69
.86
1.30
4.42
9.20
10.13
12.79
Public funds..................
Private fu n d s.............
99,810
13,710
125,068
15,546
173,591
39,829
687,333
36,308
1,504,157
2,481
1,659,533
2,095, 263
.61
.08
.76
.10
1.06
.24
4.20
.22
9.18
.02
10.13
12.79
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1 929 -3 5
1929
Wisconsin:
Kenosha................................ —
117,895
249,666
441,321
« 1,843, 278
4.40
7.77
15.80
18.91
8 28.73
8 29.13
1.50
.58
3.42
.98
6.93
.84
14.19
1.61
18.75
.16
28.63
.10
29.01
.12
2.08
1,811,480
6,190
1,835,616
7,662
207,224
502,315
1,039,184
1,420,361
1,552,884
1.30
1.51
1.84
4.46
9.22
12.60
13.77
471,734
30,581
1,032, 739
6,445
1,416,846
3, 515
1,549,778
3,106
1.25
.05
1.43
.08
1.63
.21
4.19
.27
9.16
.06
12.57
.03
13.74
.03
8,894, 569
8,784,526
12,826,318
14,624, 325
.95
2.34
5.93
12.26
12.11
17.69
20.16
5.64
.29
12.02
.24
12.00
.11
17.43
.26
19.94
.22
194,206
55,460
393,415
47,906
M a d ison ..................................
146,005
170,747
Public funds----------------Private funds...........—
140,145
5,860
161,904
8,843
184,161
23,063
M ilwaukee. ----------------------
685,808
1,695,483
4,297,604
Public funds_____ _____
Private funds..................
81,817, 670
1,064,738
8,910
85,296
32,599
Racine.............. ................... ...
1,073,648
805,423
91,625
Public funds...................
Private fu n d s .................
Public funds....................
Private funds—...............
897,048
570,204
115,604
1,499,411
196,072
4,089,373
208,231
8,719,797
174,772
8, 701,884
82,642
12,637,371
188,947
14,462,359
161,966
.79
.16
2.07
.27
116,871
228,462
695,507
1,071,804
1,249,348
1,452,426
1,586,721
1.30
2.53
7.71
11.88
13.85
16.10
17.59
205,795
22,667
678,906
16,601
855,829
215,975
1,242,146
7,202
1,443,895
8,531
1,568,550
18,171
1.15
.15
2.28
.25
7.53
.18
9.49
2.39
13.77
.08
16.01
.09
17.39
.20
103,175
13,696
APPENDIX B
i Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
* Territory and population to which reports relate are shown in appendix A , p. 65.
a Excludes expenditure under the C ivil W orks Administration, November and December.
* Excludes expenditure under the Civil W orks Administration, January-March.
* Excludes expenditure under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December.
* Less than 1 cent.
r Included in report for Oakland.
,
.
T_ ,
s Territory included in reports was changed to cover the entire county after Jan. l , 1934.
* Report not available.
C O
Or
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able
C .— Total and per-capita 1 expenditure fr o m public fu n d s f o r mothers' aid in 108 specified urban areas; 1929—85
Total expenditure
Percent change from—
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1929
to
1930
California:
Berkeley (area *)____________
$42,076 $45,539 $48,786 $47,013
$49,222
+ 8 .2
(‘ )
(4)
Los Angeles (county)_______
336,801 329,370 387,541
495,630 646,211 $801,821 $894,216 - 2 . 2
Oakland (city)______________
267,693
223,034
208,506 254,020 288,565 « 421,382 « 451,117 - 1 6 . 7
Sacramento (county)_______
64,188
61,166
72,746
79,516
86,657
97,863
104,225 + 4 .9
San Diego (county).......... ..
47,421
45,467
43,355
54,350
69,681
69,461
81,250 - 4 . 1
San Francisco (county)____
497,492 470,634 471,097 483,983
492,744
437,427
452,989 - 5 . 4
Colorado: Denver (county)____
101,024
99,835
106,250 107,391
97,094
98,833
103,819 - 1 . 2
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (area *)__________
42,550
46,321
48,130
48,443
54,728
65,770
69,514 + 8 .9
Hartford (city)_____ ________
45,867
54,596
62,856
77,851
93,989
90,867
96,378 + 1 9 .0
N ew Britain (city)_________
29,510
30,899
36,207
39,118
41,080
40,897
3 2 ,16C + 4 .7
N ew H aven (city)__________
80,572
99,024
84,947
108,727
116,294
108,554
104,117 + 5 .4
Delaware: Wilmington (c ity )...
35,591
36,078
42,048
39,971
43,297
43,243
41,784 + 1 .4
District of Columbia: Washing
ton (city)______________________
105,084
119,115
135,089
135,648
146,854
148,465
151,858 + 1 3 .4
Florida: Jacksonville (cou n ty)..
»61,538 » 55,497 '50,559
'36,849
53,799
64,435
(r)
Illinois:
Chicago (county)___________ 1,063,396 1,005,068 1,167,810 1,168,401
907,122 803,758 926,587 - 5 . 5
Springfield (county)..... .........
18,620
20,924
15,748
19,853 1» 8,824
»5,943
» 4,865 + 1 2 .4
Indiana:
Evansville (county)________
8,012
13,442
13,699
15,001
13,098
11,916
13,402 + 6 7 .8
Fort W ayne (city)____ _____
7,695
8,680
9,567
10,157
10,712
14,816
16,743 + 1 2 .8
Indianapolis (county)______
14,575
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
29,630
51,441 + 2 .9
South Bend (county)_______
18,057 » 24,198 » 30,117 “ 38,499 « 36,484
40,954
49,445 + 3 4 .0
Terre Haute (city)__________
9,740
9,670
9,510
9,480
»9,885 « 10,222
« 9, 788
- .7
Iowa:
D es Moines (county).............
56,835
60,883
63,884
63,956
57,961
54,119
55,641 + 7 .1
Sioux C ity (county)......... ..
32,670
31,709
28,640
42,482
35,467
45,651
37,919 - 2 . 9
Kansas:
Topeka (county)...... ...............
10,423
9,995
13,342
18,107
15,196
12,137
14,068 - 4 . 1
W ichita (county)___________
11,159
10,125
12,100
18,138
13,918
-9 .3
0)
0)
Kentucky: Louisville (county)..
38,736
60,262
64,058
60,745
63,873
61,633
99,276 + 5 5 .6
Louisiana: Shreveport (city)___
2,499
3,079
4,566
3,455
3,320
3,239
5,995 + 2 3 .2
M aine: Portland (city)_________
13,886
13,021
10,993
11,200
10,484
10,630
12,116 - 6 . 2
M aryland: Baltimore (city)____
13 25,569
34,915
42,684
86,981
95,145
80,715
Massachusetts:
Boston (city)_______________
709,435 741,702 832,557 933, 712 1,097,755 1,170,366 1,222,529 + 4 .5
Brockton (city)_____________
33,729
(“ )
O')
35,244
(“ )
(“ )
0 4)
89,754
98,005
106,189
Cambridge (city).....................
91,139
77,879
78,887
77,269 + 9 .2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1930
to
1931
1931
to
1932
+ 7 .1
+ 1 7 .7
-6 .5
+ 1 3 .3
- 4 .6
+• 1
+ 6 .4
- 3 .6
+ 2 7 .9
+ 2 1 .8
+ 9 .3
+ 2 5 .4
+ 2 .7
+ 1 .1
1932
to
1933
1933
to
1934
Per-capita 1 expenditure
1934
to
1935
1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935
+ 4 .7
$0.46 $0.50 $0.54 $0.52 $0.54
+ 3 0 .4 + 2 4 .1 + 1 1 .5
. 15 . 15 .18
.22
.29 $0.36 $0.40
+ 1 3 .6
.94
+ 7 .1
.79
.73
.89 »1.02 «.89 «.95
(»)
+ 9 .0 + 1 2 .9 + 6 .5
.43
.45
.51
.56
.61 -6 9
.73
+ 2 8 .2
- . 3 + 1 7 .0
.23
.22
.21
.26
.33
.33
.39
+ 1 .8 - 1 1 . 2 + 3 .6
.78
.74
.74
.76
.69
.78
.71
- 8 . 0 - 1 . 8 + 6 .9
.35
.35
.37
.37
.34
.34
.36
+ 3 .9
+ 1 5 .1 + 2 3 .9
+ 1 7 .2 + 8 .0
+ 1 6 .6 + 9 .8
+ 1 0 .8 + 8 .3
+ 1 3 .0 + 2 0 .2 + 5 .7
+ 2 0 .7 - 3 . 3 + 6 .1
- . 4 -2 1 .4
+ 5 .0
+ 7 .0 - 6 . 7 - 4 . 1
- 2 . 9 + 2 .8 - 3 . 4
.23
.28
.43
.50
.33
.25
.33
.45
.52
.34
.26
.38
.53
.61
.37
.26
.47
.57
.67
.41
.30
.57
.60
.71
.39
.36
.55
.60
.67
.41
.38
.59
.47
.64
.39
+ 1 3 .4
-9 .8
+ 8 .3 + 1 .1 + 2 .3
- 2 7 .1 + 4 6 .0 + 1 9 .8
.22
.24
.40
.28
.36
.28
.33
.30
.24
.30
. 25
.31
.41
+ 1 6 .2
+ . 1 - 2 2 . 4 - 1 1 .4 + 1 5 .3
- 2 4 .7 + 2 6 .1 - 5 5 . 6 - 3 2 . 6 - 1 8 .1
.27
.17
.25
.19
.29
.14
.29
.18
.23
.08
.20
.05
.23
.04
+ 1 1 .6
+ 1 0 .2
+ 1 2 .5
+ 1 3 .0
+ 7 3 .6
+ 2 0 .7
-4 .2
.07
.07
.03
.11
.10
. 12
.08
.04
. 15
.10
.13
.08
.04
.19
.10
.12
.09
.04
.24
.10
.12
.09
.04
.23
». 10
.11
.13
.07
.26
». 10
.12
.15
. 12
.31
». 10
- 6 . 6 + 2 .8
+ 7 .5 - 1 6 . 9
.33
.32
.35
.31
.37
.28
.37
.35
.34
.42
.31
.45
.32
.37
+ 3 5 .7 - 1 6 .1 —20.1 + 1 5 .9
+ 4 9 .9 - 2 3 . 3
- 5 .2
+ 5 .1 - 3 . 5 + 6 Î .1
-2 4 .3
- 3 . 9 - 2 . 4 + 8 5 .1
+ 1 .9
- 5 . 1 - 1 . 4 + 1 5 .6
15 2
+ 2 2 .3 + 1 0 3 8 -j -9 4
.12
.08
.11
.03
.20
.12
.07
.17
.04
. 18
.16
.09
.18
.06
.16
.21
.13
.17
.05
.16
.18
.10
.18
.04
.15
.14
.17
.17
.04
.15
.28
.08
.17
.91
.95
1.07
1.20
1.41
.86
.93
.80
.69
1.50
.53
.69
1.56
.79
- 8 .9
-8 .7
+ 6 .2
+ 2 4 .5 + 2 7 .8
-1 .7
- .3
+ 4 .9
- 9 . 7 + 2 3 .8
+ 3 3 .5
+ 1 9 .5
+ 6 .3
+ 4 8 .3
-1 5 .6
+36. 6
-4 .4 - 9 .0
+ 5 .5 + 3 8 .3
+ 9 7 .5
- 5 . 3 + 1 2 .3
+ 3 .4
(*)
-9 .4
+ 1 9 .8
+ 1 2 .2 + 1 2 .1
+ 1 7 .6
+ 6 .6
+ 8 .4 - 1 4 . 2
- 1 4 .5
+ Ï .3
+ 4 .5
+ 4 .5
- 2 .1
.68
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 192&-35
State and urban area 1 and
territory included
00
O*
38,712
101,859
44,231
(14)
42,921
95,134
54,407
ft ftlO
26,071
(««)
69,191
27,147
35,018
74,271^
a i\
Worcester (city).......................
Michigan:
(14)
41,008
92,110
58,314
ft, 043
(14)
26,581
39,143
83,033
37, «27
40,631
103,106
52,391
5,100
ftft, ftlft
28,025
30,502
85,974
64,320
40,553
107,430
57,673
u l, 170
69,363
25,501
36,339
94,310
55,815
47,821
110,458
66,158
(i<)
55,086
24,730
36,609
115,340
57,624
47,239
109,124
76,351
25,253
59,273
32,676
38,571
141,445
- .9
+ 1 0 .9 - 4 . 5
- 6 . 6 - 3 . 2 + 1 1 .9
1
0 .2
+
7
.2
+ 2 3 .0
-2 1 .2 -2 6 .6
- 2 . 1 + 5 .4
+ 1 1 .8 - 2 2 . 1
+ 7 .3 + 1 1 .8 + 3 .5
+ .7
__
+ 1 .2
+ 1 1 .9
- 1 1 .1
- 1 9 .3
+ ia o
+ 8 .5
+ 1 4 .3
+ 3 .8
- 1 3 . 2 + 3 .2
+ 1 7 .9 - 1 . 2
+ 2 .8 —1.2
+ 1 4 .7 + 1 5 .4
- 2 0 . 6 + 7 .6
.41
- 3 . 0 + 3 2 .1
+■ ! + 5 .4 - ____
. 35
+ 2 2 .3 + 2 2 .6
- 1 7 . 6 + 1 0 .8 + 2 3 .4
+ 2 1 .7 + 3 8 .1 ______
- 1 5 . 7 + 3 .3 + 2 . 6
—72.4
- 1 5 . 8 + 1 8 .3 - 7 . 7
+ 2 .1
+ 6 .8
—3.5
.46
1.02
.43
-9 .6
+ 2 .6
—2.4
.56
. 52
.3 4
. 54
.61
.50
. 95
•53
. 15
.42
.20
.38
.64
.60
.40
. 58
.7 3
+ 6 .3 .........
.39
+ 9 .1
.57
—.3
.38
.60
.9 9
.56
.50
.48
.48
.48
.92 1. 03 1.07
. 51 .56
.57
.02
. 12 .09
.62
.61
.39
.43
.41
.23
. 18 .21
.44
.48
.4 3
.7 5
.66
. 53
. 65
.82
.83
.78
.82
. 76 1.24
. 36 .43
1.08 .84
.70
1.27
.37
.68
.71
1.39
.32
.41
.35
.37
.42
. 47 . 49 .48
.26
. 16 . 22 .26
.9 3 1.03 1 . 3 5 1.51 1.38
.72
.6 0
.68
•71
.4 3
.39
.43
.36
.24
.31
.25
.27
•31 .29
.23
.94
•53 . 65 .89
.38
.76
.76
. 65 .70 . 7 3
.31
.50
.26
1.41
.69
.49
.28
.97
.78
.31
.59
.33
1.39
.70
.56
.28
1.05
.79
.05
. 08
. 35
+ 1 0 .8
+ 2 2 .8
+ 9 .5
+ 9 .1
- 4 . 4 - 1 0 .3 + 1 .6
+ 6 2 .4 + 2 .6 + 9 .7
+ 1 9 .6 - 1 3 . 3 —
- 2 2 . 6 - 1 8 .4 + 9 .2
.50
.42
.22
.67
.60
. 50
.26
.84
.7 4
-.1
+ 1 8 .1
+ 2 7 .4
—. 9
+ 1 .0
+ 1 4 .3
+ 1 .0
+ 8 .6
+ 2 .0
.35
.39
. 14
+ .4
+ . 3 + 5 .0 - 5 . 2
+ 3 1 .7 —43.3 —13.3 —5.5
—.9
+ •4
+. 7
+ 1 .6
- 1 . 0 + 7 .2 + 1 . 0
+ 2 .7
.42
__
.07
.09
.20
.05
. 04
.32
- 2 2 .1 - 2 4 .4 + 7 0 .1
- . 8 - 7 . 9 + 3 8 .6
-4 .5
(«) - 1 6 . 7
- 3 2 . 0 - 3 . 6 + 3 .9
.90
.86
.08
.07
.18
.04
.07
.23
-1 0 .8
-2 9 .0
.69
.55
.41
.08
.07
.24
- 3 .8 - 2 . 6 - 8 . 6
—. 8 + 4 0 .0
— 1 0 .9
- 2 1 . 6 - 2 1 . 3 + 9 .9
- 8 .6 - 2 .1
- 2 . 9 + 3 .8
-1 .5
+• 2
- 8 .4 + 1 .6
+ 1 .8 —4 .2
+ 8 .3 + 1 5 .6
-7 .4 -3 .7
+ 6 .3 + 2 .9
+ . 8 + 2 .0
.63
.87
.40
•15
.76
1.06 1.15 1.17 1.06 1.12
.63
.58
. 46 . 53 .56
.59
.59
.60
.6 0 .62
+ 5 8 .6
- 2 .2
-1 2 .6
-1 5 .2
+ 4 .0
+ 1 7 .8
+ 1 1 .7
+ 4 .4
+ 8 .0
+ 1 5 .2
+ 3 6 .5
+ 3 .2
.76
.74
.47
. 53
.90
.5 0
.48
.56
.56
1.10 1.09
.65
.75
.44
.53
.49
.50
.38
.21
.23
.72
.59
.62
.33
.99
.08
.07
.31
.75
.....
.0 2
.03
.03
.02
.02
.03
.03
.02
.02
.02
.03
.02
.01
.01
.02
«.03
.01
.02
.02
«.02
.01
.17
.32
. 41
.41
.17
.36
. 45
. 45
.17
.48
. 45
.47
.18
.27
.45
.46
.17
.23
.45
.50
.17
.22
.45
.50
.17
.26
. 41
.3 9
APPENDIX
1,062,971 1,203,073 1,417,317 1,434,300 1,182,367 1,310,122 1,616,446 + 1 3 .2 + 1 7 .8
+ 1 6 .8 + 8 .8
189,449 1« 117,232
139,146 155,710
127,834
109,490
99,290 101,778 + 1 6 .8 + 3 2 .8
96,120
128,286 114,086
96,611
82,742
+ 7 .4 + 1 2 .8
122 196 137,796
111,235 I’ 30,735
100,291 + 1 9 .5 + 1 2 .2
108,703
109', 146 is 91,895
88,417
99,210
73^ 970
Saginaw (co u n ty )...................
Minnesota:
+ 7 .0
114,129
107,392
116,328 118,788
(7)
100,228 107,259
- . 3 + 20.1
198,934 238,863 272,989 291,440 299,147 326,429
199,505
168,081 + 5 .0
+ .4
168,509
172,575
178,846
172,355
171,733
163,626
St. Paul (county).....................
Missouri:
33,429 + 1 7 .0 + 2 .0
37,564
36,578
39,030
24,605
24,124
20,624
54,169
75,861 - 3 9 . 0 + 7 0 .5
54,616
61,303
62,655
36,758
60,238
41,894
46,058 + 4 0 .5 + 1 0 .9
56,469
82,056
71,747
52,662
73,977
Nebraska: Omaha (county)........
N ew Jersey:
191,027 233,769 259,020 247,516 221,945 225,578 + 1 9 .7 + 2 2 .4
159,625
560,572 614,969 + 1 8 .9 + 2 3 .3
187,134 222,499 274,424 336,929 547,161
+ 1 8 .9 + 2 7 .8
60,816
70,171
58,668
53,567
(0
41,920
35,257
84,171
91,917 + 2 4 .6 + 1 8 .3
103,099
133,251
82,864
103,260 122,184
Trenton (city)..........................
N ew York:
39,280 + 5 .8 + 9 .5
40,170
39,331
43,969
51,845
47,344
44,731
379,411
448, 243 + 7 .2 + 13.1
320,044 361,980 376,414 365,430
298,491
17,864 + 1 3 .7 + 4 0 .6
14,017
13,986
14,195
12; 050
8,569
7,537
6,478,263 7,119, 795 9,382, 263 10,476,991 9, 594,574 9,748,803 9,663,863 + 9 .9 + 3 1 .8
52,746
+ 4 1 .8 + 12.1
53,292
54,256
51,96C
51,054
32,129
45,553
180,816 209,095 239,042 + 2 9 .4 + 1 8 .9
166,977
130,123 154,672
100,588
+ 8 .9 + 9 .2
58,690
60,042
57,820
64,855
56,315
51,550
47,325
98,776
107,273 + 3 7 .7 + 2 3 .6
90,304
95,988
66,149
53,523
38,857
104,711
106,816 + 8 .2 + 4 .3
98,752
101,887 . 102,699
94,664
87,457
Yonkers (city)______________
North Carolina:
m
n\
2,033
1,
600
2,058
1,210
\/
m
2 34ft
2 34ft
2,322
2,139
¿965
uiiunutbo \CiLy/ - — ——- — (7)
( 7)
‘
3;
447
*
2 ,870
1,060
1,245
1, no
900 + 1 6 .6 - 5 . 6
866
1,320
898
¿860
1,970
1 ,69C
Winston-Salem (city).............
Ohio:
63, COO
59,751
6ft 000 +• £ (U)
60,000
59,845
59,872
59,316
49,108 + 2 2 .4 + 1 4 .1
51,960
59,905
105,650
80,251
70,330
67,473
- . 2 + 9 .5
267,567
265,595
240,696 240,119 262,871 | 267,01C 268,071
600,726
+ 6 .6 + 9 .6
594,899
466,725 | 497,662 545,262 | 560,222 554,767
Cleveland (county)-------------Grand Rapids (county)____
+ 1 1 .2
-.2
+ 4 .2
+ 1 0 .1
- 7 7 .1
+ .8
- 9 .0
+ 1 9 .1
+ 9 .7
W
See footnotes at end of table.
oo
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
00
T able C .— T otal and p er-ca p ita expen d itu re fro m p u b lic fu n d s fo r m others' a id in 108 sp ecified urban a rea s; 1 9 2 9 -8 5 — Continued
■
Total expenditure
Percent change from—
1929
Oregon:
Portland (county). . . . . .
Pennsylvania:
Allentown (county)_________
Altoona (city)_____ . . . . . ____
Bethlehem (city)________ . . .
Chester (county)_______ . . . .
Erie (county)............................
Harrisburg (county)________
Johnstown (county)________
Lancaster (county)______ . . .
Philadelphia ( c o u n t y ) ......
Pittsburgh (county)________
Reading (cou n ty)...............
Scranton (city).........................
Sharon (area *)______________
Wilkes-Barre ( a r e a * ) --.____
Rhode Island :
Providence (city)___________
Tennessee:
Knoxville (county)_________
M em phis (county)__________
Texas:
Dallas (county)_____________
Houston (county)...... .............
U tah:
Salt Lake C ity (county)___
Virginia:
Norfolk (city)_______________
Richmond (city)____________
Washington:
Seattle (county)____________
Tacoma (county)___________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1929
to
1930
1930
to
1931
$139,565 $140; 022 $148,867 $157,934 $136,560 $136,237 $140,448
+ . S + 6 .3
62,717
64,761
65,104
76.33C - 77.72S
74,835
77,240 + 3 .3
+• 5
14,919
17,189
11,902
15,085
14,528
14,935
14,849 + 1 5 .2 - 3 0 . 8
100,709
100,81C 111,069
135,085
125,089
117,947
115,123
+ . 1 + 1 0 .2
75,810
64,695
56,495
50,110
47,675
45,535
47,985 - 1 4 . 7 - 1 2 . 7
1931
to
1932
1932
to
1933
1933
to
1934
1934
to
1935
+ 6 .1
+ 1 7 .2
+ 2 6 .7
+ 2 1 .6
—11.3
-1 3 .5
+ 1 .8
-3 .7
-7 .4
-4 .9
-.2
- 3 .7
+ 2 .8
-5 .7
- 4 .5
+ 3 .1 $0.39 $0.39 $0.41 $0.44 $0.38 $0.38 $0.39
+ 3 .2
.23
.24
.24
. 28
.28
.28
.27
.16
.19
.13
.17
.16
. 16 . 16
- 2 .4
.29
.29
.32
.39
.36
.34
.33
+ 5 .4
.32
.27
.24
.21
.20 .19
.20
+ 6 .8
-7 .9
-•
6St . 3
63,066
65,315
98,783
41,084
19,570
15,833
44,470
43,148
40,125
O
42,556
564,439
396,973
73,930
58,768
12,050
48,160
37,007
18,954
15,320
48,150
42,280
37,481
(9
39,820
675,881
379,574
65,319
59,658
11,770
65,890
43,392
21,577
22,845
50,338
59,319
50,357
0
46,527
622,980
432,438
74,604
72,067
15,870
80,040
77,102
81,063
90,849
96,228
103,348
122,566
5,000
38,856
9,106
40,680
12,782
41,564
22,416
37,480
22,720
36,008
32,017
43,020
33,639 + 82.1 + 4 0 .4 + 7 5 .4
42,495 + 4 .7 + 2 .2 - 9 . 8
(«)
14,630
(“ )
16,014
29,726
17,056
28,542
20,899
21,721
21,608
20 ,6 6 6
2 2 ,1 2 0
20,470
21,076
+ 9 .5
50,340
50,055
50,125
48,730
40,815
31,515
46,235
- .6
8,881
9,855
10,655
8,364
7,372
10,036
2,375
10,822 + 1 1 .0
133,270
57,305
136,995
66,135
150,845
82,005
91,691
97,935
90,244
85,460
+ 3 .6 + 5 1 .2
53,101
62.036
62,159
60,808 - 9 . 9
24,072
24,660
22,715
24,196 - 3 .1
33,466
33.133
30,466
28,228 - 3 . 2
81,144
80,657
71,364
74,910 + 8 .3
73.999
72,004
68,725
76.213 - 2 . 0
67,317
(0
- 6 .6
(7)
(0
104,727
99,881
o
56,914
54,734
49,790
44,497 - 6 . 4
703,256 644,640 630,672 625,247 + 2 .0
504,301
615,438 598,279 669,209 - 4 . 4
89,764
108,838
107,954
115, 713 - 1 1 . 6
74,287 M 39,513 ‘ «87,460 ‘ 135, 202 + 1 .5
23,410
21,040
20,075
21,910 - 2 . 3
121,464
154,166 137,893
131,998 + 3 6 .8
113,380
103,255
-7 .2
+ 1 7 .3
+ 1 3 .8
+ 4 9 .1
+ 4 .5
+ 4 0 .3
+ 3 4 .4
+ 2 2 .4
+ 1 1 .6
+ 4 6 .6
+ 6 1 .2
+ 2 4 .7
+ 3 3 .7
+ 1 6 .8
+ .2 -2 .2
+ 2 .4 - 7 . 9 + 6 . £
- 1 .0 - 8 .0 - 7 .3
- . 6 - 1 1 . 5 + 5 .0
- 2 . 7 - 4 . 6 + 1 0 .0
+ 1 6 .8
+ 8 .2
+ 1 3 .9
+ 1 4 .2
+ 2 0 .8
+ 3 4 .8
+ 2 1 .5
+ 2 2 .3
+ 1 2 .9
+ 1 6 .6
+ 2 0 .3
+ 3 .1
+ 4 7 .5
+ 5 1 .8
—4.6
-3 .8 -9 .0
-8 .3 -2 .2
+ 2 2 .0 - 2 . 8
+ 2 1 .2
- .8
-4 6 .8
<‘ )
- 1 0 .1 - 4 . 6
+ 2 6 .9 - 1 0 . 6
+ 5 .1 + 1 2 .1
+ 5 .9
—2.0
-1 0 .6
- .9
+ 1 1 .9
+ 7 .2
+ 5 4 .6
+ 9 .1
- 4 .3
1929 1930 1931
1932 1933 1934 1935
.19
.19
.29
.27
.29
.27
.25
.24
.24
.27
.16
.25
.24
.21
.23
.26
.17
.24
.23
.25
.26
.39
.18
.34
.30
.31
.29
.58
.29
.42
.41
.36
.30
.57
.29
.41
.36
.28
.53
.25
.39
.35
.29
.49
.27
.39
.22
.29
.29
.32
.41
.22
.21
.20
.30
.28
.28
.42
.22
.29
.24
.32
.31
.32
.50
.30
.35
.29
.36
.37
.39
.52
.44
.53
. 51 .49
.48
.28
.25
.23
.33
.32
.32
.45
.44
.49
.47
.47
.50
.28 ‘ .28 ‘ .44
.39
.41
.37
.68
.61
.58
+ 7 .4 + 1 8 .6 + 1 7 .9
.30
.32
.36
.38
.41
.48
.57
+ 1 .4 + 4 0 .9
- 3 . 9 + 1 9 .5
.03
.13
.06
.13
.08
.14
.14
.12
.15
.12
.21
.14
.22
.14
+ 5 .1
—1.2
—. 9
-4 .7
.04
.04
!05
.06
.06
.06
.06
-2 .8
- 1 6 . 2 - 2 2 .8 + 4 6 .7
.26
.26
.26
.25
.21
.16
.24
+ 8 .1 - 2 1 . 5
+ 340.2 + 3 9 .0 —27.1
- 1 1 .9 + 3 6 .1 + 7 .8
.05
.05
.06
.05
.04
.05
.06
99,780
120,340 + 2 .8 + 1 0 .1 - 3 . 2
80,720 18 53, 787* + 1 5 .4 + 2 4 .0 + 1 0 .2
- 2 2 .3 - 1 2 . 0 + 2 0 .6
+ 1 4 .3 - 2 1 .8 - 3 3 . 4
.29
.35
.30
.401
.33
.50
.31
.55
.24
.63
.2 2
.26
.33
22 533
145,970
90,3651
144,482
Per-capita expenditure
- 4 .0
+ 6 .6 + 2 2 .5
+ .1
—23.9
+ 3 .4
—4.9
+ 2 .4
.49
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
State and urban area and
territory included
Ohio— Continued.
Columbus (county)_________
D ayton (county)___________
Springfield (county)________
Toledo (county)____________
Youngstown (county)______
00'
_____________________________________________________________________
W est Virginia:
Wisconsin: ~
Kenosha (county)...................
Madison (c o u n ty ).................
Milwaukee (c o u n ty )............
Racine (county)..................... .
7,748
4,690
4,688
4,535
M 223
25,573
61,854
327,006
49,590
39,479
77,118
391,048
50,470
63,127
84,730
592,115
72,238
78,956
100,820
693, 551
86,866
75,375
83,162
673,333
84,943
- 3 9 .5
50,766
66,263
707,393
87,277
53,027
74,179
716,493
92, 670
(»)
-3 .3
+ 5 4 .4 + 5 9 .9 + 2 5 .1
+ 2 4 .7 + 9 .9 + 1 9 .0
+ 1 9 .6 + 5 1 .4 + 1 7 .1
+ 1 .8 + 4 3 .1 + 2 0 .2
- 9 5 .1
.09
.05
- 4 . 5 - 3 2 . 6 + 4 -5
- 1 7 . 5 - 2 0 .3 + 1 1 .9
- 2 . 9 + 5 .1 + 1 .3
- 2 . 2 + 2 .7 + 6 .2
.40
.55
.45
.55
.62
.68
.54
.56
.05
.05
(«)
1.00 1.25 1.19
.89
.74
.75
.82
.96
.93
.94
.80
.96
.80
.59
.98
.97
.84
.66
.99
1.03
APPENDIX B
i Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
I Based on the reports of 1 agency in each urban area except Oakland, San Francisco, Indianapolis, and Springfield (M ass.)— 2 agencies in each area; and Bridgeport— 3 agencies.
> Territory and population to which reports relate are shown in appendix A , p. 65.
* Included in report for Oakland.
* Territory to which reports relate was changed to cover all of the county after Jan. 1, 1934.
6 N ot computed because of change in territory to which reports relate.
7 Report not available.
* Allowances provided, January-M ay and September-December.
* Allowances provided, January-June and September-December.
i° Allowances provided, January-April and September-December.
II Allowances provided, January-March and October-December.
Includes expenditure for boarding-home care.
13 Allowances provided during 11 months.
11 Included in report on general public relief.
13 Allowances reported separately January-April; expenditure for other months included in report on general publio relief.
16 Allowances provided during 8 months.
17 Allowances provided during 4 months.
18 Allowances provided during 9 months.
>* Less than one-tenth of 1 percent.
•
20 Allowances provided during 6 months.
31 Allowances provided during 7 months.
18 Allowances provided during 3 months.
33 Less than 1 cent.
31 Allowances provided during 1 month.
00
CD
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able D .
Total and per-capita 1 expenditure fr o m public and fr o m private fu n d s f o r old-age assistance in 74 specified urban areas; 1 9 29 -S 5
Total expenditure
1929
1930
1931
1932
Percent change from—
1929
to
1930
1933
1930
to
1931
1931
to
1932
1932
to
1933
Per-capita 1 expenditure
1933
to
1934
1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935
Public agencies«
California:
Berkeley (area»).............
Los Angeles (countv)____
Oakland (city)..
Sacramento (countv)
San Diego (county)______
San Francisco (county)
Delaware:
Wilmington (city).........
Indiana:
Evansville (countv)
Fort W ayne (county) . .
Indianapolis (county)..
South Bend (county). .
Kentucky:
Louisville (city)____
M aryland:
Baltimore (city)
Massachusetts:
Boston (city).....................
Brockton (city)...........
Cambridge (city)...........
Fall River ( c i t y ) ..............
Lawrence (city).... ...........
Lowell (city)........... ..
Lynn (city)..........................
M alden (city)...........
New Bedford (c ity )...
Newton (city)..... .........
Springfield (area*).............
Worcester (city)____
Michigan:
Detroit (c o u n ty )..............
Flint (county)______ . . .
Grand Rapids (county)..
Pontiac (county)________ _____
Saginaw (county)________|
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$23,620
315,515
189,571
' 81,761
90,275
177,455
$30,652
$43,919
613,870 1,076,127
257,990
138,888
154,673
120,382
156,594
302,749 337,867
<‘ )
365,319
151,673
176,658
373,728
« 16,785
0)
66,330
66,365
1» 74,120 . 148,401
1» 38,800
71,744
«84,134
185,980
118,943
178,810
$555
2,693
7,422
7,829
8,242
» 755
33,997
121,479
35, 752
107,594
138,391
+231
+7
+16
(«)
+22
+7
+12
...... ...... ....... ...... ......
+385
+176
+5
-9 1
-2
+1
1,205,435 1,299, 737 1,369,424
64,159
100,539
116,410
130, 591
142,070
161,413
82, 573
103,734
132,934
165,947
191,892
223,524
257,834
46,376
62,477
157,458
177,931
231,911
47,701
58,475
179,116
240,326
178,613
182,290
229,145
+ 1,399
+147
+627
+466
+316
+469
+260
+ 1 , 515
+546
+306
+473
+ 1,9 55
+19
-2 4
+18
+11
+ 13
+28
+31
+10
+30
+23
+41
+29
+8
+10
-2
(•)
+ 11
+ 11
+17
+ 24
+13
+9
+18
+2
1
>»21,643
>« 3,934
>5 5,365
>» 3,372
'*5,051
205,435
89,505
35,622
38,712
25,313
$0.26 $0.34 $0.48 $0.49
.14
.28
.49
.63 $0.72 $0.98
.67
.91 1.17
.77 » 1 .14 »1.36
+10
.58
.98 1 .0£ 1.07 1.08 1.19
+ 3 3 ____
.43
.57
.84 1.03 1.37
.75
+36
.28
.48
.53
.59
.63
.86
+35
+20
.....
(•)
.16
.52
.56
+100
+6
.........
—
+1
+28
+1C
-2
+13
+11
+60
50,519
100,341
128,924
65,917
94,096
+ 43
+76
+2{
+11
+30
+12
55,078
»3 2 ,2 0 0
» 67,791
» 31,100
>513,812
>5 22, 796
15 15,851
» 16, 532
» 40,857
'* 2,105
» 18,804
»8,809
» 18, 779
» 6 ,7 3 6
+30
+95
+36
+70
+33
+ 71
$1,594,403 $2,157, 593
• 539,593 * 647,351
152,807
168,496
215,902
287,166
400,758
543,708
—
—
—
—
—
+85
+121
+50
__ __
.01
.02
.03
.03
..... .....
.04
.06
.06
.06
.07
.09
.49
.12
.20
.19
.16
.40
.04
.17
.13
. 11
.03
1. 30
1. 21
.88
1.12
.77
.94
1.44
.59
1.08
.55
. 63
.71
1.04
1.24
.88
1.20
1.88
.64
1.40
.67
1.02
1.23
.97
1.33
2.18
.80
1.58
.73
1.15
1.40
1.22
1.66
2.52
1.08
2.06
.90
.93
1.17
(»)
+9
+849
+ 2,175
+.564
+1,048
+401
62
.65 1 31
49
.26
.20
.44
. 74 1.12
(u )
K9
!oi
.01
. 11
. 02
* 16
. 09
.04
.21
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 192&-35
urban area, and territory
included
Minnesota:
34,116
t
48,481
24,149
*7,260
109759
54,358
172,083
81,142
45,343
237,400
106,885
59,203
264,542
113,494
• 67,595
»17,980
*32,024
160,222
48,808
69,629
U 40,260
187,807
59,043
70,374
N ew Jersey:
N ew York:
114,194
199,610 143,600 100,435
392,912
219,185 414,588 484,878
23,475
30,185
11,084
36,277
7,263,289 8,970,553 7,409,351 6,912,208
23,823
25,816
28,223
27,701
505,859
285,199 561,826 631,658
186,672
145,166 219,540 217,141
233,812
147,153
246,988 235,272
83,568
99,931
48,072
93,381
Buffalo ( c o u n t y ) ..________
New Rochelle (city)_______
Niagara Falls (city)___ ____
Rochester (county)________
Utica (city) ’
.
Yonkers (city)_____________
Ohio:
Akron (county)____________
Dayton (county)__________
Springfield (county)_______
Toledo (county)___________
Pennsylvania:
ii 11,967
ii 9,679
11 11,701
■i 19,423
ii 11,979
n 14,010
ii 13,615
ii 134,885
ii 94,822
ii 16,055
u 20, 234
ii 6,868
ii 30,809
Altoona (c o u n ty )* ...............
Pittsburgh (county)_______
Reading (county)..................
Utah:
Salt Lake C ity (county)..
Washington:
is 8,354
68,713
63,036
52,915
42,343
28,045
i* 43,242
Wisconsin:
Milwaukee (county)............
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
13,250
20,515
24,836
30,224
31,240
63.009
130.076
183.948
221,784
262,306
APPENDIX B
* 40,828
* 30,466
* 161,036
* 100,265
*60,392
u 28,694
* 13,232
n 66,332
*20,709
Cincinnati (county)_______
Cleveland (county)________
CO
to
Total expenditure
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Percent change from—
1934
1935
1929
to
1930
1930
to
1931
1931
to
1932
1932
to
1933
1933
to
1934
Per-capita expenditure
1934
to
1935
1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935
Private agencies 1S
Connecticut:
New Haven (city)..
Massachusetts:
Boston (city)_______
Cambridge (c it y )...
Michigan:
Detroit (city)______
Minnesota:
St. Paul (cou n ty)...
Ohio:
Cleveland (county).
$7,135
$8,475
$8,008
$7,638
$10,245
$8,524
$7,030
+19
-6
-5
+34
-1 7
45,076
20,457
53,676
23,313
59,333
21,946
58,653
21,796
54,442
23,868
53,043
22,689
48,070
20,604
+19
+14
+ 11
-6
—1
-1
-7
+10
-3
-5
-9
-9
.06
.18
44,708
122,487
123,581
101,543
80,961
74,825
66,537 +174
+1
-1 8
-2 0
-8
-1 1
.03
.08
.08
.06
.05
.05
.04
37,737
40,929
44,131
45,778
43,704
40,224
37,099
+9
+8
+4
-5
-8
-8
.13
.14
.15
.16
. 15
.14
.13
220,231
191,882
111,240
104,746
115,338
+4
+4
- ,3
-4 2
-6
+10
.17
. 18
.16
.09
.09
.10
203,566
211,693
,
me uiuau area according to m e ItfdO census,
i ¡S88 . on the reports of 1 agency in each urban area.
Tenritory and population to which reports relate are shown in appendix A , p 65
* Included in report for Oakland.
*
reP°rts relate was changed to cover all of Alameda County after Jan. 1.1934
N o t computed because of change in territory to which reports relate.
7 Allowances provided during 11 months.
8 Allowances provided during 6 months.
9 Less than 1 percent.
10 Allowances provided during 7 months.
11 Allowances provided during 1 month.
19 Less than 1 cent.
13 Allowances provided during 9 months.
11 Allowances provided during 5 months.
15 Allowances provided during 4 months.
18 Allowances provided during 3 months.
17 Allowances provided during 2 months.
JS Based on the reports of 1 agency in each urban area, except in New Haven, Boston, and Detroit, where 2 agencies reported.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- 1 8 $0.04 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.06 $0.05 $0.04
.07
.21
.08
.19
.08
.19
.07
.21
.07
.20
.06
.18
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 192ÌH35
T y p e of agency, State and
urban area, and territory
included
Percent change from—
Total expenditure
State and urban area * and
territory included
1920
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1929
to
1930
1930
to
1931
1931
to
1932
1932
to
1933
1933
to
1934
Per-capita1 expenditure
1934
to
1935
1929 1930
1931
1932 1933
1934 1935
California:
Los Angeles (county).............
Oakland (c it y )..................
Sacramento (county).............
San Diego (county)................
San Francisco (county)_____
Colorado: Denver (county)........
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (area3) ..................
Hartford (area *).................. .
New Britain (city)..............
New Haven (area >)________
Illinois:
Chicago (county).....................
Springfield (county)...............
Iowa:
Des Moines (county).............
Sioux C ity (county)...............
Kansas:
Topeka (county)......................
W ichita (county)....................
Kentucky: Louisville (city)____
Louisiana:
N ew Orleans (parish)............
Shreveport (city)..... ...............
M aine: Portland (citv).............
M aryland: Baltimore (city). . .
Massachusetts:
Boston (city).............................
Brockton (city).......................
Cambridge (city).....................
Fall River (city)......................
Lawrence (city)........................
Lowell (city).............................
Lynn (city)................................
Malden (city)...........................
N ew Bedford (city)................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
+208
+ 168
+ 10
+251
+134
-6
-3
+60
+5
+1
-2 0
+19
-2
+52
+66
+23
+22
+30
+6
+2
-1
+37
+9
(0
+9
+ 19
-2
+23
(•)
+6
+ 21
+ 14
-5
1,342
-1 9
5,183
-9
399 +153
3,838
+12
+13
-8
+13
+33
+68
+19
+34
+5
-8
+31
-6 4
+6
+28
+108
+9
+26
+28
+16
+15
+1
—1
+1
+7
30,270
12,943
+3
+8
+29
+3
+5
+12
+15
+ 11
+2
+4
1,840
(*)
» 4,925
+8
+23
+ 21
+18
+29
+28
+1
+45
+1
-9
-8
-6
-1 1
+94
+4
-1
+20
+5
+1
+97
+10
+36
-1 4
+33
+5
+7
+«
+ 21
+ 11
+24
+25
+5
+12
-3
+18
+13
+4
+17
+26
+ 51
+5
+ 27
-1 5
-1 4
+11
-1
+10
+27
+2
-2
+8
+2
+8
+5
-9
-1
+4
+8
+e
—6
-9
+5
+13
-«
+1
+2
+8
-9
+37
+13
$46,282
21,008
22,388
4,350
23,642
40,650
$16,794
142,687
56,359
24,547
15,258
55,223
38,135
$16,266
227,871
59,013
24,798
12,203
65,505
37,395
$24,781
378,890
72,430
30,241
15,901
69,131
38,007
$24,481
(4)
(0
520,366 $637,192 $837,754
78,901 s 130,065 s 148,395
30,249
32,104
34,741
17,364
32,049
20,931
82,409
94,025
103,512
35,205
35, i73
37,219
770
2,428
60
2,312
625
2,213
152
2,583
706
2,035
172
3,439
1,188
2,417
231
3,599
1,095
3,176
84
3,804
1,134
4,059
175
4,150
319,336
38,724
401,927
49,713
466,461
57,198
471,091
56,481
474,894
60,398
473,630
11,104
480,262
22,204
24,865
9,099
25,605
9,817
33,074
10,113
34,820
11,353
29,532
12,543
30,041
12,993
1,940
2,922
15,893
2,086
3,605
19,158
2,452
4,650
24,584
2,472
6,735
24,786
2,248
6,197
23,583
1,998
(•)
10 2,084
3,600
3,600
7,000
7,250
7,215
6,101
6,375
18,862
6,408
37,115
7,056
50,434
6,054
67,023
8,683
5,831
6| 342
71,629
3,737
7,200
84,718
40,570
3,286
7,859
4,191
1,086
5,110
2,064
1,792
3,751
42,862
3,965
8,705
5,212
1,352
5,348
2,312
1,738
4,429
48,200
4,132
10,160
6,575
2,046
5,616
2,942
1,472
3,801
53,453
4, 111
11,178
8,353
2,077
5,504
3,171
1,495
4,122
56,263
3,730
11,089
8,664
2,232
5,811
2,978
1,367
4,321
58,254
4,229
10,437
8,758
2,265
6,279
2,710
1,872
4,900
59,279
4,906
10,832
9,436
2,484
7,201
2,843
2,199
5,646
( 7)
-8 2
-9 1
+ 3 2 $0.02
+14
.07
. 16
+8
.02
+53
.04
+10
. 14
C)
$0.19 $0.18 $0.27 $0.27
.24 $0.29 $0.38
.06
. 10 .17
.21
.28 6.27 ‘ .31
.20
.25
.21
.23
.24
.17
. 17 .21
.06
.08
.08
.10
.07
.15
.15
.09
.10
. 11 .13
.16
. 13 . 13 .13
. 13 .12
. 12
+18
+28
+128
-8
(8)
.01
(“)
.01
(8)
.01
<8)
.01
(8)
.01
<8)
.02
.01
.01
(8)
.02
.01
.01
(8)
.02
.01
.02
(8)
.02
.01
.02
.01
.02
+1
+100
.08
.35
.10
.44
. 12
.51
. 12
.51
.12
.54
. 12
. 10
. 12
.20
+1
. 14
.09
. 15
.10
.19
.10
.20
. 11
.17
. 12
. 17
.13
. 18
. 13
-8
.02
.02
.05
.02
.03
.06
.03
.03
.08
.03
.05
.08
.03
.05
.08
.02
.02
.01
.02
.01
.01
.02
.02
.02
.09
.09
.02
.09
.05
. 10
.06
.09
.08
.02
.08
.09
.09
.05
.10
. 11
.05
.05
.07
.04
.01
.05
.02
.03
.03
.05
.06
.08
.05
.02
.05
.02
.03
.04
.06
.06
.09
.06
.02
.06
.03
.03
.03
.07
.06
.10
.07
.02
.05
.03
.03
.04
.07
.06
.10
.08
.03
.06
.03
.02
.04
.07
.07
.09
.08
.03
.06
.03
.03
.04
.08
.08
.10
.08
.03
.07
.03
.04
.0 5
o
+136
-3 6
+14
+18
+2
+16
+4
+8
+10
+15
+18
+15
W
CO
00
T
able
E.- -Totalandper-capita expenditure from public fu n d s fo r aid to the blind in 79 specified urban areas; 1929-85— Continued
Total expenditure
Percent change from-
1929
Massachusetts— Continued.
Newton (city)____________
Springfield (city)............... I
Worcester (city)...................
Minnesota:
Duluth (city)_____________
Minneapolis (county)........
St. Paul (county)_________
Missouri:
Kansas C ity (city)..............
St. Louis (area3) ..................
Nebraska: Omaha (cou n ty)...
N ew Jersey:
Jersey C ity (city)................
Newark (city)_____________
The Oranges (area *)______
Trenton (city)_____________
N ew York:
Albany (county)__________
Buffalo (county)__________
N ew Rochelle (city)______
N ew York (city!__________
Niagara Falls (city)_______
Syracuse (city)______ _____ _
Utica (city)_________ .
Ohio:
Akron (county)......................
Canton (county)__________
Cincinnati (county)_______
Cleveland (county)________
Columbus (county)..............
Dayton (county)...................
Springfield (city)...................
Toledo (county)___________
Youngstown ( c o u n t y ) .....
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$720
2,286
7,434
1930
$900
2,680
7,717
1931
$1,104
2,700
8,064
1932
$1,714
3,245
9,579
Per-capita expenditure
1929
to
1930
1930
to
1931
1931
to
1932
1932
to
1933
1933
to
1934
$1,685
4,203
10,180
+25
+ 17
+4
+ 23
+1
+5
+ 55
+ 20
+19
+13
+15
-7
+5
-3
- 1 3 $0.01
+9
.01
+ 17
.04
+18
+21
+13
+1
+9
+3
+7
-2
+8
+19
+8
.02
0
+9
+5
-1 7
.16
.14
.02
+9
+3
-5
+21
.01
.01
0
.03
+10
+ 11
+29
0
.04
.02
.02
.03
.01
1933
1934
1935
$1,944
3,673
8,952
$1,944
3,873
8,709
1934
to
1935
12,043
10,895
14,613
12,310
14,681
12,349
15,978
12,737
17,081
12,480
9,675
20,251
13,462
70,575
156,500
6,254
75,750
170,425
7,374
86,975
187,300
8,763
94,700
204,000
9,801
105,700
211,750
9,810
114,850
222,300
8,161
+ 11
+6
+22
+7
+9
+18
+16
+ 10
+19
+9
+9
+ 12
0
1,915
4,042
780
3,501
2,035
5,170
946
4,310
4,586
9,007
1,001
5,316
7,274
14,023
1,556
6,390
7,866
14,769
1,447
7,060
6,883
15,510
1,676
6,423
7,476
15,976
1,596
7,779
+6
+28
+ 21
+ 23
+125
+74
+6
+ 23
+59
+56
+ 55
+20
+8
+5
-7
+11
+16
-9
7,659
12,287
896
198,975
960
8,229
14,080
651
198,523
960
8,102
16,791
611
199,115
960
8,863
21,767
660
196,075
960
8,553
26,908
735
200,000
960
8,108
29,495
935
200,000
» 720
8,912
32,578
1,206
199,544
+7
+16
-2 7
(7)
-2
+19
-6
0
+9
+30
+8
-2
-4
+24
+11
+2
-5
+10
+27
6,242
8,696
11,226
11,225
10,336
11,076
5,"468
10,256
+39
+29
0
+27
-8
+ 11
+7
—16
-7
56,976
57,255
57,996
60,862
29,710
3,240
18,513
21,995
13,499
62,344
57,257
65,890
68,456
30,040
3,245
22,615|
23,3511
15,603
76,986
57,330
73,875
66,361
31,189
3,027
28,292
22,788
12,644
76,384
69,278
75, 792
65,055
30,538
3,273
36,676
23,096
11,495
66,427
59,896
74,565
62,864
27,785
3,743
32,066
23,138
14,034
44,567
58,566
75,693
61,179
27,698
4,119
30,335
2i; 557
12,473
34,971
58,425
67,056
57,885
27,739
4,095
28,146
21,834
+9
0
+14
+13
+1
0
+22
+6
+16
+24
0
+12
-3
+4
-7
+25
-2
-1 9
-1
+3
+3
-2
-2
+8
+30
+1
-9
-1 3
+1
-2
-3
-9
+14
-1 3
0
+22
-3 3
-2
+2
-3
0
+10
-5
-7
-1 1
-2 2
0
-1 1
—5
0
10,200
63,500
147,750
5,134
+12
+4
-1 3
— 25
-1
-7
+1
1929 1930
.03
.26
.10
.05
. 17
. 11
.05
.05
.09
1932
0.01 $0.02
.02 .02
.04
1935
$0.03 0.03 $0.03
.04
.22
.18
.04
.02
.02
.02
.05
.04
.05
.24
.20
.04
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
State and urban area and
territory included
CO
Pennsylvania:
Washington:
Wisconsin:
6,309
8,235
56,793
15,251
7,882
9,077
60,183
15,648
9,466
10,621
61,099
16,843
9,711
10,724
63,482
12; 895
24,634
13,659
6,294
30,016
22,329
27,774
27,809
258,458
176^707
36,138
43,548
12; 300
59,826
37,111
54,731
22,093
11,029
13,665
72; 730
13,592
13,774
14,983
78,911
12,385
> Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
* Based on the reports of 1 agency in each urban area.
* Territory included in reports is shown in appendix A , p. 65.
* Included in report for Oakland.
• Territory to which reports relate was changed to cover all of Alameda County after Jan. 1,1934.
• N ot computed because of change in territory to which reports relate,
i Less than 1 percent.
8 Less than 1 cent.
# Report not available.
i® Allowances provided during 1 month,
u Allowances provided during 11 months,
is Allowances provided during 9 months,
i* Allowances provided during 7 months.
h Allowances provided during 6 months.
+ 10 2
+202
+ 12 2
.07
.03
.1 0
.0 2
.04
.04
.06
.06
.07
.07
.07
.07
+159
. 14
.1 1
.0 1
.13
.14
.14
.13
.13
.16
.14
+ 12 0
.06
.06
.13
+48
.08
.1 2
+ 110
+126
+ 99
+86
+83
+119
+ 1,197
+103
.1 2
.13
+ 19
+25
+7
+25
+20
+3
+ 10
+6
+17
+ 1
+2
+6
+3
+8
+4
-2 3
+ 14
+27
+15
+6
+25
+ 10
+9
-9
.08
.06
.07
.16
.1 0
.1 2
.07
.08
.17
.08
.08
.17
.15
.09
.08
. 19
.15
. 10
.09
. 14
.17
. 12
. 10
. 15
.2 2
. 13
. 11
. 15
APPENDIX B
Milwaukee (co u n ty ).............
Racine (county).......................
5,309
6,597
53,295
14,442
13 1 2 ,168
13 4 ' 520
13 2,835
13 11,582
u 10,656
14 12,304
13 14 ' 011
1« 138' 807
is 96’ 377
n 16,479
14 3 ! 357
14 6,054
14 27| 149
50
o*
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able
F .- - Average monthly num ber o f cases receiving general relief adm inistered by public and by jo in t public and private agencies , average
monthly number per 10,000 popu lation,1 and average m onthly relief per case in 99 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -8 5
Cases receiving relief
Average monthly number per 10,000
population 1
Average monthly number
1929
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933 »
1934«
1935'
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1935
TRENDS
Type of agency, State,
and urban area *
Average monthly relief per case
IN
Public agencies
27,274
22,719
1,304
(1)
77,993 102,005
1 6,651 ® 12,086
2,127
2,366
4,780
7,785
i® 7, 009 31,010
(«)
136,33t
» 19,88c
5,305
12,585
34,195
'
4,679
9,737
17,179
31,321
243
676
468
758
3,796
911
1,391
4,591
1,292
2,640
1,106
472.4 632.1
44.1
77.8
17.1
27.4
33.0
36.2
59.8
64.2 91.0
66.3 125.9
17.4
72.4
33.4
141.8
(8)
461.9
254. 5
166.2
371.3
488.8
526.5
$9.25 $12.89 $16.62
(8)
13.67 (»)
617.3 $28.65 $19.93 $17.07 $14.62 18.26 24.92
418. 7
19.84 ®25.86
373.6 12.81 11.69 7.93
6.05 7.91 17. 83
600.2 12.21 16.59 16.47 15.09 11.73 31.08
530 0
19.86 21.17
(«)
33.59
936.80
36.52
47.22
30.92
» 741
» 672
» 961
2,817
8,616
14,103
16,233
25.7
23.3
485
242
126
(“ )
766
317
(it)
2,031
1,146
3,141
3,407
3,580
4,118
3,794
2,568
3,794
4,362
2,678
4,208
5,506
2,338
26.5
14.7
18.5
171.5 224.7 258.6 286.8 17.60
31.96 40.01 46.07
46.0 Ì23.8 207.7 231.2 265.9 335.2 23.32 35.53 36.55 28! 75 24.51 33.63 40.98
46.5 168.2 525.5 376.9 393.1 343.2 19. 71 17.70 18.84 18.42 19.20 21.93 35.32
(»)
3,432
109
407
0»)
6, Ò96
1001
680
(>•)
“ 11,336
23,461
93
15.45 12.87 12.75 17.37 26.00 27.02
114,493
5,944
5,257
4,069
279.0 369.1 326.6 252.7
23.44 21.45 20.76
•4,978
9,736
20,113
17,410
102.2 200.0 413.1 357.6
19.88 26.70 28.61
437
‘ •7,888
358
14,872
302
13,578
490
i® 6, 207
665
5,966
(»)
4,221
(»)
2,618
i® 16,482
22,403
19,072
74,036
22,475
365
«6,578
96,903 138,938
25,836
682
3,742l
267
- 21.2
8,950
26.2
43.7 535.4 979.4 892.6 592.7 flO. 91
468.5 463.9
/ .........
\_____
480.1 652.5 555.5
159,898
10.2
18.1
3,897
13.2
12.1
103.0 285.8 383.0 348.9 401.5 { : : : : :
1 7 .9 5
11.3
44.3
82.8 334.9 348.81 9 .7 3
9.48
7.07
7.12
8.20
5.96
10.17 12.08
9.79 9.40
3.73
6.17
3.43
9.42
16.39
12.51
17.28 17.73 20.12
30.55
26.99 24.45 28.13 U 1 .9 3 33.17
9.09 9.02 12.61 25. 32
12.78 11.24 12.20 10.12 16.25 22.23
R E L IE F , 1 9 2 9 -3 5
329
97.9 299.3 489.9 563.9 20.84
P R IV A T E
21.2
143.8
353.2
234.1
149.8
228.0
110. 5
AND
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
•2a 384
P U B L IC
Alabama:
B irm ingham ...................
California:
Berkeley.............................
Los Angeles.................
Oakland.............................
Sacramento......... ...........
San Diego....................
San Francisco..............
Colorado:
Denver.............................
Connecticut:
Bridgeport-...................
Hartford...........................
New Britain...................
Delaware:
W ilmington......................
District of Columbia:
Washington......................
Florida:
Jacksonville:
Agency no. 1_________
Agency no. 2.................
M iam i:
Agency no. 1 ................
Agency no. 2_________
Georgia:
Atlanta..............................
Illinois:
Chicago:
Agency no. 1................
Agency no. 2................
Agency no. 3 ................
Springfield.....................
Indiana:
Iowa:
Des Moines:
Sioux C ity:
415
62
(»»)
(>*)
242
464
161
(1»)
(«»)
504
840
874
(12)
1,261
1,067
142
179
188
116
81
»218
(“ )
403
809
631
Kansas:
(«)
297
Louisiana:
(“ )
M aine:
150
239
5,519
5,252
17,187
5,061
3,574
21.48
24.38
21.56
23.11
19.32
1,092
4,568
1,339
7,289
17.78
24.11
2,214
C7)
23.17
9.73
649
1,281
2,492
3,356
5,359
19.55
22.74
is 3,005
1* 2,120
15,751
2,596
17,979
1,371
24.12
17.87
730
1,337
1,503
33.45
io 24,900
33,617
32.51
43.83
38.86
43.15
29.15
32.65
37.13
35.09
43.47
36.41
47.52
40.74
43.71
Maryland:
Massachusetts:
M alden..............................
N ew Bedford...................
Springfield........................
Worcester.................. —
Michigan:
5,677
11,447
3,821
560
(12)
('*)
(12)
(12)
(“ )
20 995 »01,804 20 2, 138
521
459
315
809
1,079
650
1,246
706
503
357
(12)
(»»)
20 806 2 0 1,306 »0 1,534
99
149
68
1,852
809
(»)
2,511
1,176
734
21,393
1,000
(‘»)
3,296
1,242
1,805
2,346
1,034
2,286
245
3,454
4,404
26,515
1,244
1,991
2,533
758
1,806
2,506
»»911
1,650
531
4,437
5,183
36,365
2,196
2,715
4,513
3,215
3,673
4,211
1,567
3,182
965
5,213
5,813
19,120
27,945
3,659
48,216
4,367
48,479
4,369
3,675
Flint
Grand Rapids:
Saginaw..................... —
Minnesota:
St. Paul..............................
Missouri:
Kansas C ity ........... .........
387
562
2,835
(22)
313
(22)
795
(»»)
1,733
i22)
2,003
5,701 »16,951
io 9,967
2 , 674
2,084
11,718
2,633
2,861
(>2)
1,068
821
('*)
1,586
1,148
(“ )
2,917
1,938
2,952
8,014
5,199
4,629
11,674
10,752
7,310
17,563
13,681
»9,661
14,695
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
29,471
«2,328
B
857
1,435
A P P E N D IX
127
1,762 1» 5,321
2,689
(12)
(12)
(“ >
3,828
2,130
2,317
1,911
36.19
26.14
24.58
27.50
20.90
28.45
29.63
33.92
18.02
CD
T able
F .— Average monthly num ber o f cases receiving general relief adm inistered by public and by jo in t public and private agencies, average
monthly num ber per 10,000 population, and average monthly relief p e r case in 9 9 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -8 5 — Continued
Cases receiving relief
Average monthly relief per case
Average monthly number per 10,000
population
Average monthly number
1929
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1935
TRENDS
Type of agency, State,
and urban area
c©
00
IN
Public agencies—Con.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
153
217
} 39,259
« 25,216
46,948
1.6
$9.11 $11.61 $12:05
\$22.53 $25.87
20.95
1.5 246.1 379.8 454.2 / .........
1.........
300
361
592
2,046
1,260
9,684
14,093
12.9
15.5
319
1,217
(>>)
M
664
2,400
442
('*)
2,353
6,301
750
(I2)
5,584
9,255
1,300
('*)
7,678
14,698
1,761
3,328
11,385
21, 678
(12)
4,191
14,048
23,388
(12)
5,959
10.1
27.5
21.0 74.3 176.3 242.4 359.5 443.6 15.65 11.03 16.75 18.63 19.87 26.24 25.81
54.3 142.4 209.2 332.3 490.1 528.7 15.89 15.65 19.79 18.95 22.02 31.96 30.51
27.2 46.1
79.9 108.2
23.55 19.12 16.99 25.31
269.8 339.7 483.1
24.48 ' 28.50 27. 51
1,933
(“ )
3,370
(»>
47,921
2,666
304,443
3,867
14,778
10,478
3,418
5,361
45.1
243
1,907
716
393
276
18,954
26,461
37,120
816
1,640
2,358
50,621 104,191 275,647
1,960
2,596
2,988
8,519
8,213
13,516
4,768
6,773
8,962
2,035
1,695
3,225
2,864
2,785
5,070
25.9
91
925
339
(“ )
180
8,369
151
is 2,436
719
5,123
2,018,
813
892
12.1
28.2
16.2
32.2
58.1
34.2
38.6
20.5
97
3« 46
90
»» 76
324
3» 169
678
29 623
•1,725
*» 3,711
• 1,745
w 1,660
3,593
3,556
3,923
2,749
3,432
2,771
3,818
2,229
•2,200
6,924
7,046
562
2» 6,647 j 30,815
27 32,197
54,543
36,168
io 2,221
28 9,321 } 15, 599
1,903
11,524
17,235
13.4
25.4
112.1
28.0
3.5
95.3
156.1
90.4
79.9
66.2
87.8
253.9
151.1
73.0
259.7
259.6
227.8
200.0
206.8
415.7 604.9 $6.79 $5.87
4.92
(“ )
1.6
1.5
5.5
2.8
6.2
628.5 29.67 28.58 28.19 27.12 22.53
493.7
20.36 18.19 24.02
439.3
4.78 22.02 29.15
512.5 22.14 24.85 25.73 25.08 14.95
450.4 rr* Zp 35.62 37.19 28.63 21.28
Too* ? 500.6
20.20
26.80 28.75
317.0 336.0
8.15 8.53 14.50 16.61
376.5 398.2 17.57 20.10 21.97 24.56 21.70
36.36
42.28
43.09
37.95
37.96
34. 36
30.86
40.57
40.43
43.65
40.38
36.66
42.58
36.58
37.27
45.48
176.1
290.0
131.2
148.6
366.9
277.9
294.9
246.1
12.61
10.13
16.28
13.01
15.46
14.58
18.81
18.96
350.4
216.5
287.0
199.6
11.5 122.3 522.9 613.7
22.8
21.05 25.84
486.9
436.7
397.7
396.0
12.82
6.90
14.91
11.55
i 12. 42 19.58 11.47
[
268.0 454.0 572.2
1.7
(«)
354.4
303.7
150.3
344.0
250.3
324.0
166.6
212.7
99.2 312.2 317.7
68,746
13,612
54.1
319.7 432.0 477.4 / .........
1------69.6 421.4 497.7 10.84
7.42
11.77
8.74
20.54 19.86
15.71
»
14.70
| 19.60 23.10
16.88
25.29 25.62 29.03
21.37
} 19.95 21.30
18.76
9. ÌÓ 18.17
19.18 22.19
R E L IE F , 1 9 2 9 -3 5
D a y t o n ...........................
170
P R IV A T E
New Rochelle M—.........
New Y o rk ........... ...........
Niagara Falls_________
Rochester________ _____
Syracuse......... .................
Utica.................................
Yonkers...........................
N orth Carolina:
Asheville..........................
Charlotte.........................
Greensboro.....................
W inston-Salem ............
Ohio:
Canton.............................
Cincinnati:
Agency no. 1________
Agency no. 2________
Cleveland...................... .
Columbus:
Agency no. 1 ........... .
O2)
AND
Nebraska:
Omaha________________
N ew Jersey:
Jersey C i t y . . .................
Newark............................
The Oranges...................
Trenton...... ............... ..
N ew York:
P U B L IC
M issouri— Continued .
St. Louis:
Agency no. 1________
» 2,334
• 14,634
•8'583
3,185
23,649
12,524
3,664
22,858
12,329
339.5 350.2 402.9
503.4 680.1 657.4
504.9 530.4 522.1
16.89 18.99 20.80
15.58 18.63 20.53
17.05 19.82 22.81
20 7,767
17,952
15,253
229.6 530.7 451.0
12.62 22.57 26.67
1,063
30 5,796
376
6, 506
472 } .........
7,969
1,595
881
4,687
877
} 29.5
6,024
Oregon:Pennsylvania:
Allentown:
(*•)
00
00
00
396.7 398.0 488.2
f.........
1.........
398.2 493.5
( 6 .5 4
\ .........
16.49 13.43 16.69
13.98 24.00 31.82
Altoona:
420
413
1,427
2,114
» , 069
2 4
Bethlehem:
Agency no. 1.................
Wilkes-Barre:
Agency no. 1_________
209
276
465
595
00
00
173
416
3,393
3,522
1,041
17,644 « 46,145
15,105 35,789
73
« 1,602
5,884
5,037
65,082
69,510
1,033
916
10 7,032
924
11,085
954
7,233
819
2,512
4,530
00
8,747
I# 7,777
00
00
00
00
5,979
7,143 } .........
3.4
33 6,185 »3 6,409
33 6, 524 33 7,951
7.3
33 78,338 33 103,503
33 79,367 33 84,347
00
}
7,014
14.7
24.9
3.9
12.4
14.8
59.4
90. 4
109.7
209.9
287.4
333.6
505.7
220.7
372.2
401.5
577.5
9.0
11.9
44.6 343.0 518.3 353.3
462
14,523
641 } 28.0
17,770
35.8
49.3
1,600
17,799
1,605 1.........
24,334
6.80
228.7 24.01 32.19 17.11
453.6 19.73 15.25 19. 31
530.5
14.81
18.34
613.7
(11.15 .13.94
(.........
f 9.32
151.3 272.8 482.8 593.1 \
371.2 435.8 582.8
4.84
7.40
8.99
13.26 20.30 26.51
20.00 19.93 15.95 18.46
18.04
15.44 19.36
17.07 16.25
16.46 19. 73
19.04 17.79
29.9 289.3
121.1
200.9
236. 5
260.4
4.55
8.27
12.73
25.00
26.81
20.18
27.02
24.25
31.82
35. 31
29.18
35.02
35.19
9.24 9.34 9.41
15.82 15.40 25.90 35.37
12.96 14.24 14.33 16.77 15.23
26.00 30.85
f.........
(.........
9.49 12.06 13.38
23.80 26.75 34.77
16.35 31.91 34.37
239
381
1,379
3,843
5,181
6,166
7,897
9.4
15.1
54.5 151.9 204.8 243.7 312.2 14.40 13.36 14.71
17.41
77
109
105
260
941
6,114
4,085
12.4
17.5
16.9
41.8 151.1 605.0 404.3
7.28
4.52
5.77 10.56 10.58
«607
» 1,747
2,161
1,407
5,579
6,904
6,040
5,538
7,603
6,784
12.1
28.4
63.1
38.9 357.9 355.2
67.0 225.3 248.1
97.0 271.0 304.4
6.14
5.05 12.23 16.35
10.79 15.53 18.99
8.91 13.41 17.83
57
10,454
« 2,515
5,084
77
11,382
4,531
11,877
67
| 7.6
7,938
4,312
11,570
74.7
87.3
90.2 322.7 351.8 245.8
54.8
64.5
191.1 344.3 327.7
98.6 257.3 601.2 585.7
10,731
384
382
3« 13,411
13,362
102
15,870
12,341
}
97
14,833
3.5
4.1
10.6 309.3 374.7 346.1
10,284
8,498
9,178
B
Rhode Island :
Providence......................
South Carolina:
109
218
(‘ 0
(»)
5.37
A P P E N D IX
Erie............ .........................
Philadelphia....................
Pittsburgh
..............
Reading:
Agency no. 1................
Agency no. 2_________
Scranton:
Agency no. 1
144
»85
95
128
(»)
(»)
30.0 102.0 151.2
8.98
7.61
Tennessee:
M em phis________ ______
Nashville................. .........
Texas:
Dallas:
Agency no. 1 ................
Agency nos. 2 and 3 ..
Houston:
179
270
632
M 248
20 250
2,184
45
2,797
0»)
1,083
1,275
55
2,882
1,947
1
121
Utah:
Salt Lake C ity.................
547
124
634
148
1,012
00
8.0
......
3.4
6.96
(10.63
l.....
6.56
6.80
11.50 13.93 12.66 10.45 8.41
9.83
2.57
2.57 6.58 13.23 13.38 14.34
9.50 11.75 12.79
7.59 6.36 8.57 11.95 12.35
6.30
f.........
110.57 11.01
10.06
46.4 542.5 507.1
28.2
32.7
52.1
529.8 437.8 472.8
9.01
8.07
7.34
6.08
10.52 13.40 13.56
5.65 12.06 11.86
8.11 10.43 11.41
11.55 24.75 25.41
See footnotes at end of table.
CO
CD
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able
F .— Average monthly number o f cases receiving general relief administered by public and by jo in t public and private agencies, average
monthly number per 10,000 population, and average monthly relief per case in 99 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -3 5 — Continued
Cases receiving relief
Average monthly number per 10,000
population
Average monthly number
1935
1933
1934
1930
1931
1932
Public agencies— Con.
Virginia:
Norfolk:
Agency no. 1________
Agency no. 2................
Richmond_____________
Washington:
Seattle:
Agency no. 1..............
Agency nos. 2 and 3 .
Tacoma________________
W est Virginia:
H u n t i n g t o n ........___
Wisconsin:
K e n o s h a ...............
M adison_______________
Milwaukee_____________
Racine:
Agency no. 1 . . . ..........
Agency no. 2 . . . ..........
»•30
» 200
359
(»>
('*)
258
(*»)
143
<»)
1,003
(»)
0*)
493
(»)
4,706
»
120
120.2 285.5 340.S
48.8
1,951
M 2,744
3,782
3,703
3,883
4,422
4,810
(»)
3,010
13,679
3,451
4,077
21,255
9,538
5,463
15,933
7,766
7, ISC
14,091
8,503
(»)
<M)
» 6,727
4,953
5,977
363.7 528.3 637.6
3,759
2,626
32,107
4,151
3,869
29,480
4,121
3,820
34,330
535.9 662.2 656.0 651.3
232.9 343.2 338.8
406.3 442.7 406.5 473.3
»552
742
377
747
1,323
(»)
13,105
3,042
(»)
29,465
37 380
1,913
4,387
3,802
14.0
31.0
81.5
158.1
212.3 262.9 $4.92
$12.77 $1.16
$9.08 $ 11.12 $19.07
17.50 4.53
6.14
9.10 $8.46 6.95 11.76 16.32
10.31 11.65 13.92 13.94
11.06 13.79 18.03 20.59
13.58 11.78 17.34 18.45
360.1 546.5 461.6 458.4
210.6 5821 474.0 519.0 10.65
6.7
486.3 421.4
9.87
11.93
Î25.04
30.94 24.55
Joint public and private
agencies
Indiana:
Fort W ayne................ ..
Iowa:
Sioux C ity _____________
Kansas:
Wichita_____________ . . .
Michigan:
F l i n t ...________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
» 4,846
»672
2,508
»937
33 3,388
1,323 » 2 ,0 5 9
18.19
19.61 20.61 34.50 35.04
29.65 28.80 31.81
Ì8.99 19.01 30.54 32.28
17.80
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Type of agency, State,
and urban area
Average monthly relief per case
Ohio:
Akron__________________
Columbus.........................
D ayton................. .............
Toledo...........- ...................
Youngstown.....................
470
436
412
382
(")
1,165
1,069
1,354
2,019
(» )
1,824
2,414
2,615
5,101
3,266
16.7
7,483
4,601
5,941 2811,528
8,929
6,388
10,461 »9 4,919
6,316 »»10,373
12.1
15.1
13.1
41.4
29.6
49.5
69.4
64.8
66.9
95.6
175.5
192.1
160.0
164.5
233.6
359.8
371.5
15.00 13.79 14.01 13.22
11.57 9.96 14.08 19.74
18.82 17.59 15.23 11.33
20.54 20.40 17.81 10.77
7.50 8.65
266.0
319.3
326.5
513.2
610.2
18.02
20.72
13.95
11.46
11.68
. 65.
2ioin3tE ^ iu d M cases aided only through employment under the Civil W orks
December4 Excludes cases aided only through employment under the Civil W orks A dministration, January M arch.
aWed only through employment under the W orks Progress Administration, August-December.
• Relief provided during 6 months,
v Relief provided during 8 months.
• Included in report for Oakland.
..................... . ______To„ i
• Territory to which reports relate was changed to cover all of Alameda County after Jan. l , 1934.
io Relief provided during 4 months.
n Includes aid for the blind.
» Report not available.
•5 d “ S
n
unemployables was reported by agency no. 1.
W
^ eCfBjneludes reports of emergency-relief committee which operated as a private agency, February 1931-April 1932.
I* Relief provided during 3 months.
20 includes cases receiving mothers' aid.
. .
.____ .
»1 Relief provided during 8 months preceding transfer of cases to county department.
23 N ot TOmpute^becauM county funds given to clients of private agencies were not reported.
24 includes veterans' relief, 1931-33.
2» Relief provided during 1 month.
26 Relief provided during 6 months.
.
. . . .
,
, ,,
__ .
27 Relief provided during 5 months. Includes relief to transient and homeless individuals.
2 BPublic agency operated Jointly with private (nonsectarian) agency prior to October 1933.
2 » Figures relate to city only.
so Relief provided during 10 months.
*i Relief provided during 7 months.
32 Relief includes expenditure for care of children outside their own homes.
** Reports from county poor boards not included.
. .
. ____
5
x Relief provided during 10 months.
. . . . ____ . . .
*2 Relief provided during 11 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
»8 Relief provided during 9 months.
„
„„„„„„
39 Relief provided during 7 months preceding transfer of cases to a private agency.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
«>>•' »* ■>»“ <>
'
Report was not available, M a y -
APPENDIX
u R ^iu d esrep orteo^ oin t Emergency Relief Stations which were operated as a private agency, October 1931-February 1932.
i‘ Public agency operated Jointly with 3 private agencies from Aug. 1,, 1932-Sept, l , 1933.
o'1™«
T able
G.
Average monthly number o f cases receiving veterans' relief adm inistered by public agencies, average m onthly num ber per 10,000
population,1 and average monthly relief per case in 57 specified urban areas / 1929—3 5
Cases receiving relief
Average monthly number
Average m onthly relief per case
Average monthly number per 10,000 population
1930
1929
llinois:
Chicago....................
418
Iowa:
Sioux C ity ...............
49
M aryland:
Baltimore................
192
Massachusetts:
Boston.....................
875
Brockton..................
88
Cambridge.......... ..
185
Fall R iv e r -............
144
Lawrence.................
98
L y n n .........................
0
M alden.....................
N ew Bedford_____
231
Newton....................
29
Springfield--..........
88
Worcester................
184
Michigan:
Detroit................... ..
160
Grand Rapids____
Pontiac........... .........
Missouri:
St. Louis..................
Nebraska:
Om aha................. ..
226
N ew York:
A l b a n y ...................
Buffalo...............
551
N ew Y o rk ............... 1,508
Niagara Falls_____
23
Rochester:
Agency no. 1____
Agency no. 2____
352
Syracuse...............
99
Utica................. ..
0
Yonkers....................
TO
TO
O
T
TO
TO
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
937
2,509
5,044
4,809
(*)
0
60
102
«207
35
300
371
559
597
541
1,143
115
199
285
106
0
0
390
37
114
313
1,060
164
209
374
105
0
142
457
43
196
305
2,060
227
384
771
247
351
206
744
143
591
872
2,719
251
353
667
215
416
263
608
188
820
843
00
TO
(0
00
(0
(0
00
(0
*)
220
TO
O
T
308
0
6
996
«597
9
1,160
7 980
«7
294
403
446
(*)
942
2,781
77
44
1,857
5,973
206
0
602
261
345
1,181
793
137
143
1,061
TO
»55
to
to
0
1932
1933
14.2
12.1
20.4
3.4
6.4
9 .0
8.39
14.87
17.22
15.82
669
2 .4
3.7
4.6
6.9
7.4
6.7
8.3
20.07
15.48
13.14
9.95
8.12
TO
TO
TO
TO
T
0O
11.2
13.8
16.3
12.5
11.5
14.6
18.0
17.6
24.7
12.5
13.6
25.7
18.4
32.4
12.3
30.74
26.37
27.23
23.52
36.20
35.79
24.31
27.18
25. 21
39.71
34.6
5.7
6.7
16.0
24.5
40.6
6.6
11.5
15.6
34.8
39.3
31.1
67,9
25.3 —
40. 7
45.3
54.0
28.8
47.9
43.2
24.60
22.50
24.89
22.30
26.43
20.5
4.4
5.1
9.4
26.4
35.6
33.8
66.9
29.0
34.3
35. 5
66.1
21.9
34.6
44.6
24.62
22.94
25.91
32.58
26.79
31.86
31.60
28.27
30.09
28.16
40.61
34.02
30.82
34.96
26.20
32. 25
27.50
40.85
33.76
36.50
29.47
43.83
41.68
26.70
32.88
26.26
33.73
28.33
35.59
30.43
29.73
25.30
36.54
46.83
26.85
478
.9
1.3
1.8
5.9
24.8
.4
6.8
40.7
.3
14.55
13.18
.3
13.48
10.94
14.40
5.66
14.03
16.32
9.46
12.6
17.3
19.1
42.2
10.18
7.07
6.40
8.51
7.2
2.2
3.0
12.4
4.0
10.2
3.5
24.4
8.6
27.3
12.2
51.1
17.1
44.8
47.7
54.8
16.1
39.5
30.60
45.04
35.69
31.51
50.95
33.72
20.68
34.27
54.45
35.65
19.55
30.30
33.74
31.63
14.14
23.47
33. 74
19.77
4.7
12.5
/
...........1 36.93
25.32
29.53
27.33
37.50
20.24
29.81
29.47
27.14
26.78
27.78
28.32
31.07
34.40
22.89
26.60
20.97
32.03
30.72
0
0
(*)
0
©
0
to
TO
TO
TO
TO
T
O
to
to
1931
6.3
m
TO
1935
10.0
TO
TO
TO
T
O
m
1934
2.4
TO
567
1,409
2,004
381
519 I
1933
5.9
155
606
3,893 4,176
11,854 11,154
338
298
485
1932
1.0
115
1,672
285
361
1931
4 .8
173
1,101
1930
92
984
to
to
1929
4.1
46.5
48.3
60.2
37.9
13.5
10.6
79.9
28.0
26.8
105.3
37.4
38.5
1935
$8.89 $10.28 $11.37 $16.69 $29.10
.............
3.1
2.8
10.87
10.5
9 .7
1934
15.95 $14.90 $18.16
¿48
9.05
23.02
28.33
11.15
22.94
23.24
7.4
4.9
12.89
26.79
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
State and urban
area 1
O
to
North Carolina:
Ohio:
Akron.......................
Canton.....................
Cincinnati........... .
Cleveland................
Columbus________
D ayton..... ...............
Springfield...............
Toledo____________
Youngstown...........
Oregon:
(»)
(*)
566
400
(*)
287
42
(»)
(*)
(* )
»)
(•)
475
(*)
258
46
(')
(*)
116
231
786
1,529
172
218
59
165
« 318
167
465
874
2,432
214
235
124
732
345
i° 234
115
»61
320
379
786
2,949
186
236
152
681
412
» 317
103
858
1,552
163
250
115
(*)
162
• 52
198
1,227
1,398
166
264
110
(*)
77
<2,953
R a cin e.....................
(*)
(5)
(»)
(•)
0)
(»)
(*)
(•)
Q
(»)
(»)
(•)
(»)
m
m
36
m
(•)
(»)
(•)
m
m
(•)
Q
(»)
(5)
(•)
(•)
(•)
')
(»)
(»)
(»)
(•)
(»)
(»)
(*)
52
(*)
66
(»)
92
4
140
62
12
504
63
<2
«
«
(«)
(*)
(•)
(•)
0)
19
(*)
(»)
(•)
W
«
*)
(5)
(*)
(*)
(<)
(*)
(»)
106
(»)
(*)
(»)
(*)
(»)
11
30
10
23
31
12
21
147
108
26
40
22
70
4.0
9.8
6.1
9.4
6.7
4.9
21.0
14.8
20.2
5.9
8.6
18.0
21.1
14.6
8
53
7
26
31
18
7
141
101
19
35
26
50
44
54
0)
(»)
(*)
103
792
»373
2,381
(*)
(*)
21
84
863 12 1,411
' 57
58
82
C)
(»)
51
(*)
(*)
I Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census.
* Based on the reports of 1 agency in each urban area.
3 Included in report on general public relief.
* Relief provided during 5 months.
13.9
7.4
9.3
17.1
13.3
24.5
5.2
8.6
22.1
19.6
17.4
9.2
4.6
14.6
12.9
4.5
9.1
16.7
1.5
8.9
20.8
11.6
4.6
9.7
16.0
6.9
3.3
6.40
17.93
18.77
4.75
4.84
5. 51
4.82
10. 71
20.08
9.40
19.06
12.56
7.83
9.67
9.90
6.30
10.61
17.05
13.12
17.88
13.00
7.37
0.48
6.58
4.73
.1
1.4
6.9
9. 1
7.0
9 1
11 9
6.4
.8
1.7
2 1
17.1
22 Ä
51.4
14 8
10 5
6.3
14.4
5.7
4.06
7.70
3.78
14. 71
15.41
14.79
17.37
10.09
6.91
8.21
5.20
4.48
25.46
21.42
19.82
23.02
12.49
6.68
10.06
9.60
27.26
19.44
24.94
12.04
7.10
10.46
10.30
19.48
17.99
27.25
15.07
29.41
23.16
18.52
20.03
26. 77
31.72
20.99
22.18
21.65
23.11
29.79
41.30
41.75
42.90
43.74
29.45
36.91
41.16
47.41
37.58
46.56
27.65
44.98
17.13
87.3
(*)
53
28.3
.6
2.1
.6
.8
1.8
.6
1.1
.8
.8
1.1
1.3
2.2
1.6
.5
3.8
.4
.9
1.8
.9
.4
.7
.7
.8
1.1
2.6
1.1
24.92
23.32
23.67
18.75
19.83
20.75
25.12
6.48
8.81
26.88
26.77
24.31
12.88
15.42
18.38
19.99
6.80
17.38
20.82
6.65
15.08
18.32
7.63
12.73
15.13
7.82
APPENDIX
Pennsylvania:
Allentown...............
Altoona.................. ..
Bethelehem............
Chester..... ...............
Erie...... ....................
Johnstown...............
Lancaster.................
Philadelphia...........
Pittsburgh...............
Reading...................
Scranton .................
Sharon.....................
Wilkes-Barre..........
Rhode Island:
Providence..............
Washington:
Seattle......................
Tacoma___________
Wisconsin:
Kenosha...................
9.6
3.3
3.4
10.4
13.3
12.7
4.8
8.0
8.6
4,7
13.5
7.21
Territory and population to which reports relate are shown in appendix A , p. 65.
* Report not available.
* Relief provided during 7 months.
7 Relief provided during 2 months.
8 Relief provided during 10 months.
* Relief provided during 4 months.
10
Relief provided during 1 month.
II Relief provided during 8 months.
12
Relief provided during 6 months.
O
00
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e H .—
Average monthly num ber o f fa m ilies receiving m others’ aid fro m public fu n d s, average m onthly num ber per 10,000 popu lation ,1 and
average m onthly allowance per fa m ily in 108 specified urban 'Ureas; 1 9 2 9 -8 5 _
Average m onthly allowance per family
Families receiving aid
Average m onthly number per 10,000 population 1
Average monthly number
1929
1934
1935
9.8
5.8
10. 5
7.3
15.4
6.4
13.6
17.0
5.9
14.0
19.1
7.6
14.8
11.9
10.7
20.3
20.0
9.7
15.1
13.4
18.8
26.4
10.8
12.9
14.9
20.4
25.8
13.3
15.5
6.6
6.7
7.1
7.2
6.7
6.3
6.6
44.60
43.18
43.19
43.16
42.93
44.38
45.32
126
155
57
179
4.0
4.5
6.9
8 .2
4.4
5.4
7.3
8.7
4.5
6.3
8.2
9.8
4.8
7.7
9.2
10.8
5.2
9.2
10.3
11.7
6.5
9.4
10.1
11.1
6.9
9.4
8.4
11.0
48.13
52.00
51.95
50.33
48.45
51. 51
52.02
49.85
48.91
50.33
53.48
51.74
45.92
51.18
51.54
51.65
47.67
51.99
48.90
50.76
46.19
48.93
49.10
50.19
45.82
51.96
47.43
48.40
1933
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
82
1,126
(*)
205
145
927
86
1,139
0)
218
135
862
89
1,278
(‘ )
242
124
889
95
1,622
0)
271
160
937
108
2,359
'577
284
204
960
(»)
2,953
»891
375
227
816
(»)
3,284
«970
366
279
985
9.0
5.1
9.5
5.2
14.4
6.9
14.6
189
193
205
207
192
182
191
Connecticut:
New Haven............
Delaware:
1933
1935
1932
$42.76 $43.96 $45.81 $41.13 $38.10
22.83 $22.62 $22.69
25.27 25.47
24.94 24.09
41.71 »39.43 »38. 75
24.44 25.46 21.76 23.70
24.93 24.51
25.01
25. 54 24. 29
27.33 28.05 29.18 28.26 28.51
44. 72 45.49
44.17 43.07 42.79 44. 70 38.31
74
74
47
133
80
88
50
142
82
104
56
160
86
127
63
175
96
151
70
191
124
125
137
148
152
161
157
11.6
11.7
12.9
13.9
14.3
15.1
14.7
23.98
24.08
24.37
24.32
23.03
22.43
22.23
130
139
162
178
200
200
209
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.7
4.1
4.1
4.3
67.19
71.63
69.45
63.59
61.29
61.81
60.62
-
119
155
69
180
1932
1934
1931
Hartford__________
1931
1933
1930
California:
San Francisco.........
Colorado:
1930
1932
1929
Dist. of Columbia:
Florida:
(•)
(•)
(•)
»551
»483
488
543
35.4
31.1
31.4
34.9
9.18
7.64
9.18
9.89
1,676
59
1,606
64
1,875
47
1,909
61
1,478
»47
1,350
»30
1,592
10 29
4.2
5.3
4.0
5.7
4.7
4.2
4.8
5.5
3.7
4.2
3.4
2.7
4.0
2.6
52.88
26.41
52.14
27.10
51.91
28.02
51.15
27.05
51.14
23.53
49.60
22.18
48.49
28.45
41
24
17
“ 33
22
44
26
19
»43
23
50
29
20
»59
24
64
35
21
»94
25
49
44
22
» 107
»37
46
37
57
126
»38
45
40
100
142
*36
3.6
2.1
.4
2.1
3.5
3.9
2.3
.4
2.7
3.7
4.4
2.5
.5
3.7
3.8
5.6
3.0
.5
5.9
4.0
4.3
3.8
.5
6.7
3.7
4.1
3.2
1.3
7.9
3.8
4.0
3.5
2.7
8.9
3.6
16.49
26.63
70.07
45.48
36.29
25.60
27.91
65. 79
46.90
35.68
25.13
27.26
62.50
42.78
33.25
24.86
17.79 22.39 21.55
24. 24 20. 44 33.22 34.66
56.61 43. 57 42.80
60.49
29.12
28.44 27.09
34.19
31.92 *22.41 »22.67 »22.66
250
155
276
156
293
138
295
173
296
182
296
180
302
165
14.5
15.2
16.0
15.3
17.0
13.6
17.1
17.0
17.1
17.9
17.1
17.7
17.5
16.2
18.95
17.55
18.35
16.97
18.17
17.35
18.06
17.05
16.30
19.43
69
61
66
55
76
66
114
101
125
86
92
(«)
74
(*)
8.1
4.5
7.7
4.0
8.9
4 .8
13.4
7.4
14.7
6.3
10.8
8.7
12.60
15.20
12.64
15.46
14.63
15.34
13.23
14.99
10.16
13.46
Illinois:
Indiana!
Iowa:
Sioux C ity ________
Kansas:
W ic h it a ..................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
15.24
21.09
11.00
—
15.37
19.19
15.79
—
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
State and urban
area3
O
Kentucky:
Louisville_________
Louisiana:
Shreveport-............
Maine:
Portland.................
Maryland:
71
101
117
121
138
135
208
2.0
2.8
3.3
3.4
3.9
3.8
5.9
45.25
49.64
45.72
41.92
38.72
38.02
10
26
34
32
60
33
43
2.5
3.4
4.4
42
6.5
4.3
5.6
11.16
10.06
11.19
9.14
5.59
8.08
11.55
31
28
29
27
34
37
4.8
4.4
4 .0
41
3.8
4.8
5.2
34.37
34.91
32.91
32.00
32.41
25.89
27.11
.5
.7
.8
1.8
2.0
1.9
........
68.38
53.88
53.56
49.59
48.99
43.84
10.9
11.2
12.2
14.1
17.6
70.44
73.03
70.80
66.43
58.69
49.21
57.04
60.39
57.90
65.57
60.34
56. 71
47.62
61.63
58.01
59.02
10.1
5 .2
2.7
6.8
9.4
4 .9
2.9
7.9
19.8
7.4
10.0
8.8
7.5
15.5
9 .9
8.8
9.1
6.7
3 .0
9.2
69.68
9.8
9.5
6.9
14.8
8.1
19.0
7.4
10.2
8.5
7.6
16.9
9.1
50.67
62.97
65.36
59.31
43.34
63.90
62.79
61.94
65.72
63.05
56.28
46.93
61.67
58.83
63.10
41.40
47.96
62.48
63.65
65.82
34
See footnotes at en d of tat le.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
59.74
57.13
61.43
65.03
57.00
69.75
61.18
75.80
57.53
64.79
52.61
69.33
62.96
72.39
74.03
63.48
72.23
74.13
64.22
53.99
60.92
60.61
62.15
48.11
62.22
74.53
61.13
62.39
59.56
24.29
40.82
54.12
59.45
24.29
40.71
50.64
56.87
22.34
37.34
48.43
25.36
49.41
21.48
29.99
35.50
23.85
39.02
19.69
25.78
27.61
22.20
43.08
23.09
27.25
50.70
21.07
22.14
43.52
36.47
41.18
43.55
37.09
40.52
46.75
37.65
37.99
42.14
38.21
35.51
38.66
37.69
34.83
37.69
43.13
36.06
39.52
45.11
2.5
2.0
22.54
40.03
23.81
33.60
24.29
39.06
26.12
34.36
24.96
32.18
23.58
35.29
23.83
37.80
8.1
7.8
30.90
26.84
24.78
21.80
17.50
18.59
21.25
21.6
34.1
10 9
28.0
22.4
38.6
31.4
29.56
31.13
27.98
30.85
31.59
33.47
30.11
32.47
31.26
32.67
31.98
30.04
30.08
32.14
30.56
28.69
28.86
32.51
31.69
20.00
27.01
30.97
28.47
20.31
26.44
30.01
31.4
22.6
31.7
11 4
34.9
7.5
7.6
3.3
24.0
11.0
7.2
4.6
7.3
7.6
3.3
25.9
11.9
9 .0
4.4
7.1
7 .0
8.1
9.3
3.3
3.7
27.1
27.5
12.1
12.2
10.5
11.6
4.3 1 4 5
34.73
55.33
63.87
45.29
55.30
48.52
47.61
38.68
56.56
63.47
46.38
55.28
50.34
50.59
41.91
56.23
66.57
53.32
55.68
49.48
52.78
38.57
54.36
66.96
52.49
53.29
45.40
55.81
35.83
52.88
63.86
44.59
50.28
39.32
54.24
36.25
50.94
64.59
43.25
47.85
39.36
53.44
36.61
52.49
75.06
42.31
47.73
40.37
51. 57
6.3
14.9
5.9
6.5
13.9
6.4
2.1
5.3
13.3
7.3
1.9
4 .9
4.7
4.7
2.3
5.0
4 .7
2.6
5.5
7.7
6.6
14 2
6.8
l.fi
8.2
4.7
2.5
5.9
7.9
17 8
7.0
8.3
8.9
20.7
8.2
9.5
11.0
24 6
11.9
11 2
27.0
12.8
28.5
13.2
12.4
31.6
13.4
36.6
12.9
13.2
38.1
13.4
30.0
12.6
14.1
35.6
31.3
7.4
13.0
20.0
7.4
13.5
21.8
8.2
13.3
25.1
10.4
13.6
27.5
12.1
13.3
25.3
12.8
11.4
26.0
13.3
10.8
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.1
1.8
1.6
2.7
1.8
2.7
1.7
2.7
1.6
6.1
9.9
11.8
11.8
11.5
14.2
11.3
15.9
12.5
19.7
15.7
22.7
19.8
18.2
21.5
27.5
8.4
5.9
1.9
17.2
6.4
4.1
4 .0
8.0
6.2
2.0
18.5
9.1
6.1
4.1
8.1
7.0
2.8
21.2
10.1
6.2
4.3
11.6
30.32
APPENDIX B
153
162
66
146
54
Massachusetts:
1,550
1,487
1,377
950 1,099
848
878
B o sto n .....................
Brockton..................
(‘)
(*)
w
(‘)
w
111
Cambridge..............
(4)
«
<‘>
«
102
109
89
Fall River................
(* )
(4)
(‘)
64
65
45
59
64
56
55
Lawrence.................
155
159
142
148
133
149
139
Lowell......................
101
93
83
65
75
70
60
L ynn.........................
11
12
9
M alden___________
(“ >
(4)
114
92
New Bedford..........
M
(‘ )
«
32
44
34
32
31
31
31
Newton....................
49
51
46
44
42
39
Springfield..............
(0
155
179
92
133
108
115
98
Worcester_________
Michigan:
1,487
1,687 2,077 2,419 2,525 2,534 2,657
Detroit....................
519
604
775
376
439
Flint..........................
280
304
286
317
311
169
198
Grand Rapids____
237
175
261 14 278
201
Pontiac.....................
378
326
381
•
460
Saginaw....................
(•)
(•)
Minnesota:
267
2A4
279
221
255
D uluth.....................
203
(»)
688
662
382
426
540
628
381
Minneapolis............
311
326
382
382
390
St. Paul...................
374
386
Missouri:
129
117
125
84
125
76
84
Kansas C ity ......... ..
128
167
141
134
149
125
91
8t. Louis..................
Nebraska:
188
181
269
276
274
142
230
Omaha......................
N ew Jersey:
685
711
623
715
718
450
504
Jersey C ity..............
1,508 1,707
874 1,403
696
554
Newark....................
501
160
140
185
The Oranges...........
105
116
387
345
387
339
430
Trenton____ ______
224
265
N ew York:
89
90
95
103
93
102
107
Albany......................
712
621
576
537
577
450
472
Buffalo......................
' 18
20
18
18
11
15
10
New Rochelle.........
N ew Y o rk............... 11,921 12,792 14,663 16,633 17,931 18,785 19,036
92
91
90
76
83
48
69
Niagara Falls.........
493
443
306
383
261
215
Rochester................
173
95*'
90
92
97
85
89
83
Syracuse...................
1* 40
39.77
19.81
0
01
T able
H .— Average m onthly num ber o f fa m ilies receiving mothers' aid fr o m public fu n d s, average m onthly num ber per 10,000 population, and
average m onthly allowance per fa m ily in 108 specified urban a rea s; 1 9 2 9 -8 5 — Continued
Average m onthly allowance per family
Families receiving aid
Average monthly number per 10,000 population
Average monthly number
1929
N ew York— Contd.
Utica.........................
Yonkers__________
North Carolina:
Asheville_________
W inston-Salem___
Ohio;
A k ron ......................
Canton......... ...........
Cincinnati...............
Cleveland................
Columbus................
D ayton.....................
Springfield...............
Toledo____________
Youngstown...........
Oregon:
Portland...................
Pennsylvania:
A lle n to w n .............
Altoona.....................
Bethlehem________
Chester.....................
Erie_______ _______
Lancaster...............
Philadelphia...........
Pittsburgh.............
Reading....................
Scranton...................
Sharon......................
Wilkes-Barre........
Rhode Island:
Providence..............
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1933
1934
1935
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
206
144
214
144
9.0
8.5
10.0
8.8
12.7
9.3
15.3
9.9
18.8
10.8
20.2
10.7
21.0 $35.10 $43.66 $42.87 $48.16 $41.86 $39.88 $41.76
59.23
60.53
61.71
63.60
10.7
63.88 66.34 65.97
4
9
4
3
»6
9
(*)
3
•8
12
(')
4
.4
.8
.8
.8
1.0
.7
.5
.8
1.1
.7
.4
.6
1.1
.7
1.0
1.0
.9
.7
10.5
6.8
7.3
6.6
9.1
6.8
7.0
7.3
5.9
10.8
8.2
7.3
7.0
9.1
6.0
7.4
7.1
5.1
9.0
9.1
8.0
7.7
9.9
5.9
5.5
7.7
4.7
7.1
12.3
8.3
8.4
11.8
6.9
6.4
9.1
4.4
7 .0
8.2
8.3
8.6
12.6
6.7
6.5
9.8
4.4
1932
1933
92
114
102
119
129
125
156
133
191
145
4
4
8
4
4
1934
5
6
5
8
5
5
360
151
428
797
328
187
64
255
140
371
182
430
841
328
165
67
248
120
310
202
469
926
356
161
50
268
111
243
272
487
1,011
427
189
58
316
103
240
181
492
1,039
454
184
59
340
103
228
154
486
1,075
449
170
55
316
96
239
153
487
1,062
442
166
52
307
100
201
214
262
283
316
79
42
31
91
93
90
(•)
93
1,171
851
169
130
26
101
74
42
31
102
93
88
(')
91
1,242
831
154
126
26
138
87
49
46
109
127
114
(•)
101
1,385
962
172
153
34
165
111
55
72
181
160
152
(«)
128
1,589
1,136
211
182
50
253
135
134
147
167
(')
(8)
1932
1930
1931
2
1931
1929
1930
(*)
(•)
1930
1935
1920
29.85
22.86
24.38
21.84
31.00
24.25
24.38
22.65
27.50
24.25 » 18.33 522.87
20.73
19.99 20.59
22.55
24.94 21.65 2Ì.43
13.44
32.19
46.57
49.33
35.58
32.72
21.46
33.84
44.80
16.08
33.19
46.73
49.06
34. 81
33.68
20.00
34.60
42.48
20.58
32.35
45. 67
46.19
30.82
33.58
21. 52
35.64
40. 61
21.85
28.30
45.38
44.50
25.05
35.12
20.40
30.66
38.48
.8
1.5
26.21
22.73
.4
.5
29.14
6.6
6.9
8.2
8.9
12.4
6.2
6.0
9.1
4.1
6.9
6.9
8.3
8.8
12.2
6.1
5.7
8.8
4.2
13.73
31.68
46.84
48.80
35.51
28.01
19.40
32.86
44.99
21.87
28.13
45.58
46.13
25.27
36. 70
22. 70
31.14
39.60
20.94
26.82
45.83
47.14
26.51
38.74
23.91
31.28
40.19
310
275
5.9
6.3
7.7
8.4
9.3
9.2
8.1
26.09
25.39
31.43
26.98
25.82
24.26
25.90
124
128
57
52
71
64
180
157
156
150
(6)
(8)
263
290
133
122
1,444
1,529
1,366
1,363
258
260
» 2 2 2 8 »215
48
46
338
303
122
56
64
168
171
(«)
246
112
1,445
1,463
291
»357
51
286
4.6
5.1
5.4
3.2
5.3
5.4
4.3
5.1
5.4
3.6
5.3
5.3
5.0
6.0
7.9
3.9
7.2
6.9
6.4
6.7
12.4
6.5
9.1
9.2
7.4
6.9
12.3
6.4
8.9
7.2
6.3
11.1
5.6
8.6
7.1
6.8
11.1
6 .0
9.8
43.57
39.14
42.56
40.57
38.49
37.19
41.44
38.06
40.64
39.24
38.09
35.36
41.40
36.76
41.09
38.34
39.08
36.70
39.93
36.42
38.82
37.29
38.60
36.97
40.31
35.90
39.07
37.36
38.48
41.75
36.11
39. 77
37.90
38.10
41.62
35.79
36.71
37.12
37.25
4.7
6.0
6.2
7.3
9.1
4.8
4.4
4.6
6.4
6.0
6.6
8.8
4.8
6.1
5.1
7.1
7.0
7.4
10.7
6.3
7.3
6.5
8.1
8.3
9.1
12.7
9.3
11.1
14.3
6.8
7.8
9.9
11.1
15.5
8.9
14.9
12.9
6.2
7.4
9.9
11.2
6.9
8.6
13.3
12.1
5.7
7.4
10.6
12.6
11.6
9.5
12.6
38.13
40.17
38.89
36.56
37.82
39.12
39.67
36.60
38.64
38.08
35.25
39.46
37.97
39.74
38.23
37.50
37.48
36.23
39.29
38.99
40.32
36.93
36.88
37.00
35. 47
34.00
38.82
39.99
30.10
34.34
35.13
37.56
35.18
35.60
36.40
38.07
31.67 33.14
33.96 3 3 .%
36.40 36.06
36.58 38.11
34.66 33.13
«33.86 »31.59
36. 30 36.16
38.00 38.47
209
237
5.3
5.3
5.8
6.6
7.2
8.3
9.4
47.62
50.48
51.41
48.16
47.67
181
48.91
50.80
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
State and urban
area
g
109759
g
§
S
co
,°
Tennessee:
K n o x v ille...............
M em phis.................
Texas:
Dallas___•.................
Houston............... ..
U tah:
Salt Lake C it y ..-..
Virginia:
27
114
37
113
71
in
85
118
104
133
123
129
1.1
3.8
1.7
3.7
2.4
3.7
4.6
3.6
5.5
3.9
6.7
4.3
7.9
4.2
25.25
28.16
28.02
29.74
28.92
30.54
26.16
28.10
22.25
25.54
25.72
26.90
22.73
27.52
(4)
79
(*)
86
228
94
232
112
208
115
198
103
197
93
2.2
2.4
7.0
2.6
7.1
3.1
6.4
3.2
6.1
2.9
6.0
2.6
15.63
15.46
10.86
15.16
10.24
15.60
8.71
15.68
8.69
17.84
8.68
18.80
324
318
323
317
254
163
195
16.7
16.4
16.6
16.3
13.1
8.4
10.0
12.97
13.13
12.95
12.82
13.40
16.14
19.80
1.5
.3
1.2
.3
1.1
.4
LI
.3
1.2
34.56
33.52
33.30
44.42
31.92
48.88
31.50
54.33
39.05
49.48
41.46
9.3
21.4
11.0
12.9
20.02
18.59
20.08
19.55
19.93
20.24
19.70
18.26
18.97
19.33
19.40
19.22
19.69
21.21
15.47
12.57
11.75
10.75
10.62
15.3
17.2
19.0
34.3
15.8
18.2
18.4
33.6
33.43
41.21
47.61
34.65
26.48
39.75
24.85
44.20
26.26
44.04
38.36
45.49
23.27
40.48
31.58
42.39
22.72
43.46
28.43
42.85
23.56
44.04
30.17
44.88
25.61
21
25
27
631
338
555
257
569
282
42
31
33
64
<»)
789
156
80
(•)
820
169
111
(•)
1,116
229
22
20
21
22
1.1
1.4
12.3
17.2
13.6
20.6
618
413
498
445
429
350
509
•211
12.0
15.7
4 8
3.4
3.6
149
155
12.6
17.5
1,324
312
100
205
1,331
302
10. 1
1,271
311
97
194
1,376
309
10.9
17.3
11.3
18.7
15.4
25.4
13.3
25.2
10.7
27.2
3.9
2.3
24.5
23.5
19.4
19.4
17.6 i 18.3
34.6
34.5
1 Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census. Territory and population to which reports relate are shown in appendix A , p. 65.
2 Based on the reports of 1 agency in each urban area except: Oakland, San Francisco, Indianapolis, and Springfield (Mass.)— 2 agencies in each area; and Bridgeport
* Included in report for Oakland.
4 Included in report on general public relief.
b Territory to which reports relate was changed to cover all of the county after Jan. 1,1934.
« Report not available.
i Allowances provided during 10 months.
* Allowances provided during 8 months.
* Allowances provided during 9 months.
i° Allowances provided during 6 months.
ii Includes expenditure for boarding-home care,
ii Allowances provided during 11 months.
i* Allowances provided, January-April.
i* Allowances provided during 4 months,
i* Allowances provided during 6 months.
ib Allowances provided during 7 months,
ii Allowances provided during 3 months,
i* Allowances provided during 1 month.
„ ______.
3 agencies.
APPENDIX B
2»
Richmond________
I Washington:
Seattle......................
1
Tacoma.....................
00 W est Virginia:
Huntington.............
Wisconsin:
Kenosha...................
M adison...................
Milwaukee............ .
R acine..................
17
115
O
■<1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
able
I . — Average monthly num ber o f individuals receiving old-age assistance adm inistered by public and by private agencies, average m onthly
num ber p er 10,000 popu lation,1 and average monthly allowance per individual in 74 specified urban areas; 1929—35
Average monthly allowance per individual
Cases receiving assistance
Average monthly number per 10,000 population 1
Average m onthly number
1929
1029
1934
1935
1930
1931
1932
1933
80
1,017
<«)
« 241
247
510
102
1,701
(‘ )
479
376
925
144
2,920
<*)
563
528
1,161
167
(* )
(»)
4,257 6,397 8.541
1,223 «1,885 «2,235
624
558
616
665
822 1,061
1,789
1,402 1,498
*305
422
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1935
P ublic agencies
California:
8.8
4.6
11.2
7.7
15.9
13.2
17.0
11.8
8.0
33.7
17.9
14.6
39.6
25.2
18.3
18.4
19.3
43.1
43.4
31.7
22.1
28.6
39.6
41.3
29.0
39.7
39.3
39.3
23.6
$24. 66 $25.02 $25.48 $22.11
27.03 $20.77 $21.05
25.84
30.07 30.71
24.14
24.89
23.86
20.50
22.82
22.51
22.88
30.89 24.15
21.90
22.55
30.50 26.70 24.73 22.12
22.22 22.28
25.33
27.28
24.25
29.01
38.7
47.1
43.9
50.6
28.2
Delaware:
440
487
482
1,015
8 693
7 1,755
718
1,155
'747
1,831
1,072
45.7
45.2
89.6
47.2
41.5
44.9
101.9
50.9
43.3
67.0
9.18
10.97
11.24
Indiana:
Kentucky:
4
12
1.4
1.1
1.2
15.79
15.23
20.30
20.41
137
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
27.69
29.71
29.63
29.84
33.52
4,215
366
417
714
346
645
883
249
891
174
753
791
6.4
30.7
37.4
45.5
54.0
57.4
36.7
61.9
28.9
64.3
86.3
42.9
79.1
26.7
44.0
40.5
29.00
22.13
47.9
25.2
39.4
50.7
25.2
42.9
14.4
18.9
23.7
48.8
38.7
32.1
54.6
32.3
54.4
73.4
33.8
64.2
20.7
35.0
35.1
27.03
26.47
27.2
14.8
15.8
25.6
7.4
27.8
7.7
8.1
7.8
45.7
36.1
30.8
52.8
28.9
48.6
64.4
27.2
56.1
18.8
29.2
32.2
18.19
25.16
17.49
26.04
16.32
20.00
29.46
27.10
22.09
19.48
25.62
19.86
23. 61
19. 35
20.94
31.64
27. 72
24.90
28.14
21.13
28.27
19. 47
25.21
20.59
24.28
19. 75
20. 77
29. 73
25.33
23.68
28.40
21.69
26.56
18.81
25.04
20. 34
24.82
19. 71
20. 51
29. 55
24.94
22.15
27.08
22.91
26.07
18.84
24.95
21.43
24.33
20.94
21.69
27.94
26.58
24.13
2.3
3.4
5.7
7. 2
29.5
13.0
12.39
10.78
9.88
12.65
11.95
9.48
43
34
« 37
144
141
141
H 502
7 196
(♦)
12 313
n 12 6
7 158
7 262
13 43
13 313
7 50
» 139
1* 153
2,920
290
(‘ )
552
214
395
519
146
483
94
323
463
3,570
230
350
609
246
487
659
158
632
123
499
629
3,813
217
365
629
275
545
751
196
723
135
599
686
U 437
n 73
» 136
1,354
624
313
0.1
.4
$13.21
18.45
Massachusetts:
Michigan:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11.47
10. 71
8.00
8.46
13.90
1.3
39
io 129
M aryland:
Flint...................... ...
Grand Rapids........
11.34
10.43
8.00
7.99
13.80
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Type of agency,
State and urban
area *
©
00
n 98
is 137
314
228
Minnesota:
304
1,313
648
343
1,546
666
538
1,999
802
25.2
17.2
15.6
30.0
25.4
22.6
33.8
29.9
23.2
53.0
38.6
28.0
» 518
7 156
»291
737
211
343
»653
882
262
355
1,397
1,094
306
393
11.7
9.6
23.6
16.7
13.0
27.8
9.5
19.9
16.1
28.8
20. 2
24.7
18.8
31.9
598
664
587
659
725
1,918 1,958
730 1,493 2,043
119
139
97
73
36
18,406 24,530 23,975 23,189 24,351
134
130
139
102
126
2,337 2,232
889
1,933 2,467
725
786
881
801
486
1,130
549
976 1,026 1,039
297
324
368
245
126
51.7
19.6
13.5
35.4
16.7
45.6
38.3
95.9
18.2
46.1
26.8
18.0
34.6
17.8
58.2
42.1
100.8
22.1
46.9
25.2
22.0
33.5
17.2
55.1
34.6
102.1
24.1
52.1
25.7
25.7
35.1
18.4
.52.7
37.5
111. 1
27.3
772
N ew York:
Ohio:
Erie___
»»135
487
See footnotes at end of table.
589
526
412
23.81
16.65
16.73
22.95
25.03
25.90
32.88
21.04
26. 75
24.88
22.34
31.81
8.62
9.23
10.27
9.33
17.69
16.06
15.12
14.92
15.07
13.75
14.40
14.26
14.21
15.01
16. 44
14.81
18.53
19.17
18.34
18.11
19.25
16.90
15.41
17.74
18.78
16.54
15.91
18.39
19.16
16.80
18.17
23.14
26.68
30.47
18.67
24.22
22.84
21.09
28.47
15.54
19.78
25.91
25.75
17.25
21.34
20.54
19.11
26.22
15.90
17.07
25.49
24.84
15.27
18.04
21.45
18.75
25.68
16.16
18.03
26.21
25.27
15.58
21.76
22.64
20.32
25.57
»394
» 326
»1,526
»930
»637
H348
»172
H835
» 212
2,006
1,956
6,137
5,923
4,088
2,559
1,210
3,310
1,233
11.4
14.7
25.9
7.7
17.6
12.7
18.9
24.0
9.0
58.3
88. 2
104.1
49.3
113. 2
93.6
133.1
95. 2
52. 2
17.27
15.60
17.59
17.97
15. 81
16.48
12.82
15.89
16.32
17.24
16.55
17.82
18.09
16.70
15.91
13.52
16.80
16.33
»654
»516
»661
»944
»524
»620
»690
»5,716
»3,736
»780
» 961
»363
»1,601
725
584
753
1,087
599
709
783
6,460
4,389
938
1,138
417
1,843
37.8
36.9
39.0
33.7
29.9
30.5
35.0
29.3
27.2
33.7
31.0
36.6
36.0
41.9
41.8
44. 5
38.8
34. 2
34. 9
39. 8
33.1
31.9
40.5
36.7
42.0
41.4
18.30
18. 76
17. 70
20.58
18.70
19.03
17.94
20.59
23. 35
22.76
258
245
13.3
12.6
ii 598
785
36.5
47.9
Pennsylvania:
Utah:
Salt Lake C ity____
Washington:
T acoma___________
14.9
18.7
256
893
447
170
• 132
St. Paul.___ .
N ew Jersey:
4.6
11.3
22.86
22.60
19.73
23.60
25. 38
20.57
21.06
18.92
19.24
15.53
11. 75
8.91
8.38
8.57
20.00
23.75
25.13
20.82
21.73
19.03
19.21
9.05
10.38
.14.47
14.75
o
CO
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
lnumber of individuals receiving old-age assistance administered by public and by private agencies, average monthly
number per 10,000 population, and average monthly allowance per individual in 74 specified urban areas; 1929-85 — Continued
Cases receiving assistance
Average monthly number
Average m onthly allowance per individual
Average monthly number per 10,000 population
1929
1929
1931
(4)
(4)
1932
1933
1934
1936
1929
1930
1931
............. $20.21
$21.74
22.64
7.41
9 23
ft fV2
22.41
40.26
23.96
39.97
25.45
39.63
28.64
42.24
27.43
39.95
23.73
34.51
39.89
1930
1931
3.9
6.9
2.6
4.2
2.6
4.0
$19.67
36.21
1933
1934
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
IN
1930
Public agencies—
Continued
• 283
499
96
123
131
149
677
825
968
1,326
23.6
10.7
18.3
• 121
$21.65 $20.44
22.41
$19.86 $20 24
20.89
22.58
23.27
Private agencies
82
67
206
46
192
46
158
47
161
47
169
60
91
196
204
209
186
164
.6
1.2
1.3
49.18
52.03
50.46
40.55
36.53
38.04
158
166
181
188
177
204
5.5
5.8
6.3
19.87
20.52
20.28
20.28
20.57
16.43
15.79
431
420
440
421
337
271
3.6
3.5
3.7
39.37
41.99
41. 71
37.94
27.54
32.23
34.32
(4)
6.7
2.4
4.1
4.1
R E L IE F , 1 9 2 9 -3 5
93
200
48
( 4)
P R IV A T E
86
191
47
i Based on the rem its of i
C?° Kdi ng to the 19p0 census. Territory and population to which reports relate are shown in appendix A , p. 66
j E d e d in report for Oaklknd
area except: SPrinefleld ( M a s s .) -2 public agencies; and N ew Haven, Boston, and D e t r o it-2 private a
agencies.
4 Report not available.
* Territory to which reports relate was changed to cover all of Alameda County after Jan. 1, 19 3 4 .
• Allowances provided during 11 months.
7 Allowances provided during 6 months.
8 Allowances provided during 7 months.
8 Allowances provided during 1 month.
10 Allowances provided during 9 months.
11 Allowances provided during 6 months.
18 Allowances provided during 4 months.
13 Allowances provided during 3 months.
14 Allowances provided during 2 months,
u Includes aid for the blind.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
AND
(4)
P U B L IC
Wisconsin:
Kenosha........... .......
M a d iso n ...........
Milwaukee............
Connecticut:
N ew H aven______
Massachusetts:
Boston......................
Cam bridge14
Michigan:
Detroit......................
Minnesota:
St. Paul....................
Ohio:
Cleveland_____
TRENDS
Type of agency,
State and urban
area
110
T able
T able
J.— Average monthly number of individuals receiving aid to the blind from public funds, average monthly number per 10,000 population,1
and average monthly allowance per individual in 79 specified urban areas; 1929—85
Individuals receiving aid
State and urban
area *
Average m onthly number
Average monthly allowance per individual
Average monthly number per 10,000 population1
1929
1929
1930
California:
B erkeley.................
(♦)
(0
38
21
88
M aine:
Portland__________
Maryland:
Baltimore_________
1934
1935
31
360
(<)
43
37
145
32
498
(4)
60
30
174
47
789
(4)
62
41
183
52
1,103
174
49
48
210
(*)
1,548
« 282
70
58
240
(‘ )
2,039
«313
80
87
260
1929
2.7
1.0
1.4
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
3.4
1.6
3.5
2.3
5.2
3.6
3.0
1.8
2.3
3.5
1.4
2.7
3.7
2.0
2.9
6.7
5.0
6.1
3.5
2.3
3.3
7.0
5.9
4.9
2.8
3.8
9 .2
6.6
5.6
4.1
4.1
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
$4478 $42.25 $44.17 $39.36
33.05 38.15 40.02 39.31 $34.31 $34 23
37.84 «38.50 <39.54
$49.31 47.12 41.40 48.85 51. 71 38.22 36.19
17.47 34.21 34.09 32.32 30.20 30.20 30.76
22.35 31. 77 31.46 31.52 32.70 32.62 33.23
144
140
138
138
143
142
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.8
5.0
4.9
22.09
22.34
22. 95
22.48
20. 54
20.63
3
11
1
13
4
10
1
18
5
14
1
20
8
17
1
20
9
22
1
24
9
25
2
21
.2
.5
(r)
.6
.2
.5
.1
.6
.2
.4
.1
.8
.3
.6
.1
.9
.4
.7
.1
.9
.5
1.0
.1
1.1
.5
1.1
.3
1.0
20.81
17. 47
15.00
15.41
18.38
17.56
10.86
16.66
14 71
17.10
15.64
16.22
19.48
14.83
16.60
15.31
10.84
15.80
5.60
15.65
10.90
15.55
11.67
14.72
11.88
17.63
19.95
15.11
889
104
1,114
136
1,289
157
1,298
(4)
1,305
(4)
1,302
84
1,317
122
2.2
9.3
2.8
12.2
3.2
14.1
3.3
3.3
3.3
7.5
3.3
10.9
29.94
31.13
30.06
30.42
30.16
30.44
30.24
30.34
30.31
33.15
30.39
30.33
126
40
131
41
159
43
189
49
195
52
221
55
228
55
7.3
3.9
7.6
4.0
9.2
4.2
10.9
4.8
11.3
5.1
12.8
5.4
13.2
5.4
16.42
18.96
16.29
20.12
17.31
19.41
15.37
19.24
12.64
20.00
11.32
19.69
11.04
19.46
12
16
13
20
16
25
18
37
20
35
18
(4)
14
(4)
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.9
1.8
2.1
2.7
2.3
2.6
2.1
1.6
13.47
14.83
13.29
15. 28
12.91
15.82
11.34
15.31
9.37
14. 68
9.47
10.82
« 36
3.8
4.6
5.3
5.4
5.1
5.2
1.2
11. 32
11.32
12.47
12.43
12. 51
12.94
12.50
1.7
3.5
1.5
5.0
16.72
16.31
9. 54
14.65
7.89
13.89
10. 35
13.53
13.54
14.66
14.83
14 70
14.73
14.68
14.81
19.29
19.72
18.76
16.32
15.33
17.16
117
(4)
35
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1933
3
12
(•)
13
<«)
Connecticut:
Bridgeport.............
Hartford...................
N ew Britain______
N ew Haven............
Illinois:
C hicago...................
Springfield..............
Iowa:
Des Moines.............
Sioux C ity ..............
Kansas:
Topeka .....................
W ichita....................
Kentucky:
Louisville_________
Louisiana:
New Orleans_____
1932
141
164
166
157
• 161
7
(4)
12
63
22
76
27
70
36
46
36
36
40
34
36
41
82
157
224
342
389
412
(4)
4.9
.9
1.6
1.4
2.9
5.1
5.1
5.6
4.8
5.1
5.8
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.2
4.8
5.1
6 4
14.46
APPENDIX B
Oakland..... .............
Sacramento...........
San D iego...............
San Francisco.........
Colorado:
1931
T a b l e J .—
Average monthly number of individuals receiving aid to the blind from public funds, average monthly number per 10,000 population,
and average monthly allowance per individual in 79 specified urban areas; 1929—35— Continued
Average monthly allowance per individual
Individuals receiving aid
Average monthly number per 10,000 population
Average monthly number
1929
1029
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1934
1935
3.4
2.7
4.3
3.8
1.5
3.1
1.5
1.4
2.3
1.5
3.5
3.1
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.8
4.3
4.3
1 .1
2 .2
1 .2
2 .1
2.9
1.4
1.4
2.3
4.3
1.4
4.5
1.5
2.3
5.1
1.7
2.4
2 0 .0 0
24.83
24.82
1930
1931
1932
1933
2 .2
2 .2
2.5
2.7
3.3
2 .8
2 .8
3.1
3.7
2.7
1.4
2.9
1.4
1.4
4.1
3.5
1.4
2.9
1.4
1.4
2 .0
2 .2
.9
.7
1.7
1.4
.9
2 .2
3.7
4.0
1 .2
2 .0
2 .2
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
IN
1929
TRENDS
State and urban
area
10
9
19
9
23
5
i
9
31
245
18
47
40
12
12
29
14
29
14
263
17
49
44
13
31
15
275
20
47
45
14
33
16
8
8
8
11
23
25
9
15
43
26
28
10
10
20
11
6
12
31
34
18
42
41
294
24
49
49
15
38
17
13
33
9
24
45
3.3
1 .6
2 .1
1 .1
2 .8
1 .0
1 .6
2 .0
.8
.6
1 .6
.8
3.1
.9
1 .8
.8
2 .6
1 .0
1 .6
1.7
.6
.5
Minnesota:
Missouri:
1 .8
3.8
1.7
1 .6
1.9
2.5
1.5
2 .2
2 0 .8 8
17.89
17.60
19.14
17.77
16.81
18.98
17.19
16. 2 1
18. 2 1
15.76
15.48
18.82
16.36
24.96
24.83
24.98
24. 82
24.91
24.93
24.99
25.00
25. 00
24.99
24.87
25.00
17.71
31
48
52
38
58
57
41
64
58
44
70
62
46
78
66
1 .8
1 .1
2 .0
213
496
236
525
253
572
291
626
316
680
352
706
385
741
5.3
4.8
5.9
5.1
6.3
5.5
7.3
7.9
6 .1
6 .6
8 .8
6 .8
9.6
7.2
39
43
50
57
62
64
52
1.7
1 .8
2 .1
2.4
2.7
2.7
2 .2
10.97
12.07
12.41
12.76
13.12
12.81
13.10
16
32
25
47
26
59
(4)
31
.2
.5
.7
.2
1.5
.8
1 .1
.8
1 .2
.7
.8
23.64
22.84
21.67
23.19
23.94
23.50
21.50
23.81
24.01
23. 21
22.24
24. 73
24.74
24. 78
25.93
24.02
25.37
24.01
23.34
22.27
25.31
23.36
24.19
22. 63
6
22
23
55
(4)
25
.2
18
26
51
5
26
21.70
20. 69
20.53
22. 75
18.29
12.52
2 1.10
2 2 . 67
22.82
16.69
12.04
22.51
22.37
18. 85
12.43
22.15
22.03
19.89
22. 22
22.80
22. 33
11.90
2 0 .0 0
2 0 .0 0
22.69
23. 39
16.97
13. 45
2 0 . 00
7
IS
3
13
18
4
15
New York:
31
45
4
1,324
4
(4)
22
33
51
3
1,374
O) 4
30
30
60
3
1,234
4
(T
39
33
77
3
1,255
4
19
39
32
31
10 0
112
3
1,341
4
4
1,389
22
25
40
37
10 4
33
119
5
1,397
.3
.4
^2
2
1 .2
i .i
1.5
1 .6
1.4
.6
.7
.7
1.9
.5
.6
2 .0
.8
.6
1 .8
.5
.5
21
38
i .i
1.5
2 .Ò
.3
.3
1 .8
2 .1
1 .6
1 .0
.6
1 .8
.5
.9
2 .0
1 .2
1.3
2 .0
2.5
1.5
1.5
.7
1 .6
1 .6
1.9
.5
2 .0
2 .0
1 .1
1 .2
2 .0
1.5
1.3
.6
1.9
.9
.5
1 .0
1.9
23.92
24.29
23.83
23.58
18. 33
13. 02
2 0 .0 0
20. 32
23.83
2 0 .0 0
2 2 .8 6
23. 33
12 .0 0
2 0 .0 0
21.59
22.93
21.53
22.49
R E L IE F , 1 9 2 9 -3 5
17.89
20.73
17. 52
(4)
43
0)
Nebraska:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 .6
3.3
$19.47 $18.24 $18.60 $18.21 $17.81 $17. 64 $16.81
17.09
17.40
18.94 18.28
20.04
19.34 19.31
18.39
18.41
19. 78 19.02
19. 65 2 0 . 1 2
17.35
16.16
16.40
16.90 17.79 17. 72 jL/. 51 16.44
13.72
13.56
14.31
13.94
13.
73
13.
25
13. 08
15. 59 15. 54 15.82 15.65
16.11
16.23
16.59
13.60
14.
26
16.
45
18.33
18.16
17.79 19.11
14. 57 16. 08 14. 70 13.87 13.66
16.29 15.66
14.33
14.
50
13.94
13.97
16.10 15.99 13.77
15.18
16. 2 0
16. 20
15. 00 15. 79 16.48 16.17
14.64
15.94
17.83 17.00
21.36 20.30 19.01
18.68
17.52
19. 72 18. 49 17.69
19.93 20.63
52
90
69
N ew Jersey:
Utica.........................
2 .8
P R IV A T E
10
21
216
18
42
31
AND
7
26
196
17
37
24
9
28
174
14
37
P U B L IC
Massachusetts:
Ohio:
(«)
208
291
288
Canton.....................
Cincinnati...............
Cleveland................
(«)
257
54
Dayton....... .............
Springfield...............
‘
96
237
293
295
(4)
261
55
(« )
(4 )
«
w
Pennsylvania:
108
281
292
317
343
277
51
157
108
94
318
302
351
363
282
52
207
118
104
242
324
368
357
261
58
207
87
193
332
325
341
256
56
192
110
112
il 80
n 35
» 16
li 67
13 61
it 7 7
80
46
19
93
63
81
87
759
507
87
312
319
365
358
275
56
218
119
»
86
10.7
5.0
2.5
2 .6
2.7
14.3
5.1
2.9
9.5
1 0 .1
2.5
14.1
5.4
3.0
9.9
9.4
7.9
9.5
1 0 .1
8 .0
7.4
4.5
4.6
10.3
7.6
1 0 .1
8 .1
6 .0
6.3
5.0
2 .8
3.1
12.7
5.0
5.0
3.0
10.9
5.5
3.1
9.9
9.5
8.4
2.5
8.7
5.6
2.7
9.4
9.4
6 .0
5.5
4.7
4.7
4.6
2.5
.9
2.4
3.5
3.8
4.4
3.5
3.6
5.1
4.3
3.6
4.0
12 2
132
36
181
8 .1
22.81
16.38
16.80
11.72
21.92
16.28
18.61
9.65
5.04
9.58
4.94
1 2 .1 0
22.83
16.38
19.42
16.13
9.38
4.92
15.06
17.44
11.27
20.05
16.36
18.02
14.93
9.02
5.25
14.76
16.29
11.04
17.74
15.66
17.01
14.63
8.43
5.62
12.24
16.17
4.6
3.3
1 .1
3.3
3.6
4 .0
4.4
3.9
3 .7
5 .3
4.3
3.6
4.1
Washington:
Wisconsin:
Kenosha...................
15
(« )
Milwaukee..............
Racine.......................
213
40
18
(*)
230
44
23
(4 )
246
46
28
38
252
49
35
40
265
53
161
170
58
39
51
280
57
49
56
295
56
2.4
2.8
3.6
2.9
4.4
3.2
4.9
3.4
5.1
4.4
3.4
3.5
5.4
5.5
3.5
3.7
5.9
3.5
3.7
3.5
6.2
4.5
3.9
6.3
7.7
5.0
4.1
6.2
29.49
29.62
28.56
20.83
30.28
20.58
28.88
20.37
28.19
28.43
23.29
20.24
28.64
23.12
22.34
19.94
20.37
11.25
15. 35
15.07
17.13
14. 30
8.85
5.94
11.98
15.13
14.68
17.21
14.15
9.04
6.09
1 2 .2 1
12 .2 0
16.33
16.20
21.73
18.52
25.09
24.70
29.11
26.69
23.27
2 ). 00
27.99
19.81
24. 87
28.03
25.28
25. 69
24.61
27.01
26.85
29.54
28.46
26.69
28.37
29.07
24. 77
27.58
28.87
27 57
19.18
26.84
31.88
23.57
22.22
21.65
20.05
23.67
22.30
22.26
18.43
A P P E N D IX
li 684
n 492
ii 119
it 135
is 36
is 179
9.4
4.9
2.4
1 Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census. Territory and population to which reports relate are shown in appendix A , p. 65.
* Based on the reports of 1 agency in each urban area,
a Included in report for Oakland.
4 Report not available.
* Territory to which reports relate was changed to cover all of Alameda County after Jan. 1, 1934.
8 N ot computed because of change in territory to which reports relate.
1 Less than 1 individual.
8 Allowances provided during 1 month.
' Allowances provided during 11 months.
18 Allowances provide«} during 9 months.
>i Allowances provided during 7 months.
14 Allowances provided during 6 months.
00
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able
K.
Average monthly number o f cases receiving general relief adm inistered by nonsectarian private agencies, average m onthly num ber per
10,000 popu lation,1 and average m onthly relief per case in 108 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -8 5
Cases receiving relief
Average monthly number
1930
1931
411
70
721
101
2,141
152
10, 210 »20,407
(•)
(9
115
9
142
734
109
10
34
1,046
665
17
69
2,814
1,325
1,425
24
•30
89
81
11,209 »15,800
189
213
328
739
46
275
23
128
72
304
43
197
157
463
38
625
215
625
60
1,382
(*)
174
1,162
1,471
179
216
190
343
542
812
1,764
509
213
169
(')
161
213
Alabama:
Birmingham____
M obile...... ...........
California:
Los Angeles........
Sacramento.........
San D ie go...........
San Francisco...
Colorado:
D e n v e r ...............
Connecticut:
Bridgeport...........
H a rtford .............
New Britain____
N ew Haven
Delaware:
W ilm ington........
Dist. of Columbia:
Washington........
Florida:
M iam i..................
Georgia:
(«)
287
882
36
415
1933
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
9.5
5.9
16.7
8.5
49.6
12.8
236.6
472.9
.5
.6
6.8
11.6
.5
.7
1.6
16.5
3.0
1.2
3.3
44.4
6.0
1.7
4.2
176.7
6.5
2.1
3.9
249.1
1934
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
$10.53
7.64
$8.29
7.47
$7.50
5.27
$7.04
$6.60
6.74
30.82
13.48
19.90
11.26
26.53
17.89
21.50
15.67
11.38
5.59
21.56
8.71
8.97
9.64
23.88
8.87 $12.59 $16.67
4.46
5.48
3.20
4.03
10. 51
3.60
25.38
17.22
12.05
1935
1,010
•35
17
360
647
42
32
523
847
115
63
6.6
7.4
11.4
25.7
29.4
4.0
2.2
10.66
10.25
7.92
7.91
15.65
11.92
9.91
111
654
51
910
69
363
16
396
54
275
14
253
2.5
12.0
3.4
5.9
3.9
13.2
6.3
9.2
8.6
20.2
5.6
29.0
11.7
27.2
8.8
64.2
6.1
24.1
7.5
42.3
3.8
15.8
2.3
18.4
2.9
12.0
2.1
11.8
18.14
39.65
8.88
19.55
19.60
27.44
11.38
17.76
25.80
28.66
6. 91
13.61
27.30
28. 35
4.07
10.84
25.41
30.46
4. 20
14.94
20. 70
34.34
5.89
17.80
23.95
40.38
3.49
20.29
10.8
72.2
91.3
11.1
13.4
11.8
17.02
14.02
14.90
20.73
22.97
24.87
7.0
11.1
16.7
36.2
10.5
4.4
3.5
22.78
20.01
19.40
17.71
20.94
18.18
17.95
11.3
14.9
8.27
5.91
(•)
CO
CO
4.6
2.5
.8
5.7
2.9
3.0
1.5
8 .2
1,760
1,189
741
531
217
8.4
12.1
51.3
34.6
21.6
15.5
6.3
7.52
7.05
6.97
10.41
15.39
19.10
19.38
10,784
403
3,454
480
1,443
144
1,086
121
2.2
4.4
5.0
8.0
33.9
18.2
27.1
48.9
8.7
58.3
3.6
17.5
2.7
14.7
27.79
18.40
21.96
16.06
25.96
12.50
29.47
14.87
33. 47
11.89
39.57
1.86
35.52
2.00
87
72
307
49
203
153
105
304
171
191
5.9
14.0
20.1
11.0
20.8
13. 3
35.1
30.1
69.3
4.1
82.5
45.2
66.5
45.7
2.4
3.6
29.4
22.3
69.6
7.7
6.3
7.3
4. 7
32.3
13.5
9.1
7.2
16.4
30.4
9.54
10.66
2.36
7.81
10.76
3. 47
6.85
8.34
4.31
5.81
12.93
7.86
3.29
5.41
7.96
23. 22
7.13
2.10
1.85
3.04
23 14
22.82
4.49
2.54
3.65
18. 98
23.73
4.28
2.18
(>)
68
591
(“ )
(» )
228
126
879
(»)
(")
151
404
1,273
722
<“ )
47
»948
1,909
693
287
•27
»41
1,242
232
437
245
88
315
97
626
»90
2,005
2,952
17.2
11.1
22.1
12.3
43.9
11.4
140.6
207.1
12.38
11.22
11.69
10.46
11. 51
7.67
10.82
15.56
168
266
597
1,647
»3,465
11.9
18.8
42.3
116.6
245.4
7.77
5.83
7.32
5.35
4.51
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1934
1935
1,980 13,504
66
150
Illinois:
Springfield...........
Indiana:
Evansville...........
Fort W ayn e____
Indianapolis____
South Bend.........
Terre H aute____
Iowa:
Des Moines.........
Sioux C ity...........
Kansas:
Kansas C ity ____
Average monthly number per 10,000 population i
1929
1932
Average monthly relief per case
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEE, 1929-35
State and urban
area»
79
266
196
434
276
479
277
220
195
(')
148
(*)
23.0
39.1
32.4
43.1
32.5
19.8
22.9
17.4
22.2
12.93
5.62
10.78
5.87
440
594
1,198
1,729
1,152
1,085
923
14.3
38.9
56.2
37.4
35.3
30.0
15.29
14.40
13.69
27.07
14.62
25.37
12.41
24.70
15.01
74
108
91
218
141
193
141
132
110
65
167
309
6.6
1.6
99
289
14.1
3.1
25.2
3.1
17.2
2.4
8 .5
3.6
40.3
2.2
37.7
9.58
5.51
7.73
4.63
12.67
8.40
6.05
10.37
13.12
15.07
15.09
17.04
24.10
17.27
22.37
14.29
18.96
6.81
26.60
9.76
80
94
223
212
211
151
127
11.3
31.5
29.9
29.8
21.3
17.9
14.30
11.29
7.38
11.26
11.77
8.36
9.19
635
815
2,833
13,353
12,306
192
299
7.9
35.2
165.9
152.9
2.4
3.7
21.25
18.05
18.05
21.33
26.19
27.13
23.57
911
(')
97
18
44
46
101
10
59
31
118
125
993
(•)
111
20
69
89
155
10
97
64
204
203
1,262
402
185
42
96
105
217
14
116
107
269
310
2,180
430
281
23
129
149
257
8
139
134
344
374
2,074
358
286
46
81
121
268
5
115
145
208
269
1,896
539
256
25
74
103
219
12
91
87
179
207
1,979
737
241
43
58
126
145
10
80
68
154
182
11.7
27.9
67.4
24.7
2.0
15.2
14.9
25.1
1.4
12.3
20.5
20.1
19.1
26.5
56.1
25.2
4.0
9.5
12.1
26.2
.9
10.2
22.2
12.2
13.8
24.3
84. 5
22.5
2.2
8.7
10.3
21.4
2.1
8.1
13.3
10.5
10.6
25.3
115.5
21.2
3.7
6.8
12.6
14.2
1.7
7.1
10.4
9 .0
9.3
17.99
18.38
4.6
9.9
1.7
5.2
4.7
6.9
6.4
16.2
A3 0
16.3
3.6
11.3
10.5
21.2
2.4
10.3
16.4
15.7
15.9
12.09
8.53
9.00
12.04
13.01
10.69
14.54
21.30
24.08
21.98
12.80
9.08
9.24
11.07
11.53
7.01
12.94
17.99
24.12
20.40
17.65
7.53
14.49
9.52
8.42
10.84
8.67
5.18
14.25
14.53
22.53
22.60
17.07
7.14
13.84
7.27
7.49
10.79
5.64
3.50
13.37
12.45
23.96
22.35
14.86
6.26
11.87
6.16
6.35
8.34
2.77
3.74
11.89
13.14
13.32
22.60
15.00
4.13
9.70
6. 51
6.34
7.40
4.19
4.09
12.63
11.30
12.07
22.50
14.68
3.93
8.70
6.36
6.52
6.66
5.45
6.10
12.63
15.81
15.35
23.53
171
63
165
378
124
269
473
171
312
442
233
442
(*)
110
360
51
40
(»)
45
24
183
1.0
2.6
20.4
2 8
7.1
38 7
2.6
9.7
54 8
4.6
44 6
.3
1.7
.3
1.0
22.7
8.46
6.05
8.34
8.24
9.39
7.21
7.44
12.44
4.48
6.24
6.05
3.72
4.68
2.95
7.43
11.87
8.36
10.41
4.99
87
345
241
96
496
243
181
1,472
531
237
1,638
1,976
227
1,176
*3,858
149
810
91
718
n 22
8.6
7.4
8.4
17.8
31.5
18 5
23.4
32.9
68 9
22.4
25.2
134.6
14.7
17.3
9 .0
15.4
.8
12.50
21.03
13. 72
12.40
19.84
13.54
9.01
23.63
13.32
8.89
27.18
15.79
15.98
28.02
10.50
6.54
28. 45
5.04
30.72
12.43
500
909
751
1,026
2,567
3,761
5,473
8,751
5,546
11,703
810
760
528
445
12.5
8.8
64.2
36.4
136.9
84.7
138.7
113.2
20.3
7.4
13.2
4.3
16.03
15.40
13.15
15.64
15.82
15.08
12.20
17.68
14.61
20.22
15.55
29.55
19.43
34.31
180
218
524
670
»* 1,951
336
1,948
275
208
7.7
22.5
112.5
98.0
11.8
8.9
flO. 47
10.31
12.16
15.43
.76
11.24
6.44
25.01
26.85
(')
128
106
O
221
175
<•)
533
453
(')
503
920
(»)
233
929
61
103
(•)
29
114
(8)
2.9
6.5
12.0
27 8
11.4
56 5
5.3
57 1
1.9
2.3
.9
2.6
20.29
24.39
22.95
25.38
26.64
21.44
25. 81
24.21
18.29
24.82
11.34
25.67
13.60
23.30
344
2,588
44
162
139
(10)
25
363
3,651
59
214
180
158
66
552
8,257
128
513
200
277
80
553
10,504
67
997
114
226
143
390
8,003
53
1,072
68
151
88
239
5,870
30
448
82
83
84
189
4,627
30
375
76
53
73
4.6
3.7
5.8
4.9
6.6
7.4
11.9
17.0
15.6
9.6
27.2
5.9
7.4
15.2
8.9
30.4
5.4
22.2
10.6
5.2
11.5
7.0
32.7
3.2
14.8
6.5
3.2
8.5
4.0
13.7
3.9
8.2
6.2
2.5
6.7
4.0
11.4
3 .6
5.2
5.4
26.81
25.25
24.57
23.38
10.93
30.46
28.98
29.35
22.75
10.29
12.29
31.93
32.73
23.41
21.33
27.05
22.66
11.17
28.01
32.66
27.79
10.77
25.98
26.96
9.78
37.17
32.09
29.22
18.39
15.01
28.19
23.64
29.41
33.49
31. 77
13.99
32.20
28.90
17.87
28.80
39.80
33.51
15.69
31.92
29.06
16.79
31.86
Missouri:
Kansas C ity ____
St. L o u is.............
Nebraska:
Omaha:
Agency no. 1 ..
N ew Jersey:
Jersey C ity.........
Newark.............. .
The Oranges___
N ew York:
Buffalo..................
N ew Y o rk______
Niagara Falls___
Rochester.............
Syracuse...............
Utica.....................
Yonkers________
56
247
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8.5
1.6
5.2
1.9
29.64
APPENDIX
Topeka.................
W ichita................
Kentucky:
Louisville.............
Louisiana:
New Orleans___
Shreveport..........
Maine:
P ortlan d.............
Maryland:
Baltimore............
Massachusetts:
B oston..................
Brockton_______
Cambridge..........
Fall R iver______
Lawrence.............
Lowell..................
L ynn.....................
M a ld en ................
New Bedford___
Newton................
Springfield______
Worcester.............
Michigan:
Detroit..................
Grand R a p id s..
Saginaw................
Minnesota:
D uluth_________
Minneapolis____
Crc
T able
K.
Average monthly num ber o f cases receiving general relief adm inistered by nonsectarian private agencies, average m onthly num ber per
10,000 population, and average m onthly relief per case in 108 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -3 5 — Continued
Cases receiving relief
1929
1930
1931
229
448
371
664
166
513
602
1,242
260
931
530
878
2,819
58
178
336
1,771
4,689
9,114
193
163
550
12 0
382
12 2
455
849
24
61
175
98
134
565
443
513
1,161
85
123
265
65
83
78
(8)
108
861
427
91
322
84
39
133
247
298
131
171
151
(«)
204
1,228
1,204
223
306
139
51
183
265
(»)
174
452
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(»)
482
668
1932
1933
1,545 7 2,076
966 i» 1,392
652 8 1,126
999 7 2,177
3,313
10,718
21,681
770
209
1, 291
(*)
4,073
Average monthly number per 10,000 population
1934
(•)
1935
924
660
771
64
$6.21
2.56
7.49
6.92
$5.17
3.47
6.67
6.89
$4.63
3.40
6.44
7.10
$5.81
3.44
8. 77
6.61
$9.60
5.22
13.96
15.05
20.89
15.50
25.53
14.16
10.79
9.55
18.97
15.53
23.92
8.64
11.47
10.00
16.38
14.24
23.55
9.26
14.07
8.36
13.99
12.33
18.52
14. 57
8.90
6.56
12.90
12.44 $16.43
19.20 31.90
10. 72 11.88
12.15
10.08
10.86
12.03
10.14
5.91
12.14
11.43
9.91
18.60
11.19
2.39
.78
15.04
6.45
9.77
6.09
10.98
22. 57
12.60
7.97
8.12
7.88
9.28
5.41
11.16
24.23
6.06
12.49
26.24
4.36
11.33
29.21
23.63
21.78
22.98
13.99
9.52
10.80
22.36
12.66
8.76
10.53
19.18
13.65
11.05
12.45
18.29
13.96
31. 01
7.16
20.39
13.96
20.00
11.40
18.78
15.95
13.67
14.15
14.73
3.26
2.53
1.64
1 76
1.40
5.86
11.23
5.11
7.40
6.45
16.42
6.62
19.19
73.9
80.3
31.0
361
119.9
150.2
48.5
123.7
307.8
116.8
121.7
132.7
289.2
626
680
27
10.7
7.7
7.1
10.7
46.5
14.9
23.5
1 .6
155.3
79.6
75.9
5.3
2 .2
6.5
48.9
80.0
290.5
181.9
180.5
21.3
7.6
187.8
319.2
127.7
164.2
30.2
.5
344.8
65.4
12.53
13.95
6.99
120.4
246.9
16.62
16.46
15.11
35.2
25.0
187.9
17.20
3.09
4.02
14.44
27.56
13.00
17.56
2.76
4.67
14.50
21.19
11.38
11.59
23.73
17.78
20.42
15.27
11.91
9.10
19.79
(0
198
149
1,140
906
2,534
(‘)
3,156
324
172
412
178
5.7
.7
1 .8
7.7
30.1
51.5
4.7
9.8
7.5
18.1
31.2
96.2
5.2
25.0
28.6
250.6
9 .0
25.0
49.7
31.5
6.3
92.4
6.3
187.1
6.9
2 .2
3.4
45.2
19.6
7.5
3.8
57.7
20.3
31.5
4.2
69.0
57.2
28.8
10.5
28.5
2 1.2
27.0
16.5
36.8
48 8
81 8
73.1
29.6
162.5
202.4
20.8
5.6
7.2
304
1 0 .6
6.4
4.9
15.0
45.8
2.3
4.7
3.9
16.7
4.4
3.1
3.9
19.4
15.7
1.7
229
1 1 .2
40.0
(')
18
(')
717
(*>)
70
227
84
53
103
48.0
34.3
14
(»)
774
(»)
97
275
108
109
415
70.9
9.5
21
478
413.6
168.4
1 1 .2
14.7
3.6
3.0
22.5
1 .1
23.5
.7
8 .6
.7
.9
349.2
7.3
4.0
3.7
4.2
16.6
4.8
3.0
13.7
15.7
2.3
11.25
28.66
17. 52
25.27
15.45
11.44
9.97
18.9
16.4
20.33
.6
8 .8
9.6
18.4
25.9
30.9
21.8
.......
2 0 .1
1934
1935
1935
2 10 .2
15.2
52
684
6 .0
1934
6.9
130
17
536
6 8 .2
1933
13.1
62
720
(* )
1933
45.6
54.2
22.4
50.7
586
136
m
1932
1932
>8 8,351
313
540
608
»205
(«)
(»)
557
1,451
1,088
147
251
30
439
8 438
573
997
(»)
175
(•)
(')
599 >» 1, 213 >»2,264
1 ,2 2 0
1,352
1,426
(»)
(»)
(»>
79
89
97
750
958
1,145
105
109
307
171
717
656
1931
1931
25.5
O
1930
1930
8 3,641
7,527
19,726
1,089
14
7 2,370
1929
1929
26.4
5.8
6.61
12.08
5.64
11.81
$3.90
11.36
15.48
32.70
12.08
2.01
1 9 2 9 -3 5
North Carolina:
Asheville_______
Charlotte_______
Greensboro_____
W inston-Salem .
Ohio:
Canton_________
Cincinnati______
Cleveland >•_____
Colum bus17____
D ayton.................
Springfield...........
Oklahoma:
Tulsa.....................
Oregon:
Portland...............
Pennsylvania:
Allentown______
Altoona_________
Bethlehem...........
C h e s te r ..............
Erie_____________
Harrisburg______
Johnstown______
Lancaster_______
Philadelphia___
Pittsburgh______
Reading................
Scranton________
Sharon__________
Wilkes-Barre___
Rhode Island:
Providence_____
South Carolina:
Charleston______
Tennessee:
Knoxville_______
M em phis_______
Average monthly number
Average m onthly relief per case
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF,
State and urban
area
05
292
248
210
219
351
299
323
332
384
715
746
424
(0
184
(0
273
219
213
62
240
380
115
181
(»)
21.1
225.5
204.1
6.9
14.7
8.3
3.6
.6
5.5
194.8
69.9
39.1
23.8
30.3
103.6
13.9
31.8
129.5
22.3
15.6
12.6
18.0
12.5
38.7
16.7
36.2
13.5
28.4
39.6
117.0
239.4
26.8
20.7
13.6
23.4
19.6
25.7
25.0
172.8
24.8
11.9
32.2
411.2
7.2
2.8
14.1
534.2
11.8
54.3
20.8
14.5
479
270
106
21
160
CO
499
1,961
771
1.138
219
704
54
317
548
293
328
725
717
191
762
896
307
373
87
267
239
15.9
8.9
9.0
17.4
15.9
16.6
23.0
22.9
42.3
286
P0
834
205
1,792
274
1,677
n 221
1,198
740
3.9
6.2
197
266
371
1,097
7 2,244
21.0
(*)
182
437
55
152
233
989
211
111
290
1,810
1,559
141
134
2,333
3,710
41
33 32
1,023
3 4,819
13
30
314
13
21
40
317
26
16.1
6.0
6.1
CO
00
9 .0
18.8
5.8
7.5
10.8
22.7
9 .0
11.3
688
783
1,700 7 2,968
2,595 Ji 7,334
202
419
24.0
129.2
72.2
14.3
>______
10.23
6.93
10.31
6.97
10.42
6.11
8.89
5.82
11.02
4.81
8.07
5.87
8.24
5.10
6.33
5.74
7.16
4.90
6.68
5.63
8.33
9.92
6.64
13.62
5.11
...........
i ...........
11.57
8.79
12.50
15.39
14.90
21.04
17.09
8.30
12.81
19.4
10.0
12.02
19.62
11.27
9.57
13.76
9.16
8.42
13.58
6. 51
7.35
14.08
5.31
5.00
12.80
6.56
3.87
17.65
10.21
5.02
22.60
25.8
16.0
21.28
16.73
15.89
8.10
17.11
4.76
18.49
1.93
20.49
21.93
2.3
2.7
4.3
1.4
3.7
3.5
4.4
2.9
11.87
9.74
11.43
20.34
14.67
6.43
9.14
21.99
f
2.31
1.93
2.55
1.35
5.48
2.69
13.16
14.15
27.44
3.17
11.87
17.65
31.57
6.63
6.84
26.31
24.73
12.11
5.35
20.59
6.38
10.48
4.68
18.99
i Based on population of the urban area according to the 1030 census. Territory and population to which reports relate are shown in appendix A , p. 65.
> Based on the reports of 1 agency in each urban area except: M obile, Chicago, Portland (M aine), Boston, Brockton, Detroit, Omaha, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Tulsa, Chester, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Norfolk— 2 agencies In each area; St. Louis— 3 agencies; Sharon— 4 agencies; New York— 5 agencies; and Los Angeles—8 agencies.
3 Relief provided during 7 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
4 N ot computed because data are not comparable.
1 Relief provided during 3 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
® Relief provided during 4 months.
7 Relief provided during 8 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency*
* Report not available.
9 Relief provided during 9 months.
19 Operated jointly with a public agency, August 1932-August 1933.
u Separate report for nonsectarian (private) agencies not available,
u Operated jointly with a public agency beginning December 1931.
i* Relief provided during 2 months.
14 Relief provided dining 1 month.
is Relief provided during 11 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
i< Includes relief to homeless and transient individuals.
ii Figures for 1932 and 1933 include cases and relief expenditures of township trustees
i* Relief provided during 6 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
i* Figures for 1932 and 1933 include cases ana relief expenditures of 2 public agencies.
30 Separate report for nonsectarian (private) agencies not available. For unduplicated figures on cases receiving general and veterans’ relief in Pittsburgh see tables F and G,
pp. 96, 102.
71 Relief provided during 4 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
33 Relief provided during 11 month»
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIX B
Texas:
Dallas___________
E1 Paso.................
Houston________
San Antonio____
Utah:
Salt Lake C ity:
Agency no. 1__
Agency no. 2 ...
Virginia:
N o r fo lk ..............
Richmond______
Roanoke________
Washington:
S eattle............ . .
Tacoma...............
W est Virginia:
Huntington_____
Wisconsin:
Kenosha________
Madison________
Milwaukee_____
Racine...................
L .— Average monthly num ber o f cases receiving general relief adm inistered by Jew ish agencies, average m onthly num ber p er 10,000
popu lation,1 and average m onthly relief per case in 6 8 specified urban areas; 1929—85
Average monthly relief per case
Cases receiving relief
Average monthly number
Average monthly number per 10,000 population 1
1929
1929
Alabama:
Birmingham...........
California:
Los Angeles............
Oakland...................
San Diego.... ...........
San Francisco____
Colorado:
D e n v e r ...................
Connecticut:
B rid gep o rt............
Hartford..................
N ew H a v e n ...........
Delaware:
W ilm in g to n ..........
D ist. of Columbia:
W ashin gton..........
Florida:
Jacksonville_______
Georgia:
Atlanta.....................
Illinois:
Chicago:
Agency no. 1___
Agency no. 2___
Indiana:
Fort W ayne............
Indianapolis...........
Iowa:
Des Moines.............
Sioux C ity ...............
Kansas:
Wichita....................
Kentucky:
Louisville_________
Louisiana:
N ew Orleans...........
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
0.3
1935
0.7
6.9
.6
3.8
19.67
20.30
19.10
38.28
13. 18
34.93
15
20
32
22
3 14
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.3
141
(«)
18
286
150
(*)
13
304
289
88
16
205
505
141
21
435
577
164
28
488
242
171
17
208
149
197
13
238
.6
.7
.8
4.6
.6
4^8
1.3
3.1
.8
3.2
2.3
5.0
1.0
6.9
2.6
5.8
1.3
7.7
1.1
6.0
.8
3.3
104
134
143
182
211
73
51
3.6
4.7
5.0
6.3
7.3
2.5
1.8
30.14
14
39
43
14
49
52
20
59
60
44
81
79
61
98
77
51
86
62
51
79
59
.8
1.7
2.0
.8
2.1
2.4
1.1
2.6
2.8
2.4
3.5
3.7
3.3
4.3
3.6
2.8
3.7
2.9
2.8
3.4
2.7
29.06
47.30
25.97
5
• 10
14
8
11
33
.3
19.78
119
138
274
268
81
79
5
(*)
8
11
17
24
27
19
20
30
37
46
43
36
39
503
73
567
73
1,013
98
1,370
98
1,143
99
701
5 116
11
15
11
28
3
17
3
27
4
29
22
20
30
23
20
19
26
24
31
23
(♦)
.5
1930
1934
$19.45 $16. 42
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
$9.29 $11.46 $13.00
12.67 $17.60 $16.01
11.19
10.12
8.91
7.18
6.47
3.69
25.12 22.00
26.01
25.00
17.06
16.63
48.91
19.47
14.23
9.01
32.44
20.13
22.88
21.62
18.11
9.84
5.32
37.74
44.66
29.90
34.05
32.06
26.41
21.56
26.72
21.05
18.04
22.21
15.36
15.27
24.04
18.60
13.00
26.99
19.94
23. 42
24.78
20.45
10.18
9.88
7.39
23.63
21.57
20.42
12.25
33.33
30.06
.3
.6
.9
.5
.7
2.0
2.4
2.8
5.6
5.5
1.7
1.6
.7
1.1
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.3
16.11
18.26
11.70
11.71
12.71
9.32
.9
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.1
34.34
28.27
24.80
25.78
30.08
30.08
ft 1
„ a f44.55
\21. 72
45.53
20.79
42.81
18.57
39.01
17.08
38.92
9.59
46.36
8.90
48.31
10.38
25.19
519 Ì
«122 1
1 l
L4
7
26
8
25
1.0
.4
1.0
.7
.3
.4
.3
.6
.3
.7
.6
.6
.7
.6
13. 43
45.01
11.28
22.10
18.26
37.26
21.05
29.01
21.42
24.74
21.62
20.91
17.34
19.60
30
22
38
31
1.5
2.5
2.1
2.9
1.4
2.4
1.8
3.0
2.2
2.9
2.1
2.8
2.7
3.9
16.41
22.75
14.90
19.45
25.48
27.63
23.37
22.29
22.74
22.00
25.88
18.79
15.45
14.68
10
13
18
.9
1.2
1.6
5.97
4. 08
2.89
61
49
48
49
48
53
52
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
7.24
7.77
9.60
13.27
13.16
12.24
12.36
60
83
106
142
126
58
77
1.3
1.8
2.3
3.1
2.7
1.3
1.7
21.32
17.03
13.09
9.74
9.61
19.20
15.66
(4)
«
(4>
<4)
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 192Ò-35
State and urban
area *
118
T able
182
302
587
694
70
128
7.3
8.6
.9
1.6
44.83
43.62
41.65
38.27
41.97
21.92
23.89
278
0
61
54
30
304
20
60
73
34
377
41
70
114
40
443
40
43
145
35
412
58
56
26
38
369
61
64
55
39
4.8
6.4
6.8
6.7
2.0
5.7
6.3
4 .2
8.5
1.8
5.3
9.1
5.5
1.5
1.9
4.7
9.6
6.3
3.2
2.0
28.83
28.78
15.52
10.75
21.83
13.22
10.63
24.75
26.80
11.62
16.27
8.56
25.48
23.30
5.76
13.70
8.88
25.01
20.87
5. 54
11.62
3.49
16.49
21.46
5 25
10.44
21.05
17.40
21.49
.3 ,31
12.40
8.74
18.08
54
126
(*)
15
190
0
22
123
12
23
133
7
17
62
LI
33.60
26.48
21.83
.4
16.23
15.95
10.40
5.86
18.73
4. 46
4.88
17.12
6 35
3.05
36.01
.9
.8
.4
.7
38.86
9
.7
.8
1.0
.4
11
29
59
32
37
100
49
66
108
78
87
156
128
43
125
118
30
135
58
6.5
2.3
Z 7
8.6
3.3
4.5
4.2
Z7
4.1
3.0
2.9
2 .0
26.63
33.30
15.22
22.29
31.61
20.19
19.67
31.71
13.41
16.86
29.91
14.40
14.67
22.76
9.55
1Z 67
20.05
11.44
10.32
16.39
10.73
6.2
7.0
Z9
3.1
0
148
175
247
280
117
123
113
160
147
269
431
345
7 613
104
83
6.8
9 .3
25
25
29
48
39
45
L2
Z1
1.7
1.9
15.79
34.44
27.97
29.48
64
131
110
78
100
81
2.5
1.8
Z3
1.8
28.06
24.91
28.87
24.53
117
6
1,388
115
26
13
163
8
2,008
159
32
14
212
16
2,726
255
26
15
193
10
2,297
321
25
14
156
8
1,889
322
21
20
132
6
1,392
324
19
16
2.8
3 .0
3.9
7.8
1.2
1.5
Z 6
1.9
3.3
9.8
1.2
1.4
2.1
1.3
Z 7
9.8
1.0
ZO
1.8
1.1
2.0
9.9
.9
1.6
52.36
36.81
42.62
33.58
39.87
46.54
40.77
42.31
36.45
34.81
20.55
34.57
33.28
41.26
33.83
26.82
15.80
28.67
16.94
41.71
31.37
31.74
19.78
41
11
73
261
16
11
58
25
85
479
28
13
74
31
169
1,062
65
15
35
32
149
103
36
12
2.9
2.9
4.5
13.1
1.2
.6
1.1
174
116
30
13
2.6
2.7
2.9
9 .0
1.8
.5
1.2
266
1,677
42
16
3 .0
1.0
.8
.5
Z 5
.9
1.0
.4
37.17
27.24
66.33
38.33
45.20
26.27
33.37
39. 22
55.94
38.72
33.74
35.56
30.08
24.31
39.64
39.28
25. 19
30.97
23
23
32
54
74
51
.9
L6
2.2
1.5
33.41
31.72
6
615
148
22
26
0
7
727
0
22
31
0
9
665
0
21
56
42
3
3
832
0
24
58
54
989
0
23
61
50
7
716
0
23
83
61
.5
3.4
.2
4.3
.2
5.1
.4
3.7
.9
3.4
1.8
1.0
3.5
Z4
1.0
3.7
Z 2
1.0
5.0
2.7
4Z 46
50.25
39. 29
12.81
29.30
47.12
49. 77
37.99
15.69
29.00
29
40
65
61
53
58
2.6
2.4
2.1
2.3
13.34
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
82
7 33
L0
9.44
17.30
12.20
11.67
7.80
7.50
18.29
16.90
137.54
l ...........
39.84
38.81
11.04
35.16
16.00
35.67
16.56
3Z 33
37.38
23.40
18.73
20.68
20.01
13.41
13.73
27.58
14.58
42.53
27.70
23.18
15.99
31.76
25.34
44.72
29.63
26.35
9.84
38.38
15.83
43.50
37.48
28.74
1Z46
19.13
22.15
29.41
36.67
1Z 24
24.27
15.67
19. 07
20.84
35.90
20.73
20.71
6.85
8.75
24.48
35.12
20.19
21.66
24.69
36.73
20.26
18 17
28.68
27.41
19.30
19.19
24.42
3Z 00
46.62
13.48
46.33
7.64
36.43
6.69
28.80
Z46
25.37
14.31
29. 51
16.34
21.89
16.42
1Z 64
25.12
17.32
13.82
15.12
7.41
13.32
1Z 14
6. 22
16.18
11.02
8.48
8.55
7.36
APPENDIX B
Baltimore.................
154
Massachusetts :
Boston.................
246
Brockton..................
0)
L y n n . . . .................
49
Springfield________
47
Worcester................
35
Michigan:
Detroit.....................
34
Flint..........................
(4)
Grand Rapids........
9
Minnesota:
D uluth.....................
24
Minneapolis______
50
St. Paul...................
42
Missouri:
Kansas C ity______
111
St. Louis:
Agency no. 1___
100
Agency no. 2___
Nebraska:
Omaha............ .........
59
N ew Jersey:
Newark___________
57
N ew York:
Buffalo.....................
92
N ew Rochelle.........
7
N ew Y o rk ________ 1,320
Rochester_________
124
Syracuse.................
18
U t i c a ..................
0
Ohio:
Akron_____
28
Canton______ .
8
Cincinnati____
68
Cleveland............
175
Columbus___ _
11
D ayton...................
18
Oregon:
Portland__________
18
Pennsylvania:
Erie...........................
3
Philadelphia______
584
Pittsburgh...............
136
Reading________
20
Scranton.............
26
Wilkes-Barre_____
0
Rhode Island:
Providence..............
T able
L
— A verage m onthly num ber o f cases receivin g general relief adm inistered by J ew ish agen cies, average m onthly num ber p er 10,000
p op u la tion , and average m onthly r elie f p er case in 68 sp ecified urban a rea s; 1929—86 L-ontmuea
Average monthly relief per case
Average monthly number per 10,000 population
Average m onthly number
1929
1929
Tennessee:
M em phis..... ............
1930
1931
1932
1933
1935
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
15
10
14
9
16
11
17
15
21
13
17
8
18
8
0 .5
.4
0.5
.4
0.5
.5
0.6
.7
0.7
.6
0.6
.4
0.6
.4
24
<4)
20
16
17
(*)
21
17
23
4
25
21
31
9
35
21
32
9
38
20
23
12
45
24
23
16
58
26
.7
.5
.6
.5
.6
.6
.7
.2
.7
.7
1.0
.5
1.0
.7
1.0
.5
i .i
.7
.7
1.9
1.3
.8
.7
2.6
1.6
.9
(')
58
(*)
64
6
75
6
89
7
33
2.4
2.7
.4
3.1
.4
3.7
.5
1.4
34
38
64
102
139
.7
.8
1.4
2.2
3.0
Texas:
Virginia:
Washington:
Wisconsin:
M ilwaukee.............
Racine.......................
1934
67
(4)
87
(4)
110
(4)
127
(4)
96
(4)
(4)
154
100
11
(4)
(4)
113
96
13
.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
.............1
1.3
3.3
1.4
1.2
2.4
1.3
1.4
1931
1930
1932
1935
19.91
11.09
12.93
18.35
27.15
10.25
10.71
18.13
34.04
26.73
46.03
23.69
30.35
22.24
27.80
17.80
21.51
22.38
19.87
24.86
17.93
19.19
9.59
8.72
16.50
6.59
18.93
4. 50
9.47
10.19
32.68
29.55
25.43
21.81
14.90
3.72
3.59
30.49
18.67
14.89
18.23
23.76
19.67
21.07
38.90
43.68
34.06
30.36
43.54
40.58
1
d
g
iin each area.
For unduplicated figures on cases receiving general and veterans’ relief in Pittsburgh see tables F and G , pp. 96,102.
192 9 -3 5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1934
$39.22 $38.69 $36.24 $30.92 $22.40 $28.64 $31.28
24.84 23.47
36.14 35.79 32.82 23.21
31.48
* Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census Territory and population to wMcb[reportsrelate m e Ahowndn aP ^ ^ .
P - 668 Based on the reports of 1 agency in each urban area except: Chicago, Detroit, Kansas C ity (M o .), St. Louis, N ew Rochelle, N ew York, and Philade p
3 Relief provided during 7 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
4 Reports not available.
* Relief provided during 11 months.
4 Relief provided during 10 months.
7 Relief provided during 8 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
* leparate report for Jewish agencies not available.
1933
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF
Cases receiving relief
State and urban
area
g
O'
T able
M .— A verage m onthly num ber o f cases receivin g gen eral r elie f adm inistered by C atholic a gen cies, average m onthly num ber p er 10 ,000
p op u la tion ,1 and average m onthly r elie f p er case in 48 sp ecified urban a rea s; 1 9 2 9 -3 5
Cases receiving relief
State and urban
area1
1929
1930
25
(«)
(*)
106
W
18
(‘ )
38
81
(«)
306
37
65
69
91
(«)
Average monthly number per 10,000 population 1
1932
1933
1934
1935
1929
33
1,947
118
96
709
58
2,533
144
65
698
78
1,883
85
222
655
(»)
900
72
79
410
P)
578
94
85
297
2.8
2.0
5.0
2.7
3.9
485
577
1,290
731
162
144
10.6
71
101
117
74
154
238
143
204
464
113
247
287
105
202
87
75
191
79
2.0
2.8
3.2
80
67
1.9
126
(«)
166
(•)
288
129
10,733
7,889
1930
1931
1929
1930
1931
1932
$3.89
$4.97
5.14
19. 75
3.27
$7.03
6.13
11.29
2.63
5.25
$3.80
5.16
10.59
4.80
6.33
1933
1934
1935
1932
1933
1934
1935
3.6
6.4
8.8 • 11.5
8.3
10.1
4.6
3.1
11.2
11.0
8.6
8.5
6.0
10.6
10.3
4.1
5.1
3.8
6.5
2.6
6.6
4.1
4.7
16.8
20.0
44.8
25.4
5.6
5.0
5.21
3.67
3.98
2.41
10.34
11.27
8.77
3.9
4.4
5.4
4.0
6.7
11.1
7.8
8.9
21.6
6.2
10.8
12.4
5.7
8.8
4.0
4.1
8.3
3.7
13.31
39.35
16.59
17.32
21.95
12.36
15.90
23.00
8.96
16.92
24.17
8.91
10.83
23.85
12.24
11.65
25.48
19.30
13.05
23.80
17.03
2.6
3.4
1.6
1.4
18.18
18.71
20.15
14.24
13.00
5.9
2.6
27.0
19.8
$2.69
5.37 $10. 06 $12 43
6.29
7.59
7.09
5.61
3.12
2.87
4. 62 10. 27 1 0 .7R
19.85
14.31
19.95
23.95
50
133
64
205
144
302
1 317
430
» 17
407
47
178
66
150
4.3
3.1
5.6
4.9
12.5
7.1
27.6
10.2
1.5
9.6
4.1
4.2
5.7
3.5
10.67
9.35
8.03
7.96
6.64
6.70
8.89
7.18
16.72
5.47
12.26
10.82
11.09
12.28
25
58
30
52
50
57
36
51
31
45
27
50
25
45
1.8
7.3
2.1
6.6
3.5
7.2
2.5
6.4
2.2
5.7
1.9
6.3
1.8
5.7
13.98
7.34
12.02
6.78
9.69
6.62
9.84
6.05
8.29
5.17
8.02
5.31
7.50
5.07
8.9
23.6
34.9
1.3
1.3
25.02
21.40
23.57
22.01
21.01
7.5
5.9
10.0
61.0
5.2
3.6
10.0
7.3
16.7
69.7
8.8
5.2
14.1
9.8
17.5
80.6
7.9
6.5
17.2
17.6
23.2
46.1
1.16
.43
15.5
14.1
3.52
14.74
4.39
6.99
4.51
18.3
6.0
4.03
5.08
6.25
7.80
3.93
20.2
6.0
5.11
9.92
6.60
4.96
18.42
9.43
2.09
18.5
24.7
23.4
5.9
6.39
11.91
6.76
5.63
20.68
9.19
2.89
31.5
81.1
19.0
5.7
7.20
13.67
7.85
5.47
13.82
10.48
4.33
5.88
3.78
5.89
(‘ )
(«>
713
1,900
2,810
102
102
48
68
85
611
53
40
64
84
142
699
90
58
90
113
149
808
81
73
110
112
148
294
288
813
194
64
157
248
239
66
132
(*)
207
68
120
(*)
187
67
APPENDIX
California:
Berkeley...................
Los Angeles............
Sacramento_______
San Diego................
San Francisco.........
Colorado:
Denver___________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport.............
Hartford...................
New Haven............
Dist. of Columbia:
Washington »_____
Illinois:
Chicago....................
Indiana:
Fort W ayne______
Indianapolis______
Iowa:
Des Moines *..........
Sioux C i t y .............
Maryland:
B altim ore...............
Massachusetts:
B rockton ................
Fall R i v e r .............
Lawrence.................
Lowell......................
L ynn.........................
New Bedford_____
monthly number
Average monthly relief per case
See footnotes at end of table.
to
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M .— A verage m onthly num ber o f cases receivin g general r elie f adm inistered by C atholic agen cies, average m onthly num ber p er 10,000
pop u la tion , arid average m onthly r elie f per case in 4-8 specified urban a rea s; 1929—85 Continued
Average monthly relief per case
Cases receiving relief
Michigan:
Flint..........................
Pontiac___________
Minnesota:
D uluth____________
St. Paul___________
Missouri:
St. Louis__________
Nebraska:
Omaha ' __________
N ew York:
Buffalo____________
N ew Rochelle------N ew Y o rk________
Niagara Falls_____
Rochester_________
Syracuse__________
Utica______________
Yonkers_______
Ohio:
Akron_________
Canton________
Cincinnati_____
D ayton........... ..
Pennsylvania:
W ilkes-Barre...
South Carolina:
Charleston____
Texas:
Fort W orth___
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Average monthly number per 10,000 population
Average monthly number
1031
1032
1933
1934
1035
$2.30
$3.25
$16.03
1.65
$9.20
1.49
$8.07
1.25
$13.11 $18.32
14.21
8.80
0.16
10.01
8.73
12.01
17.03
7.48
5.85
10.99
6.56
15.64
10.13
17.17
16.47
18.73
24.89
21.83
22.01
13.28
44.96
36.76
13.26
31.51
14.70
16.22
15.77
1020
«
(*)
66
107
1030
1031
(*)
<‘ )
0)
71
60
1030
1034
(‘>
60
23
28
44
46
40
04
118
126
236
203
262
445
120
263
63
147
6.5
3.7
1,058
1,007
1,630
225
310
2.8
1030
1034
1031
1.5
4.3
2.8
6.0
3.1
14.5
10.2
25.8
15.5
12.7
0.2
6.2
5.1
10.3
15.0
2.2
3.1
7.0
7.7
7.0
11.6
23.3
2.1
4.4
4.1
10.2
20.33
64
43
83
246
622
288
06
2.3
1.8
3.6
10.6
26.7
12.4
4.1
11.24
12.28
11.03
8.57
17.67
17.57
266
225
3
705
51
360
(‘)
312
67
371
7
1,466
66
662
171
170
603
4
2,023
61
003
76
170
382
3
1,310
31
614
200
2
3.5
.4
3.0
7.5
5.1
.6
.6
1,030
30
616
30
2.0
4.5
0.4
11.0
1.7
6.5
23.8
1.8
21.06
51.05
33.76
12.55
21.05
47
3.7
30.7
5.0
4.3
1.0
4.1
18.7
1.4
10.4
3.7
3.0.
.4
1.5
4.0
15.7
1.4
8.0
3.5
12.55
35.32
38.46
15.81
21.00
68
5.0
1.3
2.1
8.6
17.1
8.2
17.6
6.5
8.1
.7
88
557
3
1,173
40
781
37
103
68
26.85
2.86
26.74
15.66
28. 81
30.33
12.27
24.25
13.23
0. 51
18.51
10.13
33.20
27.60
13.38
26.20
10.35
9.00
15.73
9.88
33.16
35.62
11.01
20.55
12.57
16.46
18.05
10.17
40. 50
35.95
12.74
30.17
16.26
15.46
14.82
281
16
246
467
641
82
1,206
470
77
157
17.0
8.0
24.6
13.29
12. 72
17.09
12.03
13.69
11. 42
13.31
14.85
18.48
6
14.07
14.03
10.40
13.04
8.83
” 4.8
0.62
17 42
23.04
13.78
15.93
22.0
12
6.3
1.8
3.1
.4
21.0
23.6
1.0
2.6
5.78
5.87
10.88
7.04
5.38
o. o
8.5
7.2
8.4
7.2
2.35
2.24
1.66
2.23
2.56
3.2
7.7
7.8
8.18
2.84
7.03
2
440
34
307
to
(»)
60
150
21
186
0
(*)
26
66
610
20
106
60
01
8102
1,460
284
227
408
637
43
50
63
46
52
46
153
155
2
(‘)
.6
<‘ >
.6
1.0
6.8
10.0
1.4
4.2
.5
L3
16.2
4.8
8.7
.2
8.1
30.3
3.6
17.6
6.1
10.2
7.2
10.1
2.7
6.6
” §."o’
.1
7.24
22! 82
26.20
16.71
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
State and urban
area
122
T able
109759
w
«
Virginia:
Norfolk.....................
Richmond________
Washington:
Seattle____________
Wisconsin:
Madison..................
Milwaukee..............
121
115
90
75
81
250
0)
0)
(‘)
120
537
««59
2,300
»4
132
6
95
10
86
(4)
<4)
(4)
21
3,683
<‘ )
3,317
(4)
2,700
5.1
4.8
3 .8
5.0
1.6
1.7
5.4
11.6
5.2
31.7
.3
5.5
1.9
60.8
1
4.0
45.7
7
3.6
37.2
14.04
16.94
13.26
13.99
11.36
10.22
9.29
7 11.
8.07
4.46
11.86
4.03
11.98
2.95
3.08
6.87
17.26
4.13
10.94
2.76
i Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census. Territory and population to which reports relate are shown in appendix A , p . 65.
Based on the reports o i l agency in each urban area except: Buffalo, N ew York, Niagara Falls, Akron, and Cincinnati— 2 agencies in each area: and San Francisco— 4 agencies.
* Included in report for Oakland.
4 Report not available.
< Separate report for Catholic agencies not available.
* Does not include reports of St. Vincent de Paul Society.
7 Operated jointly with a public agency, September 1932-July 1933.
8 Relief provided during 7 months.
* Relief provided during 8 months!
19 Relief provided during 11 months.
APPENDIX B
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
124
1929-35
Type of agency,
State, and urban
area •
Average monthly number per 10,000 populat ion 1
Average monthly number
1930
1929
1933
1934
1935
1,514
22
71
409
127
2,611
179
127
210
120
1,288
114
29
• 177
109
» 709
842
‘ 7
>359
1,452
36
1.8
.9
2.0
.6
238
261
1.6
5.2
1.9
1933
1934
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
$5.18
1.50
.78
2.13
2.72
$6.50
2.08
1.73
.87
3.97
$6.38
.53
8.52
$8.61
.57
4.16
4.23
2.78
.99
5.55
1935
Salvation Army
California:
Los Angeles_______
Oakland...................
San Francisco........
393
26
(*)
(•)
99
N ew Britain______
Delaware:
Florida:
Jackson ville..-----Georgia:
Des Moines______
Sioux C ity.............
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(* )
81
92
56
103
172
110
328
164
161
132
108
118
116
112
166
121
43
119
69
■ 164
28
297
11
179
40
61
48
69
58
139
81
257
»102
256
33
28
62
78
57
Illinois:
Indiana:
Fort W ayn e.........
Indianapolis-------South Bend..........
93
138
50
98
18
145
15
36
38
118
(«)
42
(‘ )
37
«
5,797
111
2,274
125
724
• 177
303
60
(4)
45
(»)
182
142
(*)
360
82
72
100
90
48
47
136
92
20
377
306
117
106
192
69
230
157
319
227
• 621
307
31
62
148
0)
3
27
11.8
6.3
8.9
10.0
1.9
5.8
4.0
2.0
8 .4
1.7
2.4
1.2
3 .4
6.0
3.8
2.5
3.4
5.1
6.0
7.3
17.9
7.1
23.6
6 1
5.9
5.1
17.0
5.2
9.1
5.3
6.3
5.5
5.0
6.7
4.3
1.7
.7
3.2
3 .0
.5
1.6
5.1
2.5
$7.78
6.95
$6.64
2.86
3.8
4.1
2.43
2 43
3.61
$5.72
2.78
1.41
1.45
4.82
4.14
6.88
2.58
3.99
17.27
4.67
7.54
3.39
6.62
3.64
.72
7.26
1.84
2.04
1.68
10.35
2.57
1.88
1.06
6.97
2.76
1.41
3.53
7.18
1.89
1.81
3.42
2.35
3.08
5.34
19.63
11.81
1.0
6.3
2.2
1.7
2.4
2.4
3.4
6.4
.1
1.7
3.5
168
1.2
2.1
3 .4
6.1
3.7
(*)
2.6
4.3
3.1
4.8
3.7
9.7
5.2
18.0
6.6
17.9
1.0
.8
1.8
2.3
1.7
1.2
2.2
.5
1.8
76
213
14.6
13.5
5.7
15.2
1.8
21.5
.8
15.8
3.4
31.3
1.9
6.9
8.7
2.1
4.6
4.1
3.2
8.8
1.7
8.9
29.4
19.8
13.5
8.7
16.1
19.8
22.4
28.7
43. 6
38.8
3.9
1.9
4.5
7.3
21
32 ” " i . T
206
8.2
13.4
»• is
3.88
3.53
3.12
2.23
6.58
6.58
10.15
14.83
16.53
7.14
5.85
5.46
4.48
7.12
4.05
5.26
3.80
4.94
3.77
9.92
7.33
3.55
4.19
7.14
10.83
5.17
15.21
9.24
17.17
8.72
22.46
28.26
fi 48
5.62
8.80
’ *6.33
1.35
2.36
.60
7.60
1.57
1.99
6.68
3.38
6.73
3.83
2.77
8.66
1.87
1.12
10.32
3.42
1.42
3.23
4.08
3.17
3.73
5.12
2.50
7.45
1.93
10.83
1.85
4.45
4. 77
R E L IE F , 1 9 2 9 -3 5
D ist. of Columbia:
46
78
C9
(<)
35
6.9
.8
5.0
19.5
2.0
P R IV A T E
69
Connecticut:
Bridgeport...............
450
18
(‘ )
109
122
AND
1932
1932
P U B L IC
1931
1931
IN
1929
1930
TRENDS
Average monthly relief per case
Cases receiving relief
40
118
24
84
35
97
41
67
37
28
41
41
26
603
163
172
«
0)
125
.9
20.0
1.5
12.1
2.8
13.8
1. 7
9.9
4.1
»29
233
160
.5
5.6
.9
7.4
.8
3.7
.9
5.3
.6
78.7
179
178
23.0
24 3
14.7
1.48
2.74
1.36
3.33
2.60
2.89
.47
6.39
15.53
2.73
30.4
20.9
6.97
3.27
5.39
4.08
5.39
5.94
4.62
3.71
6.85
.41
6.76
.78
1.97
25.3
25.1
2.60
2.28
3.63
8.74
.6
2.28
119
471
301
399
14
20
1.4
1.5
5.9
3.7
5.0
.2
.2
2.90
3.64
6.07
17.66
19.00
13.61
20.05
500
34
24
22
74
561
61
42
830
83
45
103
36
189
60
45
1,440
219
26
32
27
100
62
52
771
148
11
20
172
87
26
12
646
108
18
28
59
100
191
45
470
100
63
23
58
108
137
66
5.9
3.0
1.6
1.1
1.1
56.4
.7
1.0
6.4
5.3
2.1
1.9
8.7
54.8
5.4
2.2
10.6
13.0
4.0
8.9
4.2
18.5
5.3
2.3
18.4
34.3
2.3
2.8
3.2
9.8
5.5
2.7
9.9
23.2
1.0
1.7
20.2
8.5
2.3
.6
8.3
16.9
1.6
2.4
6.9
9.8
17.0
2.3
6.0
15.7
6.5
2.0
6.8
1.67
4.60
4.00
3.76
2.19
1.28
3.40
6.74
3.77
1.34
2.54
1.71
4. 79
5.32
2.10
6.12
1.99
1. 72
1.52
2.71
3.40
4.67
3.87
4.28
3.89
2.47
3.04
1.62
1.16
3.08
2.22
2.83
3. 72
3.11
3.42
1.99
2.31
3.38
.83
3. 61
3.46
4.56
4.28
2.66
3.21
2.92
1.45
3.03
451
211
30
(*)
238
103
54
273
159
'»71
59
323
83
54
10 30
143
(4)
1.3
5.9
1.3
2.7
13 5
1.2
1.4
6.6
2.2
42.0
.9
4 ft
2.5
49.7
.5
2.7
23.3
.3
5.8
5.1
.3
1.9
6.9
1.77
4.77
8.55
3.21
10.13
6.29
.83
3.89
9.02
5.12
.74
5.45
66
151
54
90
123
(*)
2.44
.95
7.61
2.71
1.32
7.42
1.66
.97
118
95
138
87
171
71
200
179
145
32
34
30
2.8
2.3
2.5
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.7
2.6
4.3
6.2
3.1
1.1
.7
1.0
5.11
1.55
5.69
1.00
8.28
1.57
5.72
1.80
4.16
1.31
5.56
3.80
6.47
3.31
79
149
113
740
93
624
104
529
39
88
74
27
1.9
1.0
2.0
1.4
2.8
7.2
2.3
6.0
2.6
6.1
1.0
.9
1.9
.3
6.53
4.56
3.22
3.47
3.97
8.98
5.68
12.12
8.47
16.20
9.61
15.31
6.82
18.82
124
151
288
473
216
70
4.3
5.3
6.6
12.4
20.3
9.3
69
985
44
83
32
489
19
134
74
260
35
75
102
137
46
76
47
140
(4)
70
22
153
(4)
47
2.1
9.2
1.6
5.4
2.2
22.3
2.7
6.7
1.0
11.1
1.2
10.9
2.3
5.9
2.2
6.1
3.2
3.1
2.8
6.2
1.5
3.2
.7
3.5
5.7
3.8
159
421
3,950
42
60
(4)
67
379
241
450
7,318
95
31
37
70
765
57
65
4,165
50
68
33
31
232
110
75
2,576
117
60
99
77
991
70
101
1,329
12.5
5.6
5.7
8.6
1.0
3.7
7.8
1.0
1.4
5.5
1.4
1.9
76
31
63
14
63
40
67
18.9
6.0
10.6
12 ft
.9
1. 8
6.9
56.8
4.5
.7
6.0
6
11.5
4.2
3.8
2 0
1.8
1. 8
1. ft
3.0
17.2
3.0
4.7
1.4
4.7
3.9
4.2
166
66
'» 166
1,164
41
20.1
12.3
38 1
140.8
7.7
252.6
10.3
18.7
40.3
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
21
103
59
62
2,088
55
(*)
100
569
216
5.7
4.6
.2
ft. ft
1.5
5.6
28.1
7.1
11.6
1.5
10.6
12.2
3.4
2.3
68.8
2.86
3.48
5.00
3.32
5.85
3.08
4.29
2.24
1.99
4.15
4.33
3.13
3.56
4.04
6.27
9.38
9.14
5.69
4.79
2.05
3.43
4.78
4.80
1.47
3.32
7.70
2.10
6.02
3.38
5.93
2.12
4.06
3.42
7.85
4.05
6.00
6.75
3.54
4.61
4.69
6.42
4.89
4.90
2.27
1.67
1.53
10.83
3.41
2.62
1.63
1.58
5.01
4.28
3.50
2.55
3. 81
2.15
5.28
5.22
3.74
4.76
12.54
9.99
10.91
4. 37
4.32
13.19
16.90
5.70
8.48
15.71
5.43
3.70
5.62
7.80
9.28
3.36
3.47
5.85
3.74
7.82
3. 19
3.31
.99
8.33
6.48
2.20
4.40
2.96
11. U
7.75
17.16
9.94
4.09
4. 81
2.70
7.57
4.53
10.41
1.85
4.38
1.99
8.27
4.44
2.95
APPENDIX
Kansas:
Kansas C ity______
13
Topeka................. ..
170
Louisiana:
N ew Orleans______
23
Shreveport..............
43
M aine:
Portland................... '(<)
M aryland:
Baltimore.................
111
Massachusetts:
Boston.......................
460
Brockton..................
19
Cambridge.......... ..
18
Fall R iver. ______
13
Lawrence_________
9
L ynn.........................
577
New Bedford.........
8
Worcester.................
20
Michigan:
Detroit.....................
220
Flint...... ...................
92
Grand Rapids____
32
P o n tia c ..________
(•)
Minnesota:
Minneapolis______
129
St. P a u f..................
66
Missouri:
Kansas C ity ______
75
8 t. Louis..................
104
Nebraska:
O m a h a .................
100
N ew Jersey:
Jersey C i t y . .........
66
Newark................
407
The Oranges_____
26
Trenton................
66
N ew York:
A lba n y ...............
147
Buffalo.............
313
N ew York____
2,612
Niagara Falls____
15
Rochester.
60
Syracuse.............
(«)
Utica_________
(•)
Yonkers_______
77
North Carolina:
Asheville................ .
Charlotte..... ............
38
Greensboro..............
17
to
Type of agency,
State, and urban
area
Cincinnati...............
Cleveland................
Columbus................
Toledo......................
Oregon:
1930
1931
1934
1935
1932
1933
589
» 102
1,410
151
715
16
10
42
92
334
24
150
176
114
161
285
31
26
116
79
107
76
35
120
41
103
153
113
(4)
186
362
49
481
460
276
47
142
454
27
1,138
283
494
102
100
62
53
153
13 172
18
25
64
346
12
28
97
489
104
70
39
90
2,891
100
257
20
192
250
48
261
292
87
200
65
48
78
532
(1»)
187
300
53
130
21
27
74
534
(it)
69
186
23
Philadelphia...........
Reading....................
Scranton...................
Sharon......................
Rhode Island:
Providence..............
South Carolina:
283
1,118
188
24
83
26
(•)
Tennessee:
Knoxville.................
Texas:
E l Paso.....................
Utah:
Salt Lake C ity___
Virginia:
Norfolk ........... .
Roanoke...................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
«
183
22
12
1932
1933
1931
1932
1933
$12.78
3.77
5.90
9.14
3.46
3.57
3.94
9 .8
$7.05
4.80
11.60
7.01
4.42
$3.31
11.42
11.14
7.64
5.37
5.39
1.59
$4.43 $23.88 $17.00
7.12
8.22
16.77
18.84
2.02
9.07
2.51
3.51
6.59
3.99
1.77
$2.89
10.78
13.00
3.32
3.50
7.62
2.14
5.28
6.38
5.07
4.72
11.51
3.87
3.62
9.28
4.04
2.81
2.18
3.00
8.82
2. 21
2.40
3.97
16.08
6.6
6.9
6.1
8.37
4.86
4.59
7.39
2.68
4.26
1.63
4.02
3.94
1.29
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
1.1
2.3
2.0
.7
3.0
11.1
1.2
4.3
3.6
1.7
1.3
3.1
6.4
12.9
4.3
8.2
3.8
7.6
6.8
4.9
16.1
2.4
19.3
2.4
13.7
14. 8
3.4
1.8
1.6
4.5
5.1
.4
1.6
15.0
2.5
6.4
8.3
15.1
8.9
18.0
2.5
2.2
13.9
14.8
34.5
2.3
2.7
12.0
2.7
22.5
.7
1.6
11.4
2.7
8.1
.6
1.4
5.7
3.3
31.6
.8
.7
11.3
17.6
16.2
8.1
18.1
9.9
2.5
11.2
4.3
2.2
7.7
6.9
11.2
Pennsylvania:
Chester.....................
Erie............................
1930
1929
1929
Salvation Army—
Continued
Ohio:
A k ro n 14___________
Average monthly number per 10,000 population
Average monthly number
47
16
24
« 37
643
(it)
51
128
37
462
(M)
154
114
33
.6
1.4
9.9
1.8
3.5
4.3
15.5
3.7
204
147
98
1.0
91
117
14
20.9
8.9
23.9
1.3
19.8
0.6
0.4
.7
.8
9.3
.4
1.2
4.9
3.9
6.5
2.4
44.2
7.4
8.1
5.8
3.9
3.9
13.3
14.6
18.8
2.2
1934
1935
1.36
2.53
2.24
3.92
3.37
1.55
5.43
16. 42
2.94
8.94
1.87
6. 51
13.76
6.48
4.59
1.99
11.35
9.35
1.39
4.32
1.90
9.17
3.01
1.71
1.12
2.83
1.67
1.54
5.08
2.81
3.27
6.34
2.20
1.33
2.52
2.64
1.08
.81
5.29
7.51
6.74
8.91
2.44
3.38
4.15
3.41
3.67
90
7
155
21
135
72
198
24
75
38
60
5.8
.3
9.9
.9
8.7
3.2
12.7
1.1
4.8
2.4
3.8
1.41
3.13
2.05
3.54
3.21
3.42
1.15
6.17
2.10
2.58
1.94
9
7
70
48
305
94
216
132
128
681
(«)
237
(4)
.7
1.1
.5
3. 5
3.6
15. 4
7.1
10.9
10.0
6. 5
51.7
18.0
3.52
4.68
3.77
3.47
3.77
.87
1.78
.94
2.67
.97
.29
.48
38
284
356
29
36
102
97
2.0
14.6
18.3
1.5
1.9
5.3
5.0
39
43
40
71
84
155
18
43
17
16
8
12
2.8
6.2
2.9
10.3
6.1
22.4
1.3
6.2
1.2
2.3
.6
1.7
(*)
(4)
5.28
2.54
1.26
1.78
2.13
4.89
7.36
4.00
7.08
3.45
5.88
2.40
3.22
8.86
1.93
4.43
4.64
5.23
11.80
____
___
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Average monthly relief per case
Cases receiving relief
126
N .— A verage m onthly num ber o f cases receivin g general r elie f adm inistered by the Salvation A rm y, the V olun teers o f A m erica , and certain
other private a gen cies; average m onthly num ber per 10,000 pop u la tion ; and average m onthly r elie f per case in 97 sp ecified urban a rea s;
1 9 2 9 -8 6 — Continued
T able
W ashington:
Seattle......................
Tacom a....................
W est Virginia:
H u n tin g to n ...........
Wisconsin:
Milwaukee..............
Racine____________
1.1
2.3
6.3
14.6
30.6
27.8
120.3
2.2
7.4
4.9
5.4
6.4
6.9
166
69
.1
.1
2.0
1.6
6.4
.9
1.3
72
.4
2.9
1.8
57
>•26
.5
.4
.7
66
19
.7
1.0
1.2
42
1.6
3.8
1« 102
IT21
108
0
246
238
102
146
286
261
1,128
1,309
162
67
367
49
461
62
226
72
131
33
67
21
68
30
19
«
24
28
360
77
838
172
641
37
206
37
(0
27
36
99
86
121
(")
76
(“ >
40
166
15
101
21
18
32
37
67
17
23
10
46
66
66
60
0
0
0
0)
Volunteers of
America
19
O')
68
0*)
137
(>•)
133
268
169
201
294
»38
0
3.7
12.3
O ther private
agencies
California:
Los Angeles:
Agency no. 1____
Agency no. 2____
San Francisco M—
Connecticut:
Bridgeport...............
Hartford...................
N ew Britain...........
N ew H aven______
District of Colum
bia:
Washington............
Florida:
M iam i............... ..
Indiana:
Fort W ayne:
Agency no. 1 ___
Agency no. 2 ____
Terre Haute............
7
6
407
4
11
407
n 24
it 13
494
1,066
1,066
171
186
(«)
67
14
(*)
62
73
19
<«)
60
128
26
(‘ )
69
72
37
(‘ )
66
64
41
21
61
62
28
17
59
66
22
13
(*)
(0
47
44
(0
0
24
18
0)
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
41
(‘ )
22
34
81
95
0
0
122
»239
69
46
42
0
49
27
» 16
33
M l 1.............
}
.1
-1
6.4
6.4
7.8
2.6
2.1
2 .8
3.2
2.8
3.3
5.6
3.7
43
.8
(•)
291
37j
3.7
4.9
15.3
APPENDIX B
California:
Los Angeles_______
Sacramento_______
Colorado:
Denver____________
Indiana:
Indianapolis...........
Terre H aute______
Louisiana:
N ew Orleans_____
Michigan:
Grand Rapids____
Ohio:
Columbus................
Washington:
Tacoma.....................
to
00
Cases receiving relief
Average monthly number
1929
Average m onthly relief per case
Average monthly number per 10,000 population
1930
1931
1932
1933
78
85
91
107
90
18
27
38
49
33
(4)
<4)
1934
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
$5.74
$4.40
$4.53
$4.26
$4.65
$4.39
$3.89
4.30
3.34
2.53
2.13
2.33
6.31
6.07
5.76
6.25
7.18
8 .6
5.92
5.71
4.69
4.65
13.74
19.15
5.03
6.15
4.75
1.1
1.9
19.41
21.67
5.31
6.73
21.29
22.99
10.25
18.47
9.32
17.56
1935
1929
66
5.5
6.0
6.4
1.6
2.4
3.4
4.2
5.0
3.7
2.5
1.6
7.5
3.3
1.4
2.8
8.8
2.9
Z3
4.8
9.0
Z 2
1.5
Z 7
8.3
1.2
Z 4
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
7.5
6.3
5.5
4.6
4.4
3.0
Other private
agencies—Contd.
Iowa:
Des M oines_____
Kansas:
Wichita____ ____
Louisiana:
Shreveport...........
Massachusetts:
Boston___ . . . . . . .
M alden_________
Springfield______
Worcester_______
Michigan:
Detroit__________
Missouri:
Kansas C ity ........
8t. Louis________
N ew Jersey:
Newark_________
N ew York:
N ew Y ork _______
Syracuse_________
Utica____________
Ohio:
Cincinnati_______
Oregon:
Portland............... .
Pennsylvania:
Altoona__________
Chester__________
Philadelphia_____
Pittsburgh_______
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(4)
(4)
425
534
15
30
18
35
78
32
38
28
»« 19
M 12
585
» 19
24
55
690
17
39
94
705
«‘ 13
26
53
652
668
5.4
6.8
18
37
.9
L5
LI
L8
21
46
22.86
24.51
6.12
13.10
18.55
65
129
130
143
125
105
77
.4
.8
.8
.8
.7
.6
.5
6.90
5.79
6.23
5.20
2.61
2.71
4.10
47
52
64
98
••88
125
««369
56
68
1.2
L3
L6
2.5
.9
3.1
3.6
L4
1.7
14.60
14.98
14.32
10.85
16.57
7.90
20.40
13.73
15.38
83
81
64
61
1.2
1.4
L7
1.9
1.8
1.4
......
-----
53
63
74
254
(*)
256
(4)
27
206
7
52
• 11
63
49
36
41
304
396
946
1,355
251
77
229
214
73
189
(“ )
218
78
73
23
356
<4)
153
83
31
582
175
239
177
93
•2360
(“ )
J
287
659
66
549
(“ )
223
584
76
533
(••)
1.4
—
9.64
10.30
9.82
9.25
8.19
8.58
9.87
2Z98
24.84
11.29
27.34
4.44
7.80
3.87
5.31
6.10
2.7
.3
5.1
6.2
4.8
3.5
4.0
5.31
7.45
3.7
5.2
6.7
16.1
23.0
4.3
1.3
3.50
3.43
3.02
1.79
1.22
1.56
1.59
no
2.3
4.5
7.1
8.5
6.6
6.8
3.3
8.52
8.41
8.42
8.61
4.97
4.70
5.43
218
76
156
(>*)
8.9
.8
1.8
10.1
1.1
3.0
L3
21.6
3.3
1Z 1
80.3
Z 4
2.8
71.2
2.7
Z 7
26.1
Z 6
1.0
26.6
Z 7
.8
12.69
14.28
12.08
12.16
18.30
11.58
8.56
9.84
10.70
12 94
4.30
17.02
18.87
3.06
13.06
16.80
5.02
14.84
17.24
5.08
13.58
17.94
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929—35
Type of agency,
State, and urban
area
South Carolina:
Charleston____
Tennessee:
M em phis_____
Washington:
Tacoma______
W est Virginia:
H untington...
9.03
2.40
i Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930census.
L93
1.80
2.22
7.88
5.86
6.72
5.72
5.58
11.15
5.26
2.52
1.55
2.88
8.36
2.60
Territory
D es Moines, Shreve-
aJ“ ”S,° “ Ch“ W
agencies.
3 includes report for Pasadena.
< Report not available.
» Relief provided during 6 months.
::a
s
s
- —
“ S
S
C
d
S
T
S
h
s c k
s e
s
to a public agency.
20 Relief pmvid^d S
6 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
si Relief provided during 7 months.
.__, __ . . . .
.
03 Includes 6 agencies prior to 1934 and 5
/ ° r_
v 9m 3
oo Operated Jointly with a public agency, ^ p t e m ^ r l W W m y 1933
24 includes 2 agencies prior to 1934 and only 1 agency for 1934 ana l v s o .
2t Relief provided during 2 months.
*' Relief provided durinl 8 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
andveterans’ reliefin pitteburghseetablesFa
, _
„
*pp- ’
,
■
b
1 * Relief provided’ d u rin g!m on th s preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
_
receMng^
a p p e n d ix
* Relief provided during 7 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
8 Relief provided during 9 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
• Separate report for Salvation A rm y not available.
10
Relief provided during 5 months.
ii Relief provided during 3 months.
12
Relief provided during 10 months.
is uniipf nrovided. ,Tanuary-March and December.
____
T able O.
Average monthly number of cases receiving veterans' relief administered by certain private agencies, average monthly number per
10,000 population, and average monthly relief per case in 84 specified urban areas; 1929—85
Cases receiving relief
Average monthly number
1929
1930
87
63
86
66
10
43
20
6
12
*2
13
63
44
82
17
61
23
93
22
109
32
84
21
161
78
82
17
202
175
90
86
89
95
129
8
14
17
30
1931
1932
1933
Average monthly relief per case
Average monthly number per 10,000 population
1934
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
$0.81
.82
$1.60
.77
$2.21
.88
$2.90
2.51
$2.91
1.63
$5.08
$6.04
16.16
33.09
11.95
16.34
22.17
33.30
17.88
20.85
15.45
19.81
18.28
25.82
17.70
11.06
8.58
22.89
13.91
11.43
6.59
15.14
13.12
10.33
26.27
13.01
14.80
24.04
1936
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
7
2.0
6.3
2.0
6.6
0.2
3.6
0.6
.5
0.3
.2
0.1
0 .2
<*)
143
63
42
«
118
64
24
1.4
.3
2.1
2.3
1.9
.3
1.1
1.5
2.4
.6
1.5
1.3
2.3
.9
3.7
1.3
1.9
1.2
8.3
1.4
.8
3.0
.7
.7
3.1
.4
176
68
37
2.9
3.0
3.2
4.4
5.9
2.0
1.3
10.44
8.65
7.41
7.66
12.38
9.46
12.18
22
16
17
.6
.9
1.1
1.9
1.4
1.0
1.1
15.34
19.83
23.46
17.04
17.32
17.78
20.22
22
26
•6
.5
5.89
5.60
8.63
7.95
9.34
7.89
6.72
8.30
7.13
6.44
4.47
4.23
American Red
C ross1 *
Alabama:
Birmingham...........
M obile.................. .
California:
Berkeley...........
San Diego................
San Francisco.........
Colorado:
D e n v e r .................
Connecticut:
Bridgeport...............
District of Columbia:
Washington_______
Florida:
Jacksonville_______
M iam i____________
Georgia:
Atlanta.....................
Illinois:
Chicago.....................
Springfield...............
Indiana:
Fort W ayne............
Indianapolis______
South Bend..........
Iowa:
Des Moines.............
Wichita............
Kentucky:
Louisville.................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(*)
(»)
62
106
36
10
(*)
11
(•)
13
19
22
22
10
6
8
8
33
31
33
76
90
70
62
149
4
154
7
360
6
100
3
94
34
69
30
10
7
26
23
6
33
10
6
42
8
3
34
13
•1
10
8
13
(*)
«
36
(*)
10
11
11
18
7
8
8
6
(*)
11
(»)
(*)
(•)
(»)
8
....... .......
1.3
2.2
.6
.7
.8
1.3
1.4
1.6
.6
.4
L0
LO
LO
2.4
2.8
.9
.4
.4
.6
2.0
.2
.4
L8
.6
.4
2.2
2.9
2.3
.4
.2
.7
.8
.8
1.3
—
6.66
2.2
1.6
12.04
12.07
9.65
6.60
8.16
6.15
5.53
•3
.1
.2
19.08
6.10
20.32
6.96
23.03
14.82
23.32
6.76
14.66
2.91
33.83
3.29
35.58
A 21
.3
•2
.5
.3
.1
9.51
8.94
15.01
13.83
5.94
13.66
13.21
14.24
11.26
10.40
12.24
14.00
7.54
7.03
4.50
10.22
9.16
2.84
13.06
.8
14.64
13.95
10.69
7.47
5.58
5.28
6.26
6.01
5.12
A 50
5.06
2.5
.2
0
_
7.27
•1
,i
5.49
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
T y pe of agency,
State, and urban
area
»-*
^3
Louisiana:
N ew Orleans______
Shreveport...............
Maine:
Portland__________
Massachusetts:
B o sto n ....................
Brockton..................
L y n n . . .....................
Michigan:
Grand Rapids____
Ohio:
A k r o n ................. ..
Canton......................
Cleveland................
Colum bus...............
D ayton.....................
Toledo.......................
Youngstown...........
Oregon:
Portland...................
.5
1.2
.3
1.4
.3
1.6
.4
4.2
.8
7.3
18
12
1.3
2.2
7.0
2.6
1.4
.9
9.94
9.05
7.89
4.04
5.72
8.59
5.51
12
(»)
66
9
1
16
91
(•>
49
9
1
11
.1
1.1
8.2
.1
2.0
3.1
.7
.2
.6
.2
3.4
3.6
.7
.2
.9
.1
.1
.8
10.44
4.20
7.81
8.14
32.13
9.29
4.29
3.8
1.6
.2
.6
19.87
4.86
11.04
6.79
6.50
11.43
13.54
5.1
1.6
.2
.9
15.49
4.76
2.80
5.84
14.31
8.86
17.21
2.7
.7
.2
.7
27.22
5.07
2.03
4.48
6.04
4.00
8.14
3.68
2.57
12.00
6.34
3.44
2.99
10.50
10.69
22.16
32
40
1.3
.6
.1
5.6
23.47
31
8.0
2.6
2.7
3.3
8.54
7.61
19.75
3.11
5.40
4.33
2.81
6.74
5.75
13
17
13
12
8
7
7
9
.3
.4
.2
.6
.6
.6
.4
.3
.2
.3
.3
28.80
7.82
22.45
14.99
17.87
12.38
16.85
10.11
18.36
10.15
19.98
7.25
14.64
70
576
72
685
37
68
70
25
.5
.2
1.3
1.2
1.5
6.7
1.5
6.7
.8
.7
1.5
.2
4.48
11.89
4.86
8.49
2 . 54
17.34
3.10
19.17
2.08
23.95
1.00
28.43
3.51
28.31
14
6
11
9
1.4
.7
.6
.5
.4
13.00
11.39
8.19
10.09
18.73
10.23
25.25
13
10
19
9
• 39
11
4
4
.3
.6
.7
.4
2.3
1.4
.2
.6
LI
.2
2.4
.7
.1
.1
13.92
24.43
11.08
12.03
20.14
13.81
5.43
23.63
10.96
3.39
.5
12.42
27.83
14.70
2.34
.5
9.84
25.57
12.94
10.53
8.91
11
14
12
18
15
19
20
52
35
91
17
24
28
89
33
16
11
107
(*)
2
(*)
12
13
133
6
1
0
17
21
41
4
2
11
24
35
47
4
1
17
13
(*)
35
4
1
13
12
(»)
16
20
(•)
46
15
2
67
96
0
10
6
10
7
22
20
26
39
62
117
33
30
16
15
0
11
22
12
16
22
37
24
21
187
(*)
19
551
<»)
13
534
40
7
1,127
44
12
(•)
15
(')
2
36
10
16
(»)
52
8
15
22
12
14
29
(‘)
64
14
18
53
13
67
52
(*)
.2
.6
(•)
(•)
(7)
.7
4.7
15.78
10.27
23.88
19.07
10.24
18.43
7.00
13.91
7.12
12.88
3.84
15.15
3.80
16.95
5.58
8
0
3
2,715
62
3
997
52
2
1,016
25
.3
.3
.2
.9
1.4
.1
2.0
1.5
i7)
4.8
2.1
(0
1.8
1.8
<9
1.8
.9
14.52
20.41
10.79
8.38
15.14
9.57
10.43
25.51
4. 55
7.76
30.37
4.35
2.75
21.80
3.68
2.26
25.55
3.91
5.65
10
91
2
391
2
292
1
225
1.5
.2
2.9
1.2
7.4
.2
31.8
.2
23.8
.1
18.3
15.97
22.74
29.52
3.31
6.96
3.46
5.46
2.30
8.44
1.97
6.18
1.35
21
19
16
97
13
5
67
11
25
34
46
131
14
3
79
8
6
(•)
220
163
15
27
65
3
5
19
136
48
17
20
30
5
4
19
112
31
11
1
28
3
.3
1.4
.7
3.0
.8
LI
.4
.1
2.3
.3
.2
.1
1.7
1.9
.3
.3
0
.8
.1
16.43
4.59
8.38
2.33
7.83
15.04
8.17
6.94
8. 57
13.71
8.54
3.7
1.4
.4
1.0
1.9
.1
.1
1.7
2.3
.4
.5
.7
.9
.2
9.51
5.94
.4
.2
.5
.6
.5
.6
1.7
.3
.8
.4
.2
1.9
.6
4.36
14.55
8.06
3.04
6.31
16.46
9.91
1.63
6. 20
12.68
10.16
6.18
3.85
4.60
13.36
2.65
6.69
15.06
10.63
10.06
6.42
10.56
38
803 »2,884
1.7
1.1
23.7
85.3
12.34
14.24
24.20
11.45
10.95
18.88
31.94
22.36
18.30
11.65
17.75
23.05
16.16
5.95
10.42
20.25
15.82
16.20
12.29
14.29
16.69
17.06
16.04
APPENDIX B
Saginaw...................
Minnesota:
Duluth..... ................
St. Paul....................
Missouri:
Kansas C ity ...........
St. Louis..................
Nebraska:
Omaha_____ ______
N ew Jersey:
Newark.....................
Orange......................
Trenton....................
N ew York:
Buffalo......................
New Y o rk ...............
Syracuse...................
North Carolina:
Asheville..................
33
58
23
16
See footnotes at end of table.
CO
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e O .—
A verage m onthly num ber o f cases receivin g veterans' r e lie f adm inistered by certain private a gen cies, average m onthly num ber p er
10,000 pop u la tion , and average m onthly r elie f p er case in 84 sp ecified urban a rea s; 1 9 2 9 -8 5 — Continued
Cases receiving relief
Average monthly number
1929
1930
2
4
2
52
39
8
22
17
2
5
1
72
67
16
22
20
11
1931
1932
8
5
1
244
(»)
16
28
21
io 13
13
Average monthly relief per case
Average m onthly number per 10,000 population
1933
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
8
10
185
(ii)
8
9
204
<»)
26
6
9
7
5
231
(,l)
25
6
19
0.1
.1
.3
.3
.3
.3
2.2
1.1
0.1
.2
.2
.4
.5
.6
2.2
1.3
0.6
.2
1.3
0.9
.6
.8
.7
0 .3
1.5
.9
0 .3
1.4
1.0
0 .2
.8
1.2
.7
2.8
1.3
2.1
3.2
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
.6
1.1
.6
1.2
(*)
(*)
2.8
3.3
1929
1930
1931
$6.04
3.68
11.52
15.33
48.41
34.14
27.27
24.89
$6. 32
6.28
7.08
12.78
40.34
28.38
17.10
24.45
$6.95
17.49
8.29
11. 26
$7.34
14.79 $11.56 $10.04 $12.88
12.84 14.15
18.11
18.81
11.17 14.02 21. 51 28.73
21.77
7.55
22.04
19.92
5.53
20.05
20.74
14.83
14.01
8.72
6.47
3.09
4.29
2.56
1.88
3.96
.29
.46
2.27
5.03
3.30
5.92
1.59
4.20
3.14
9.41
1. 28
9.45
7.42
1. 36
10.36
6.60
9.44
2.37
9.60
6.26
10.18
1. 69
7.38
7.21
8.53
2.05
8.81
1.21
5.46
6.67
4.66
6.69
4.55
3.42
12.70
4.38
6.34
7.84
4.90
3.38
6.73
4.80
1932
1933
1934
1935
American Red
Cross— Continued
Pennsylvania:
Altoona....................
Chester.....................
Lancaster....... .........
Philadelphia______
Pittsburgh.............
128
0 1)
49
32
21
(‘ )
13
18
Sharon.......................
Wilkes-Barre..........
Rhode Island:
Providence_______
South Carolina:
Charleston...............
Tennessee:
Knoxville................
16
9
10
6
5
6
7
31
34
98
150
120
6
400
Texas:
Dallas........................
El Paso.....................
6
1,104
4
1,876
819
722
32
55
12
26
43
37
29
22
64
41
25
34
129
96
18
24
49
142
89
19
(‘)
49
15
27
(*)
54
22
51
50
17
10
10
15
9
26
«
Utah:
Salt Lake C i t y . .. .
Virginia:
Norfolk.....................
Roanoke...................
Wisconsin:
Milwaukee_______
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(*)
(•)
(»)
15
8
32
(*)
(•)
28
33
(*)
(*)
24
9
82
(•)
(•)
51
<*)
29
»5
7
4
52
25
14
13
(*)
.3
.4
.2
.3
.2
.5
.6
.7
3.1
3.4
6.3
9 .6
5.4
.4
17.9
.4
49.5
.3
84.2
1.0
4 .2
.8
3.3
1.9
1.0
.7
4.9
2.1
.9
1.0
9.8
4.9
.6
LI
.3
3.6
1.7
.4
9 .0
IT
.7
.3
. . . . . .
to
2.6
2.6
1.2
.4
LI
1.1
.4
2.8
3 .7
7 .2
3 .0
36.8
32.4
.6
.8
2.5
•5
2.7
.8
1.2
.5
.2
—
.2
.2
11.98
3.93
17.64
20.59
3.89
34.23
29.37
3.88
15.75
2.98
5.65
1.96
2.46
7.74
9.52
5.54
7.06
6.41
7.30
3.34
4.34
2.73
11.77
15.61
_________
3.86
5.09
—
13.59
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Type of agency,
State, and urban
area
CO
American Legion 11
W est Virginia:
Huntington_______
Wisconsin:
Kenosha ...... ..........
208
21
63
22
30
184
29
55
10
34
107
(*)
278
64
80
60
60
<*)
283
245
172
167
121
126
107
162
122
156
86
(*)
63
47
60
340
120
90
129
(•)
75
40
66
.9
1.1
2.3
3.2
1.4
11
16
23
29
26
(•)
(•)
1.0
98
77
128
188
(*)
(*)
LI
24
HO
6
0
13
34
27
42
2! 8
5 .0
6.3
22.9
3.9
7 .0
Z 5
2 .6
2.3
2. 1
.8
.6
42
53
13
20
14
19
8.11
6.07
8.44
8.56
6.77
16.24
19.15
19.23
11.42
13.23
16.73
18.43
13.16
18.65
19.36
20.41
32. 64
25.40
9.81
12.70
7.54
46.86
31.77
35.93
27.04
1.8
1.2
__________
__________ __________
9.32
11.54
4.70
3.74
4.37
3.62
1.54
4. 03
3.10
3.82
Z 51
1.35
6.16
5.31
5.93
8.92
—
2.0
1 .8
L4
ZO
Z 1
10.15
8.44
8.11
7.14
5.47
9.31
.9
1.6
1 .8
1.5
.7
.7
19.64
8.31
7.38
6.98
6.53
8.78
7.88
4 .5
Z 4
L8
ZO
2Z96
8.87
7.37
10.11
13.49
17.22
14.19
.7
.6
LI
.6
.8
.7
.62
.87
1.03
.70
6.15
.73
5.96
.44
6.60
.44
142
161
106
56
41
46
2.2
32
32
43
37
38
37
29
42
(•)
.7
JJ
16
18
<*)
7.44
18.40
19.29
30.85
22.28
.9
62
«
10.69
37.53
28.77
33.78
28.46
3.3
5.9
Z6
.5
9
12
7.81
2.7
6.9
2.3
5.3
44
(*)
LI
5. 3
18 3
6.9
(*)
1 .3
3 5
68 ............
40
22
L3
(*)
9.93
4.15
19.45
17.06
4.83
19.88
2.70
3.97
5.22
7
11
17
14
128
76
17
1.2
3.0
2 .5
2 Z5
13.2
3.0
33.42
40.67
29.46
66
62
86
169
166
59
36
.3
.4
.8
.7
.3
.2
10.66
10.77
7.02
3.43
5.60
13.07
1.44
4.57
6.84
6.56
4.55
8.26
13.22
19.47
35.61
4.35
Other private
agencies 13
California:
Los Angeles ...........
Colorado:
D enver ...................
D ist. of Columbia:
Washington ........Kansas:
Topeka ...... .............
Massachusetts :
Springfield_______
Michigan:
Detroit.....................
Minnesota:
Minneapolis...........
Missouri:
Kansas C ity ...........
66
106
1
0
47
26
162
168
10
27
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12
42
0
76
132
6
76
7.34
1.9
175
4.03
7
106
(»)
(•)
130
22
103
140
36
20
12
.1
1.1
2.6
4.1
2.3
1.4
10.13
8.48
8.85
156
44
30
1.5
4.4
6.0
9.1
2.6
1.8
15.83
17.94
14.28
11.60
8.99
110
80
92
1.0
.8
.8
.6
.5
.5
6.11
7.04
7.85
6.63
4.25
4.40
16.59
3
10
134
H 51
i> 19
.4
.7
1. 9
3.4
23 42
25. 59
18.90
24.33
14.08
4.62
3.05
3.23
5.41
9.64
APPENDIX
California:
Los Angeles--------Connecticut:
Bridgeport......... ...
Hartford..................
New Britain......... .
New H aven______
Dist. of Columbia:
Washington............
Kansas:
W ichita____ ____ Kentucky:
Louisville_________
Louisiana:
New Orleans..........
Massachusetts:
Newton............ .......
Minnesota:
St. Paul....................
Nebraska:
Omaha ___________
Ohio:
Cincinnati ..............
T able
O .—
A verage monthly num ber o f cases receiving veterans’ relief adm inistered by certain private agencies, average monthly num ber per
10,000 population, and average m onthly r elief p er case in 8 4 specified urban areas ; 1929—85 — Continued
Average monthly relief per case
Cases receiving relief
Average monthly number per 10,000 population
Average monthly number
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1929
1930
1931
1932
2.1
2.4
3.0
1.9
1.9
3.4
6.5
1933
1934
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
$2.83
$2.98
$2.40
$3.09
6.82
$7.58
$7.45
30.54
23.91
20.67
16.77
2.85
3.12
2.94
1935
1935
Other private
agencies— Con.
N ew Jersey:
N e w a r k . .. . .. ..
N ew York:
Albany________
Ohio:
Cincinnati_____
Virginia:
Roanoke_______
27
26
107
131
84
24
43
>*83
13
53
31
.2
.2
.9
.5
11
20
60
1.2
1.6
2.9
4.2
0.6
.3
0.6
.2
.2
1.02
1.54
.99
1.23
9.04
11.44
12.70
8.87
> Territory and population to which reports relate are as given in the Directory of Red Cross Chapters.
* Based on the reports of 1 agency in each urban area except in New York (N . Y .) where 2 chapters of the American National Red Cross reported.
3 Relief provided during 9 months.
* Included in report for Oakland which is not available.
* Report not available.
« Relief provided during 2 months,
r Less than one-tenth of a case.
* Relief provided during 4 months.
* Relief provided during 7 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
10 Relief provided during 3 months.
v
u Separate report for the American National Red Cross not available. For unduplicated figures on cases receiving general and veterans’ relief in Pittsburgh, see tables F and
G , pp. 96, 102.
11 Relief provided during 5 months preceding transfer of cases to a private (nonsectarian) agency.
i3 Based on population of the urban area according to the 1930 census. Territory and population to which reports relate are shown in appendix A , p. 65.
i* Relief provided during 7 months.
i* Relief provided during 9 months preceding transfer of cases to a public agency.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929 -3 5
T y pe of agency,
State, and urban
area
^
T able P.— Annual, monthly, and daily average number of meals and lodgings provided to homeless and transient individuals by public and by
private agencies in 67 urban areas; 1929—88
Lodgings
Meals
Total
Public agencies
Private
agencies
Public
agencies
D aily average
Number
D aily average
Number
Year and month
Private
agencies
Total
Public agencies
Private
agencies
Public
agencies
Private
agencies
1929
358,561
1,558,495
982
4,270
1,073,700
181,673
892,027
493
January.............-
246,039
256,003
252,178
142,783
112,347
96,303
91,685
93,425
88,996
119,907
178,251
239,139
58,638
77,520
73,569
10,516
7,371
5,479
5,555
5,029
5,967
7,596
37,450
63,871
187,401
178,483
178,609
132.267
104,976
90,824
86,130
88,396
83,029
112,311
140,801
175.268
1,892
2,769
2,373
351
238
183
179
162
199
245
1,248
2,060
6,045
6,374
5,762
4,409
3,386
3,027
2,778
2,851
2,768
3,623
4,693
5,654
134,969
125,103
129,318
82,327
74,207
59,631
64,887
67,989
55,849
66,462
99,238
133,720
32,764
32,160
32,155
6,226
4,348
2,685
2,370
2,289
2,799
4,314
19,250
40,313
102,205
92,943
97,163
76,101
69,859
56,946
62,517
55,700
53,050
62,148
79,988
93,407
1,057
1,149
1,037
208
140
90
76
74
93
139
642
1,300
3,297
3,319
3,134
2,537
2,254
1,898
1,694
1,797
1,768
2,005
2,666
3,013
3,165,292
579,999
2,585,293
1,589
7,083
1,608,533
341,809
1,266,724
936
3,470
180,383
163,092
169,455
115,798
97,698
81,452
75,291
82,666
85,809
117,084
175,547
264,258
57,428
48,391
61,752
18,661
9,180
6,864
6,137
6,960
7,781
15,284
46,634
66,836
122,955
114.701
117.702
97,137
88,518
74,588
69,154
75,706
78,028
101,800
129,013
197,422
1,853
1,728
1,669
622
296
229
198
225
259
493
1,551
2,156
3,966
4,096
3,797
3,238
2,855
2,486
2,231
2,442
2,601
3,284
4,300
6,368
February................ ..
M arch______________
April_______________
M a y _______________
June______________ _
July..............................
August_____________
September_______ ».
O cto b e r........... ........
November_________
December__________
APPENDIX B
1,017,05«
2,444
Total________
1930
Total____
January_______
February...........
M arch_________
April__________
M a y ___________
June___________
July.....................
August________
September____
October_______
November____
December.........
323,237
297,441
319,584
195,642
164,889
142,603
144,439
160,939
162,696
230,449
373,913
649,560
92,393
81,847
86,407
21,454'
10,492
10,638
11,700
14,097
14,466
20,792
81,879
133,834
230,844
215,594
233,177
174,188
154,397
131,965
132,739
146,842
148,130
209,657
292,034
515,726
2,980
2,923
2,787
715
338
355
377
455
482
671
2,729
4,317
7,447
7,700
7,522
6,806
4,981
4,399
4,282
4,737
4,938
6,763
9,734
16,636
00
Or
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e P .CO
05
Meals
Total
Public agencies
Lodgings
D aily average
Private
agencies
Public
agencies
Number
Private
agencies
Total
Public agencies
D aily average
Private
agencies
Public
agencies
Private
agencies
1931
Total.
8,527,818
2,696,318
5,831,498
7,387
15,977
January___
February...
March_____
April_______
M a y _______
June_______
July..............
August_____
September..
October____
N ovem ber..
Decem ber..
2,884,280
614,995
851,196
847,094
909,438
680,377
525,240
382,276
356,911
383,225
444,595
733,209
1,021,098
1,393,157
2, 269,285
256,078
279,393
306,623
247,186
185,616
69,734
72,134
84,340
91,677
261,219
372,824
469,494
1,685
6,217
595,118
567,701
602,815
433,191
339,624
312,542
284,777
298,885
352,918
471,990
648,274
923,663
8,261
9,978
9,891
8,240
5,988
2,324
2,327
2,721
3,056
8,426
12,427
15,145
19,197
20,275
19,446
14,440
10,956
10,418
9,186
9,641
11,764
15,225
21,609
29,796
296,497
286,270
305,865
246,176
185,232
150,397
133,605
145,393
163,550
230,861
308,959
431,475
75,819
68,644
72,126
52,793
29,444
23,496
21,402
26,116
30,348
45,390
66,135
103,282
220,678
217, 626
233,739
193,383
155,788
126,901
112, 203
119,277
133,202
185,471
242,824
328,193
2,446
2,452
2,327
1,760
950
783
690
842
1,012
1,464
2,205
3,332
7,119
7,772
7,540
6,446
5,025
4,230
3,619
3,848
4,440
5,983
8,094
10,587
Total.
14,402,184
4,847,097
9,555,087
13,243
26,107
January___
February...
M arch_____
April_______
M a y _______
June..............
July...............
August.........
Septem ber..
October____
Novem ber..
D ecem ber..
4,757,195
1,069,434
1,601,152
1,500,526
1,473,904
1,230,151
958,755
889,997
935,834
952,528
933,108
1,047,654
1,293,138
1,585,437
3 687,761
558,959
490,932
475.095
423,264
327,254
316,578
350,627
344,992
281,886
298,174
449.096
530,240
2,922
10,076
1,042,193
1,009,594
998,809
806,887
631,501
673,419
585,207
607,536
651,222
749,480
844,042
1.055,197
18,031
16,929
15,326
14,109
10,557
10,553
11,311
11,129
9,396
9,619
14,970
17,105
33,619
34,814
32,220
26,896
20,371
19,114
18,878
19,598
21,707
24,177
28,135
34,039
502,507
479,578
482,204
428,313
321,567
282,974
273,611
283,258
307,882
366,666
467,408
561,227
116,330
120,725
128,417
112,486
63,239
52,456
49,961
62,218
46,471
63,476
118,197
145,458
386,177
358,853
353,787
315,827
258,328
230,518
223,650
231,040
261,411
303,190
349,211
415,769
3,753
4,163
4,142
3,750
2,040
1,749
1,612
1,684
1,549
2,048
3,940
4,692
12,457
12,374
11.412
10,528
8,333
7,684
7,215
7,453
8,714
9,780
11,640
13.412
1932
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Number
Year and month
1933
Total............................
July
....................................
18,885,197
6,260,353
12,624,844
17,162
1,768,957
1,676,895
1,877,989
1,682,789
1,511,247
1,363,566
1,327,892
1,332,669
1,314,373
1,473,954
1,627,399
1,927,467
593,683
566,279
629,263
590,536
525,825
440,931
409,468
422,027
423,570
469,098
641,179
648,494
1,175,274
1,110,616
1,248,726
1,092,253
985,422
922,635
918,424
910,642
890,803
1,004,856
1,086,220
1,278,973
19,151
20,224
20,299
19,685
16,962
14,698
13,209
13,614
14,119
15,132
18,039
20,919
APPENDIX
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e Q .—
A n n u a l num ber o f meals and lodgings provided to homeless and transient individuals in 81 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -8 8
Number
State and urban area
M eals........................................................ ..
Lodgings............................ ........... ...............
Arkansas:
Little Rock:
M eals............. ............. .........
...............
Lodgings..................................
California:
Long Beach:
M eals____ ________ . .
Lodgings----------------------------------------------Los Angeles:
M eals_____________ _________
___
L o d g in g s ..................... .........
Pasadena:
M e a l s ................................
Lodgings_____________________
1930
1931
1932
1933
1929 to 1930 1930 to 1931 1931 to 1932
1932 to 1933
3
3
22,186
11,296
39,030
19,994
44,658
23,239
76,586
29,404
107,944
40,897
+ 7 5 .9
+ 7 7 .0
+ 1 4 .4
+ 1 6 .2
+ 7 1 .5
+ 2 6 .5
+ 4 0 .9
+ 3 9 .1
1
1
2,131
6,389
3,678
5,431
12,478
11,423
14,436
12,794
106,049
41,188
+ 7 2 .6
-1 5 .0
+ 239.3
+ 110.3
+ 1 5 .7
+ 1 2 .0
+ 63 4 .6
+ 221.9
5
5
5,310
2; 032
6,736
3,326
15,935
3,216
22,295
5,906
171,363
33,423
+ 2 6 .9
+ 6 3 .7
+ 1 3 6 .6
-3 .3
+ 3 9 .9
+ 8 3 .6
+ 6 6 8 .6
+ 46 5 .9
6
3
4,233
2,204
10,357
7,002
58,392
10,971
133,918
23,504
105,068
27,341
+144. 7
+ 217.7
+ 46 3 .8
+ 5 6 .7
+ 12 9 .3
+ 1 1 4 .2
- 2 1 .5
+ 1 6 .3
18
16
0)
«
(0
0
2,022,574
' 726; 325
0
0
0
0
3
3
30,862
9,396
45,442
16,237
76,888
27,172
92,688
30,855
71,393
24,946
+ 4 7 .2
+ 7 2 .8
+ 6 9 .2
+ 6 7 .3
+ 2 0 .5
+ 1 3 .6
-2 3 .0
-1 9 .2
4
4
6,436
3,389
24,672
3,886
223,522
11,171
308,123
34,741
365,288
23,746
+ 283.3
+ 1 4 .7
+ 806.0
+ 187.5
+ 3 7 .8
+ 21 1 .0
+ 1 8 .6
-3 1 .6
3
3
5,051
2,940
5,576
4,041
9,013
6,283
22,674
11,520
80,878
31, 747
+ 1 0 .4
+ 3 7 .4
+ 6 1 .6
+ 5 5 .5
+151. 6
+ 8 3 .4
+ 2 5 6 .7
+ 17 5 .6
M eals_______________ ______
Lodgings.............................. ...........
Colorado:
Denver:
M eals_________ _________
Lodgings______________________________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport:
M eals................................ ........... .
L od gin gs..____________________________
11
16
126,754
100,134
190,251
144,421
1,444,864
336,058
2,485,653
741,742
3,604,976
1,079,649
+ 5 0 .1
+ 4 4 .2
+ 65 9 .5
+132. 7
+ 7 2 .0
+ 12 0 .7
+ 4 5 .0
+ 4 5 .6
96,704
30; 859
115,543
48,064
M eals________________ __________ ______
L o d g in g s ........................... ........... .............
M eals_________ ___________
Lodgings.......................... .............................
San Diego:
M eals_____________________
Lodgings................ ... .................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2
2
0
(1)
3
4
49,606
24,620
61,386
27,975
65,564
28| 685
85,568
34,894
86,097
30,480
6
6
(l)
0
65,706
28,164
204,740
53; 461
284, 824
91,521
335 011
lio; 238
(1)
0
0
0
+19. 5
+ 5 5 .8
+ 2 3 .7
+ 1 3 .6
+ 6 .8
+ 2 .5
+ 3 0 .5
+ 2 1 .6
+ 0 .6
-1 2 .6
+ 89! 8
+7L2
+1K 0
+ 20 ! 5
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
1929
Alabama:
Birmingham:
M eals__________________ _______________
Lodgings.................................... ...................
Percent change from—
Agencies
reporting
2
2
109759
II,
See footnotes at end of table.
3,949
1,950
5,744
2,556
5,465
2,600
7,495
3,455
6,015
3,806
3
3
ft
0 )
(0
(0
ft
ft
161,914
53,335
177,557
50,644
7
7
ft
ft
ft
ft
159,439
82,656
289,585
131,473
348,352
148,153
37
43
(0
817,188
338,190
4,513,438
2,286,215
12,697, 586
3,968,939
12, 770,698
4,255,235
ft
+ 4 5 .5
+ 3 1 .1
- 4 .9
+ 1 .7
+ 3 7 .1
+ 3 2 .9
+ 10.2
+ 8 1 .6
+59 1
+ 2 0 .3
+ 1 2 .7
+ 452.3
+ 576.0
+181. 3
+ 7 3 .6
+ 0.6
-1 9 .7
+ 7 .2
3
3
14,959
7,391
44,378
14,689
112,999
31,890
331,032
73,998
392,418
97,623
+ 19 6 .7
+ 9 8 .7
+ 154.6
+117.1
+ 193.0
+ 132.0
+ 1 8 .5
+ 3 1 .9
2
2
10,497
10,322
26,824
12,996
50,196
19,026
72,410
20,765
50,356
16,088
+155. 5
+ 2 5 .9
+ 87.1
+ 4 6 .4
+ 4 4 .3
+ 9 .1
-3 0 .5
-2 2 .5
5
5
6
6
3
3
»
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
232,695
65,023
269,753
83,372
+ 1 5 .9
+ 2 8 .2
187,147
89,881
355,637
151,496
+ 68.6
ft
ft
133,197
13,153
197,301
27,775
253,190
42,764
+ 9 0 .0
+48 1
+111 2
+ 2 8 .3
+ 5 4 .0
+117. 2
+ 6 9 .2
+410. 7
+ 3 .2
+ 12.2
- 1 .5
+ 1 9 .1
+ 898.4
+ 2 4 .5
+616.1
+ 1,723. 5
+ 9 6 .2
+ 4 4 .5
54,314
16,685
+ 3 2 .0
+ 2 9 .4
+ 7 4 .2
+ 3 0 .0
+ 2 4 .0
+ 1 .0
+ 1 7 7 .2
+217. 7
20,756
8,395
30,333
11,967
+ 4 8 .9
- 1 6 .4
+ 2 8 .4
-3 1 .7
+ 2 2 .3
-1 7 .6
+ 4 6 .1
+ 4 2 .5
37,091
14,999
41,808
18,691
+ 2 6 .1
+ 2 7 .2
+ 3 0 .2
+ 8 .4
+ 1 .5
+ 4 .1
+ 1 2 .7
5
5
6,046
3,525
12,518
6,723
27,185
11,375
138,831
11,741
155,750
22,220
+ 10 7 .0
+ 9 0 .7
4
4
1,964
1,474
1,935
1,755
19,320
2,185
138,352
39,843
271,514
67,554
4
4
6,872
3,090
9,073
3,998
15,806
5,198
19,597
5,252
1
1
8,875
17,843
13,212
14,922
16,968
10,192
3
3
22,263
10,443
28,082
13,284
36,558
14,402
+ 8 9 .3
+
APPENDIX B ‘
N ew Britain:
M eals__________________
Lodgings_______________
N ew Haven: >
M eals__________________
Lodgings____ _______ . . .
District of Columbia:
Washington: *
1°
M eals___________________
Lodgings______________
»
Illinois:
Chicago:
M eals___. . . _____________
Lodgings........................
£
Rockford:
M eals___________________
Lodgings_______________
Springfield:
M eals___________________
Lodgings_______________
Indiana:
Fort W ayne:
M e a ls ..__ . . . . . _______ ..
Lodgings.........................
Indianapolis:
M eals___________________
Lodgings_______ _____ ___
South Bend:
M eals___________________
L o d g in g s........................
Terre Haute:
M eals___________________
Lodgings________________
Iowa:
Sioux C ity:
M eals____________________
Lodgings________________
Kansas:
Topeka:
M e a ls ..
..........
Lodgings..............................
W ichita:
M eals_______________ . . . .
Lodgings_________________
Kentucky:
Louisville:
M eals____________________
Lodgings_________________
24-6
139
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T
able
Q . — A nn ua l number o f meals and lodgings provided to homeless and transient individuals in 81 specified urban areas; 1 9 2 9 -8 8 — C o n .
Percent change from—
Num ber
State and urban area
Agencies
reporting
Lodgings..................................... .................
Shreveport:
Lodgings........................................................
Maine:
Portland:
Lodgings........................ ....................... ........
Massachusetts:
Brockton:
Lodgings.........................................................
Holyoke:
Lodgings........................................................
Lowell:
Lodgings............... .........................................
Springfield:
Michigan:
Detroit:
Orand Rapids:
Saginaw:
Minnesota:
Duluth:
Minneapolis:
Lodgings............... - ----------- --------------------St. Paul:
Lodgings-----------------------------------------------
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1929
1932
1933
1929 to 1930
1930 to 1931 1931 to 1932 1932 to 1933
0
0
49,446
37; 334
73,427
54,615
128,118
82,620
104,875
76,763
365,150
159,038
+ 4 8 .5
+ 4 6 .3
+ 7 4 .5
+ 5 1 .3
-1 8 .1
- 7 .1
+ 2 4 8 .2
+ 1 0 7 .2
1
1
1,582
1,167
8,521
2,926
35, 111
14,129
17,027
7,224
10,158
6,972
+ 438.6
+ 15 0 .7
+ 312.1
+ 382.9
-5 1 .5
-4 8 .9
-4 0 .3
- 3 .5
1
1
1,136
1,028
2,656
1,412
22,973
6,557
61,184
13,818
129,674
36,168
+ 13 3 .8
+ 3 7 .4
+ 764.9
+ 364.4
+ 166.3
+110. 7
+ 11 1 .9
+161. 7
1
1
17,733
5,036
14,553
4; 827
19,503
6,186
22,124
7,341
22,445
7,872
-1 7 .9
-4 .2
+ 3 4 .0
+ 2 8 .2
+ 1 3 .4
+ 1 8 .7
+ 1 .5
+ 7 .2
1
1
528
1,344
667
1,617
1,845
2,406
9,056
8,181
23,836
9,945
+ 7 .4
+ 2 0 .3
+22 5 .4
+ 4 8 .8
+390.8
+ 24 0 .0
+16 3 .2
+ 2 1 .6
2
2
706
613
723
667
1,546
1,062
1,491
1,534
2,013
2,247
+ 2 .4
+ 8 .8
+ 113.8
+ 5 9 .2
-3 .6
+ 4 4 .4
+ 3 5 .0
+ 4 6 .5
4
4
0)
(')
71,303
40,343
84,331
44,970
126,067
66,821
128,512
64,297
+ 1 8 .3
+ 1 1 .5
+ 4 9 .5
+ 4 8 .6
+ 1 .9
-3 .8
6
6
(i)
0)
1,488,707
405,615
3,184,302
1,061,495
1,367,781
518,004
1,654,396
666,284
+ 113.9
+ 16 1 .7
-5 7 .0
-5 1 .2
+ 2 1 .0
+ 2 8 .6
5
5
(!)
(1)
(l)
(')
209,921
58,128
283,470
85,056
269,494
84, 569
+ 3 5 .0
+ 4 6 .3
-4 .9
-0 .6
2
2
(!)
P)
(1)
P)
127,118
21,484
10,, 938
22,438
3
3
(1)
(*)
p)
0)
82,076
78,138
214,435
102,252
392,703
148,704
412,743
141,841
-1 3 .5
+ 4 .4
+ 161.3
+ 3 0 .9
+ 8 3 .1
+ 4 5 .4
+ 5 .1
-4 .6
3
3
371,677
138,198
696,856
277,203
1,936,550
635,012
2,676,356
906,532
4,161,750
1,317,978
+ 8 7 .5
+ 10 0 .6
+ 177.9
+ 129,1
+ 3 8 .2
+ 4 2 .8
+ 5 5 .5
+ 4 5 .4
1
1
120,715
21,696
109,122
24,081
156,808
43,788
325,199
131,867
361,493
156,700
-9 .6
+ 1 1 .0
+ 4 3 .7
+ 8 1 .8
+ 10 7 .4
+ 201.1
+ 1 1 .2
+ 1 8 .8
TRENDS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RELIEF, 1929-35
Louisiana:
New O rleans:2
1931
1930
Missouri:
Kansas City:
Meals__________________________________
Lodgings____________ __________________
St. Louis:
Meals__________________________________
Syracuse:
M eals....... .......................................................
Lodgings........................................................
Utica:
M eals__________________________________
Lodgings____________________ __________
North Carolina:
Asheville:
M eals......................... .....................................
Lodgings. ________________ ___________
Charlotte:
M eals____________ ____________________
Lodgings_______________________________
Greensboro:
M eals__________________________________
Lodgings_______________________________
W inston-S alem:
M eals____________ ______ _______________
Lodgings_______________________________
Ohio:
Akron:
M eals....................... ......................................
Lodgings
Canton: *
M eals__________________________________
Lodgings.........................................................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
95,161
41,797
159,495
64,367
3
3
213,016
99,206
291,551
137,647
2
2
32,502
12; 114
42,146
15,230
4
4
O
P)
P)
p>
P>
P>
6
6
M
3
4
183,907
203,949
267,153
259,416
4
4
387
1,494
2,858
2,950
7
7
P)
P)
?!
9
8
P)
P)
?!
1
1
5,030
4,582
5,535
4,704
1
1
7,198
3,925
16,157
6,930
2
2
2,581
2,442
5,494
3,915
2
2
1,107
843
904
865
1
1
P>
p)
5
5
15,917
14,402
?!
53,071
20,639
APPENDIX
Nebraska:
Omaha:
M eals__________________________________
Lodgings........................................................
N ew Jersey:
Newark:
M eals_______ _________ _________ _______
Lodgings....... ............... .................................
N ew York:
Albany:
M eals__________________________________
Lodgings....................... ............................. .
Buffalo:
M eals__________
_ ________ . . . . . .
Lodgings........................................................
Niagara Falls:
M eals......... ....................................................
3
3
T a b l e Q .—
A nnual number of meals and lodgings provided to homeless and transient individuals in 81 specified urban areas/ 1929—88
Percent change from—
Num ber
State and urban area
Agencies
reporting
Lodgings........... — ......... .............................
Columbus:
D ayton:
39,000
48,850
218,467
113,706
413,758
213,177
589,124
232,220
+ 10 7 .5
+ 8 7 .0
+ 46 0 .2
+ 132.8
+ 8 9 .4
+ 8 7 .5
+ 4 2 .4
+ 8 .9
3
3
67,184
24,404
158,334
63,021
520,443
207,071
1,396,453
411,331
1,764,055
530,612
+ 13 5 .7
+ 15 8 .2
+ 228.7
+ 22 8 .6
+ 168.3
+ 9 8 .6
+ 2 6 .3
+ 2 9 .0
3
3
(l)
(l)
(t)
(!)
186, 710
73,210
226,639
68,019
381,342
97,497
+ 2 1 .4
-7 .1
+ 6 8 .3
+ 4 3 .3
i
i
18,453
8,653
35,607
16,646
43,297
19,979
83,852
35,098
+ 2 1 .6
+ 2 0 .0
+ 9 3 .7
+ 7 5 .7
6
e
(1)
(»)
1,231,785
423,878
1,393,034
431,319
3
3
3,942
14,665
13,040
15,681
23,525
20,204
105,848
35,854
110,604
36,834
+ 230.8
+ 6 .9
2
2
1,160
1,042
1,538
1,171
1,486
1,510
2,047
2,062
8È7
1,969
4
4
9,680
7,059
53,765
25,052
143,433
38,188
178,221
57,582
134,610
51,148
0)
(J)
142,486
25,653
Pennsylvania:
Allentown:
Lodgings.........................................................
Bethlehem:
Lodgings........................................ - .............
Chester:
Lancaster:
Lodgings.............................................- .........
Pittsburgh:
Sharon:
Lodgings...........—......................... - ........... York:
Lodgings_______________________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(!)
P)
(l)
(1)
1
0)
cii
2
2
14,511
17,501
15
15
0)
0)
(t)
(l)
(l)
(l)
26,388
23,400
(l)
(l)
72,955
31,730
(l)
(l)
.
88,268
34,709
133,652
34,422
3,760,689
1,094,286
3,404,308
886,101
+ 4 4 .4
+ 2 6 .9
+ 3 3 .6
+ 5 1 .6
+ 1 3 .1
+ 1 .8
+ 8 0 .4
+ 2 8 .8
+ 34 9 .9
+ 7 7 .5
+ 4 .5
+ 2 .7
+ 3 2 .6
+ 1 2 .4
- 3 .4
+ 2 8 .9
+ 3 7 .8
+ 3 6 .6
- 5 8 .1
—4. 5
+ 455.4
+ 254.9
+ 166.8
+ 5 2 .4
+ 2 4 .3
4"50.8
-2 4 .5
—11.2
+ 8 1 .8
+ 3 3 .7
+176. 5
+ 3 5 .6
+ 2 1 .0
+ 9 .4
+ 5 1 .4
-0 .8
'
-9 .5
-1 9 .0
i
i
383
204
979
355
2,766
1,358
3,975
1,710
3,874
1,886
+ 155.6
+ 7 4 .0
+182. 5
+ 282.5
i
i
931
79
1,242
1,648
15,121
5.960
25,075
3,705
51,506
14,356
+ 3 3 .4
+ 1,9 8 6 .1
+1,117. 5
+ 26 1 .7
+ 4 3 .7
+ 2 5 .9
+ 6 5 .8
- 3 7 .8 1
-2 .5
+ 1 0 .3
+ 105.4
+ 287.5
R E L IE F , 1 9 2 9 -3 5
Lodgings....................... - .............................
24,657
13,119
P R IV A T E
18,791
26,128
AND
Lodgings....................................... - .............
Toledo:
3
3
P U B L IC
Lodgings......................................... ...............
Cleveland:
IN
Ohio— Continued.
Cincinnati:
1933
1929 to 1930 1930 to 1931 1931 to 1932 1932 to 1933
TRENDS
1932
1931
1930
1029
Con,
5
5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P)
P>
P)
P)
P)
277,819
71,303
401,906
154,958
+ 4 4 .7
+ 117.3
3
3
3,980
2,928
4,734
2,463
5,630
2,837
10,265
3,919
23,880
9,121
+ 1 8 .9
-1 5 .9
+ 1 8 .9
+ 1 5 .2
+ 8 2 .3
+ 3 8 .1
+ 13 2 .6
+ 13 2 .7
4
5
7,895
5,003
14,927
9,104
31,365
15,988
37,363
22,285
74,112
32,876
+ 8 9 .1
+ 8 2 .0
+ 110.1
+ 7 6 .6
+ 1 9 .1
+ 3 9 .4
+ 9 8 .4
+ 4 7 .5
+ 1 ,3 9 7 .7
+ 9 5 .0
-2 6 .4
+ 20 5 .3
+ 13 9 .7
+ 100.5
+ 1 ,8 4 0 .0
+ 1 ,9 6 7 .5
4
4
3
3
3
3
1 N ot reported.
P>
P)
P)
P)
P>
2,761
1,927
P)
P)
P)
p)
41,351
3,758
30,440
11,472
P)
P)
(I)
P)
P)
P)
72,974
23,000
P)
P)
182,018
45^ 536
1,415,692
475,517
890,342
204,246
2
2
1,034
3,288
4,454
5,560
5,202
6,945
4,925
8| 701
27,376
10,358
+ 33 0 .8
+ 6 9 .1
+ 1 6 .8
+ 2 4 .9
- 5 .3
+ 2 5 .3
+ 455.9
+ 1 9 .0
7
7
8,963
4,227
19,667
10,546
28,257
12,627
27,913
13,398
39,183
18,393
+ 119.4
+ 14 9 .5
+ 4 3 .7
+ 1 9 .7
- 1 .2
+ 6 .1
+ 4 0 .4
+ 3 7 .3
4
4
43,230
18,663
106,316
50,019
203,397
80,567
349,162
114,552
447,914
164,352
+ 14 5 .9
+ 16 8 .0
+ 9 1 .3
+ 6 1 .1
+ 7 1 .7
+ 4 2 .2
+ 2 8 .3
. + 4 3 .5
1
1
2,607
1,609
4,576
3,506
9,368
6,305
16,938
11,063
67,158
23*604
+ 7 5 .6
+ 117.9
+ 10 4 .7
+ 7 9 .8
+ 8 0 .8
+ 7 5 .5
+ 2 9 6 .5
+ 11 3 .4
3
4
467
768
989
822
2,738
730
2,519
6| 889
1,962
4,325
+ 111.8
+ 7 .0
+ 17 6 .8
-1 1 .2
-8 .0
+ 84 3 .7
-2 2 .1
-3 7 .2
2
2
114
2,643
426
4,298
5,126
5,347
48,011
12,532
123,483
38,905
+ 273.7
+ 6 2 .6
+ 1 ,1 0 3 .3
+ 2 4 .4
+ 836.6
+ 134.4
+ 1 5 7 .2
+ 21 0 .4
545,533
233', 375
365,066
224j 390
23,232
22,076
66,463
3A 110
4
4
P)
P)
P>
4
4
P)
P>
P)
P)
P)
P)
23,653
21,487
P)
APPENDIX B
Rhode Island:
Providence:
M eals___
Lodgings.
South Carolina:
Charleston:
M eals___
Lodgings.
Tennessee:
Knoxville:
M eals___
Lodgings.
Texas:
E l Paso:
M eals___
Lodgings.
Fort W orth:
M eals___
Lodgings.
Houston:
M eals___
Lodgings.
Port Arthur:
M eals___
Lodging?.
Virginia:
Roanoke:
M eals___
Lodgings.
Washington:
Tacoima:
M eals___
Lodgings.
W est Virginia:
Huntington:
M eals___
Lodgings.
Wisconsin:
Kenosha:
M eals___
Lodgings.
M adison:
M eals___
Lodgings.
Milwaukee:
M eals____
Lodgings.
Racine:
M eals____
Lodgings.
-3 3 .1
-3 .9
-1 .8
+ 2 .7
+ 186.1
+ 5 4 .5
* Reports of 1 or more important agencies not available.
o
00
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER