The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
()•
INTERNET ARCHIVE
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Digitized by
Original from
INTERNET ARCHIVE
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
I
I
\,JV'- -
u )
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
Harry L. Hopkins, Administrator
Corrington Gill, Assistant Administrator
DIVISION OF SOCIAL RESEARCH
Howard B. Myers, Director
TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES
1910-1935
By
ANNE E. GEDDES
•
RESEARCH MONOGRAPH X
1937
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON
HD
j
1 '(
,J
. (1 !,\L\
)C\ ~!Jj
\I R't
GIi 1 OI
b
[ I
TEP
'
r
R(HITECT RAL •\. D Fl'\E ARTS LIBRARY
'-,1) \10l RB.
DL RS I
OLD YORK LIBR \R)
Letter of Transmittal
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTR,ATION,
Washington, D. 0., July 15, 1937.
Sm: I have the honor to submit herewith a report entitled Trends in
Relief Expenditures, 1910-1935. The object of this report is to give
perspective to recent relief developments by relating them to long-time
trends.
In the study are collected, for the first time, scattered and fragmentary data on outdoor relief expenditures prior to the recent depression.
Taken singly, these relief series for individual States, cities, and groups
of cities are too limited in coverage to warrant any generalizations
concerning long-time relief trends in the United States. Taken together, they offer convincing evidence of a strong underlying upward
trend in expenditures for at least two decades before the precipitous
rise beginning in 1930. They show also a progressive tendency toward
increased specialization in the forms of aid and relatively greater
dependence on public than on private resources long before the period
of Federal participation in emergency unemployment relief measures.
This report was prepared by Anne E. Geddes under the direction of
Howard B . Myers, Director of the Division of Social Research, Works
Progress Administration. Enid Baird and Franklin Aaronson cooperated in the preparation of the report. The Division of Research,
Statistics, and Records, in addition to making available the basic
statistical data for the FERA, the CWA, and the Works Program,
prepared various special tabulations of the data for use in Part II
of the report.
Acknowledgment is made to Ralph G. Hurlin of the Russell Sage
Foundation and to Paul Webbink of the Social Science Research
Council, who have rendered invaluable advisory and critical assistance.
Respectfully submitted.
CORRINGTON GILL,
Assistant Administrator.
Hon. HARRY L. HOPKINS,
Works Progress Adminisfrator.
Ill
•
[
1it1
INTIP NEr /\RC HIVI
COL1Jr11w UNIVEPSllY
·Contents
Page
Introduction
Summary -
XI
XIII
PART I
Outdoor Relief, 1910-1935 - - - - - - - Available data on long-time relief trends - - - - - - Legislative trends affecting relief expenditures
Sources of statistical data - - - - - - Trends in relief expenditures in selected areas, 1910-1935 Governmental-cost payments for outdoor relief in 16 cities,
1911-1931 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Trends in relief expenditures in 36 large cities, 1916-1925 Rise in relief costs in 16 cities between 1924 and 1929 - Outdoor relief expenditures in New Haven, 1910-1925 - Outdoor relief expenditures in New York City, 1910-1934 Expenditures for public outdoor relief in New York State,
1910-1934 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Expenditures for public outdoor poor relief in Indiana,
1910-193 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - The rise in relief expenditures since 1929 - - - - Expansion in urban relief between 1929 and 1931 - - Relief expenditures in 120 urban areas, 1929-1935 General rise in urban relief - - - - - - - - - R elative proportions of general public and private relief Rise in special allowances - - - - - - - - - Relative proportions of work and direct relief- - - Relief expenditures in 385 rural-town areas, 1932-1935 - Relief expenditures in rural and urban United States, 19321935 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Comparison of trends of public outdoor relief in all selected
areas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
2
5
6
6
12
15
16
18
21
23
25
25
29
31
33
35
37
40
42
45
PART II
Public Outdoor Relief and Wage Assistance, 1933-1935 - - Measurement of the combined relief and wage assistance
burden - - - - - - - - - Comparability of case-load data - - - - - - Limitations of expenditure series - - - - - - -
51
51
54
59
V
VI • CO NTE NTS
Page
omponent purLs of the public assisLunce burden Emergency relief - - - - - Direct r lief - - - - Work r<'lief - - - - - - - - - pecial program r li f Wage as i Lnn e - - - - - - - ivilian onscrYution 'orps - ivil Works A<lmini Lration - - - - \ Yorks Program - - - - ategoricul r lief - - - - - The combined trend of public a sistun e - Effects of admini trative hift in rC'lief and u i tance
programs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Interdependence of relief and wage a. istancc trend
Variability in underlying tate trend
- - - - - Exten ion of the propo ed integrated eric beyond 1935 - Appendix A-Supplementary tables - - - - - - - - - - - Appendix 8- Distribution of 385 sample counties and townships
represented in the rural -town relief series - - - Append ix ( - Federal Government units participating in the Works
Program, December 31 , 1935 - - - - - - - Append ix D-Methodolog ical note on the estimates of expenditures
for categorical rel ief in the Un ited States, 1933-
1935 -
- - - - -
- - - - - - -
GO
G2
G7
G7
G8
70
72
72
73
74
75
7G
76
7
0
91
103
105
107
111
Index - - - -
FIGURES
Figure
1. Trend of population and of governmental-co tpaymentsfor
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
operation and maintenance of outdoor relief departments
and of all general departments, 16 cities, 1911- 1931
Relief expenditure , co t of living, and population, 19161925 (selected agencies in 36 cities) - - - - - - - - Relief expenditures of public and private organizations,
1916-1925 (selected agencies in 36 cities) - - - - - - Outdoor relief e},,--penditures in Tew Haven, 1910-1925 - Expenditures for outdoor relief from public and private resources in Jew York City, 1910-1929 - - - - - - - Expenditures for public outdoor relief, Tew York State,
1910-1934 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11
13
14
17
19
22
7. E xpenditures for public outdoor poor relief in Indiana,
1910-193 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
24
8. Trend of relief expenditures from public and private funds
in 120 urban areas, 1929-1935 - - - - - - - - - - -
30
CONTENTS • VII
Figure
9. Percent distribution of relief expenditures from public
and private funds in 120 urban areas, 1929-1935 - - 10. Expenditures for general public relief and for private relief
in 120 urban areas, expressed as relative numbers, 1929193 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11. Expenditures for 3 categories of relief in 120 urban areas,
1929-1935 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12. Expenditures from public and private funds for direct
relief and for work relief in 120 urban areas, 1929-1935 13. Trends of expenditures for outdoor relief in rural-town
areas, urban areas, and total United States, January
1932-December 1935 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14. Trends of expenditures for public outdoor relief in selected
areas, 1910-1935 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15. Percent distribution of total expenditures for public
relief and wage assistance in the United States, 19331935 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16. Obligations incurred for emergency relief extended to cases,
FERA, January 1933-December 1935 - - - - - - - 17. Expenditures for wage assistance in the United States,
April 1933-December 1935 - - - - - - - - - - - - 18. Trend of monthly expenditures for public relief and wage
assistance in the United States, January 1933-December
1935 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19. Percent distribution of monthly expenditw-es for public
relief and wage assistance in the United States, January
1933-Decemher 193 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20. Trends of relief cases and of obligations incurred for relief
extended to cases, general relief program, as reported to
the FERA, July 1933-December 1935 - - - - - - - 21. Obligations incurred per inhabitant for relief extended to
cases, by States, general relief program, FERA, halfyearly intervals, July 1933-July 1935 - - - - - - - 22. Percent of population receiving relief, by States, general
relief program, FERA, half-yearly intervals, July 1933 July 1935 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23. Average monthly relief benefit per family case, by States,
general relief program, FERA, half-yearly intervals,
July 1933-J uly 1935 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24. Distribution of 385 sample counties and townships represented in the rural-town relief series - - - - - - - - -
Page
32
34
36
39
43
46
61
66
71
75
77
81
87
88
9
103
[ Jit,·
NT 'NET l\RC
V
lr
~' llA
JMF
Trends in Relief Expenditures
1910-1935
IX
'
, )Lll 1E /> Jr V 'CIT\
INTRODUCTION
DuRtNG THE recent depression, which has been of greater intensity
and longer duration than any previous depression in the history of
the United States, the relief of unemployment and distress has been
a major national problem. The tremendous increase in the extent
of need and the assumption by the Federal Government of a substantial share of the responsibility for meeting the need have focused
attention on the administration of relief during the depression years
and have made the general public aware of the issues involved .
Although much has been written concerning the scope and natme
of the contemporary relief problem, little is known of the extent of
the burden in the United States in the decades preceding the depression of the 1930's. The purpose of this study is to give as much
perspective as possible to recent developments by viewing them in
relation to long-time trends. The report is restricted to aid extended
to families and individuals outside of institutions and does not include
foster-home care or welfare services. The relief burden has been
measured, in so far as possible, in terms of the amount of aid distributed
to relief cases rather than in terms of the cost of relief plus its
administration.
The term relief is a generic one covering many types and forms of
aid. Since this report has been compiled from secondary sources, it
has not been feasible to standardize terminology. Different terms
designating the same or similar forms of relief have been used in the
original sources and have been retained in the present discussion.
Outdoor relief is an inclusive term in general use, referring to all
types of relief extended to families and individuals outside of institutions. Wage assistance is a term devised especially for this report
to refer to assistance of a modified relief character, extended in the
form of wages to persons employed on the work programs operated
during 1933, 1934, and 1935 by the Civil Works Administration, the
Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration,
and other agencies participating in the Works Program. An effort
has been made to explain other terms as they arise and to make clear
the distinctions between them.
This report is divided into two parts. Part I deals with the trend
of public and private expenditures for outdoor relief in the quarter
of a century from 1910 through 1935, while Part II develops trends
XI
XII • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
for public assistance during tho last 3 years of that period and incorporates both outdoor relief and wage assistance. Tho year 1910
was selected as a starting date for Part I because it is the earliest
year for which any substantial body of relief data is available. The
relief series in Part II have been extended only through 1935, the last
full calendar year for which data were available at the time the
report was prepared.
The task of tho study has been to assemble and analyze existing
relief series which would shed light on relief trends during the depression, and particularly during the period of Federal participation in
financing and administering relief programs. No original collection
of data was undertaken. Tho analysis presented is original, except in
a few instances where findings have been ab tracted or adapted from
published sources with the permi ion of the authors and publishers.
Acknowledgments and source references have been given in the text
for such secondary material.
The analysis in Part I is purposely much fuller than that in Part II,
since the various Federal agencies administering relief and assi tance
programs in recent years have individually published much statistical
data concerning their operations.
Statistical data concerning tho operations of the Federal Emergency
Relief Administration; the Civil Works Administration, including the
Civil Works Service; and the Works Program, exclusive of the Civilian
Conservation Corp , were supplied by the Division of Research, Statistics, and R ecords of the Works Progress Administration. Data for
the Civilian Conservation Corps were obtained from the Office of the
Emergency Conservation Work and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Data for the Resettlement Administration were obtained directly
from that agency. The major contribution of Part II is to bring these
data together in a readily accessible form and to combine them into
an integrated relief and wage assistance series which will give a more
complete measure of the total burden of public assistance, exclusive of
institutional relief, than has hitherto been supplied.
Emphasis has been placed throughout the report on the measurement of expenditures for relief and wage assistance during the period
covered. No attempt has been made to evaluate the effectiveness of
the various relief measures in meeting need, to describe the policies or
operations of the several agencies administering public assistance, or
to interpret expenditure trends in terms of underlying economic or
social conditions.
)ig1ti;:e1 V
IN- ERNI
ARI 11\tE
Or
II
I
r11
r JLUl~E A J~ V'
,c ITV
SUMMARY
PART I
AVAILABLE DATA on long-time relief trends have been assembled
and analyzed in Part I of this report to supply a factual background of
relief experience in the United States prior to the recent depression
and the participation of the Federal Government in emergency relief
activities. Information concerning past relief trends is limited for
the most part to scattered data on relief expenditures in selected
areas since 1910. The relief series presented cover various types of
relief in different areas; they are exclusive of institutional relief and,
as far as possible, of expenditures for administrative purposes.
The expenditure data for different areas show marked similarity in
trend. Considered in conjunction with trends in relief legislation
since 1910, they present a consistent picture of gradually increasing
relief burdens prior to the precipitous upward movement in 1930. The
assembled pieces of evidence are believed to support a number of
conclusions concerning the trend of relief expenditures in the United
States in the 26 years from 1910 through 1935. Although these
generalizations have considerable historical significance, their greatest
value lies in their bearing upon future developments. The following
basic tendencies may be noted.
1. T he forms of public relief have tended to become more and more
differentiated through the enactment of special legislation.
2. T here has been a progressive tendency to widen the base of
governmental responsibility for relief beyond the local units, first
through State and then through Federal participation.
3. At least since 1910 there has been a strong underlying upward
trend in relief expenditures. T he very great increase in expenditures
in the depression years represents a sharp acceleration of a tendency
manifest throughout the preceding two decades.
4. The increase in both public and private relief expenditures has
been far greater than the growth in population.
5. The rate of increase of public relief expenditures, at least in
large urban areas, has greatly exceeded that of all governmental
expenditures combined.
6. While expenditures for general public relief have increased
steadily, the most rapid expansion in public relief prior to the depression occurred in aid to dependent children.
XIII
, )LL 1E /> Jr V
c
I-rv
XIV • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
7. There is little evidence that the introduction of aid to special
classes, such as the aged, the blind, and dependent children, has resulted
in the past in redu tion of the general relief burden. Although there
has been some shifting of ca es from general relief rolls to the rolls of
agencies providing statutory relief, to a considerable extent the special
types of assistance have tapped new reservoirs of need. The influx of
new ca es to the general reli f rolls, combined with ri ing standards of
care, has largely offset such absorption as has occurred.
8. Following the 1921- 1922 depres ion, relief expenditures did not
return to the predepre sion l vel. There wa a temporary recession
from the depres ion peak but relief expenditures continued to mount
in sub equent year .
9. There have b en wid regional and local variations in the relative
proportions of public and private r lief, but public agencies bore an
important share of the burden long before the onset of the recent
in e the as umption of a share of the r sponsibility for
depres ion.
relief by the Federal Government in H)32 the proportion of the burden
borne by private agencies has been very slight.
10. Work relief and work project in the recent depression have
assumed a new and increasing importance as a means of assi ting
the de titute unemployed.
11. The expansion in expenditure for outdoor relief has, since 1932,
been relatively greater in rural and town areas than in urban areas.
PART II
The evidence presented in Part I on outdoor relief expenditures in
selected areas is supplemented in Part II by a more comprehensive
record of public assistance expenditures in the United States as a whole
in the years 1933, 1934, and 1935. During this period the Federal
Government was participating in a variety of programs for the relief
of unemployment and distress.
The series which are presented in Part I include public expenditures
for general (emergency) relief and for categorical relief-i. e., for aid to
the aged, aid to the blind, and aid to dependent children-but expenditures for wage assistance are not included.
In order to give a more complete measure of the total public assistance burden in this period an integrated relief series has been constructed which includes the three major classes of outdoor public aid:
emergency relief, categorical relief, and wage assistance.
In 1933, 1934, and 1935 wage assistance constituted a very important part of the total public assistance structure. Expenditures for
all forms of relief and wage assistance in this period totaled approximately $5,375,000,000. Of this amount more than 65 percent was
for emergency relief, 30 percent was for wage assistance, and less than
5 percent was for categorical relief.
11\!E
SUMMARY • XV
During the 3-year period there were frequent changes in Federal
programs inaugurated for the relief of unemployment and distress,
involving important shifts in emphasis from emergency relief to wage
assistance and vice versa. There was also a very close interplay
between the case loads of the emergency relief and the wage assistance
programs. Hence, changes in one form of aid can be interpreted only
in the light of changes in the other.
The following data are indicative of the effect on the public assistance structure of changes in program development. In January 1933
emergency relief constituted 91 percent of the total expenditures for
outdoor public assistance, and wage assistance had not yet been
developed as a means of meeting the needs of the unemployed . In
January 1934 emergency relief had shrunk to 17 percent of the total
while wage assistance constituted 81 percent. Emergency relief again
accounted for the major share of expenditures in January 1935, with
wage assistance only 10 percent of the total.
Throughout the 3-year period expenditures for categorical relief
were fairly stable and constituted a very small proportion of the total
burden.
The expenditure series in Part I and in Part II display wide differences in trend over the 36 months from January 1933 through December 1935. The peak of expenditures for emergency and categorical
relief occurred in January 1935, while the peak of expenditures for
these two forms of relief and wage assistance combined was reached a
year earlier, in January 1934. In this month the Civil Works program
was at its height and the emergency relief program was at its lowest
ebb.
Any ex'])enditure series necessarily supplies an in1perfect measure
of need. During the Federal period variations in the standards of
care of the different emergency programs were very marked. Fluctuations in total expenditures, therefore, cannot be linlrnd to fluctuations in the extent of need.
An integrated case series registering the total number of families
and individuals receiving emergency relief, categorical relief, apd
wage assistance would serve as a far more sensitive and reliable index
of the extent of need than an expenditure series. Unfortunately,
reported data cannot be added directly to obtain an unduplicated case
series for the entire 3-year period, although two estimated series
representing households and individuals aided have recently been
constructed.
The integrated expenditure series which has been developed for
the United States is based on an aggregate of data for the 48 States,
which had widely varied public assistance structures. The differences
in State relief patterns suggest the need for developing integrated
series for the separate States to supplement the national series which
is presented here.
•
[ Jltl,
NT 'NEfA.RC
\/
f
I
Jl'.EF
Part I
Outdoor Relief, 1910-1935
XVII
21c12°-31 -2
l'
r
r JLLI 1E P Jr V ,crrv
Part I
0 U TD O O R R E l I E F, 1 9 10-1 9 3 5
EMERGENCY RELIEF operations since midsummer of 1932, when the
Federal Government first made funds available for relief, can be
viewed in proper perspective only against a background of previous
relief experience in the United States. Unfortunately, there are no
Nation-wide statistics of the incidence, cost, and trend of relief operations before the period of Federal participation in relief.
AVAILABLE DATA ON LONG-TIME RELI EF TRENDS
Information available on long-time relief trends is limited principally to scattered data on relief expenditures covering different areas
and different types of relief and extending over varying periods of
time. Continuous data on case loads are entirely too fragmentary in
coverage to establish past relief trends in terms of the number of cases
receiving assistance. Individual public and private agencies have
maintained records of case loads over long periods of time, and some
significant case series have been developed, but combined case-load
figures covering all agencies in given areas are conspicuously lacking. 1
Although the early statistics on relief expenditures that have been
assembled in this report are both crude and fragmentary and relate
for the most part to large urban areas, when pieced together against
a background of legislative trends, they tell a consistent story of relief
costs in the past and help to illuminate the current relief situation. In
brief, the story is one of continued expansion in relief expenditures for
at least two decades before the beginning of Federal emergency relief
activities for the unemployed. More liberal relief practices and new
legislative provisions for public relief have contributed to the upward
trend, but there is also evidence that the level of need has risen progressively higher with the passage of time. Relief expenditures have
registered new peaks in business depressions and have not receded to
their old levels with business recovery. Instead, after each depression
they have again moved upward from a new and higher base.
1 The most significant case series is that of the Department of Statistics of the
Russell Sage Foundation covering the operations of selected family case-work
agencies. This series was initiated in 1926.
,
I
t
I
r
)Lll 'E p Jr V 'CIT"
2 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Th unprecedented scope of the recent d pre. ion and the participation of the F deral Governm nt, in unemployment r lief hav
greatly a celerated th expansion in relief expenditures during recent
year , but, the effect upon relief trends has been primarily one of rate
of chang rather than of direction. The changes in types of relief and
in di tribution of the relief burden that have accompanied this rapid
rise in relief expenditures have be n mor exten ive in scope, but arc
not radically dillerent in character from changes that have taken
place ov r longer periods of time in the past.
legislative Trends Affecting Relief Expenditures
ince relief trends are much a!f cted by prevailing statutory provisions for public reli f, it seem desirable to xamine legi lative
trends in the Stat s since 1910 to sec how they have contributed to
change in the volume of r lief and to throw some light on the origin
and significance of the different types and forms of relief included in
the composite relief serie pre ented in later section of the report.
Prior to the twentieth entury, public outdoor relief in th United
tates was extended almo t exclu ively under the provi ions of local
poor law , model d for th mo t part after the Engli. h poor laws of
Qu en Elizabeth' time. 2
!any of the e laws date from early olonial
days and have undergone only minor change during the intervening
year . In some tates the laws have been moderniz d and embody
more progre ive concept of relief admini tration.
Traditionally a local re pon ibility, poor relief usually has been
finan ed from local property taxes and di pen ed by local overseers
of the poor with little or no State supervi ion or control. Applicants
for relief were frequently required to take a pauper's oath and to
waive variou political and civil rights as a prerequi ite to receiving
aid. The social tigma attached to poor relief ha led gradually to
the introduction of new statutory forms of relief for special classes
who are in need obviou ly th.rough no fault of their own or are deemed
to have a special claim on society for consideration and care. Relief
extended under these statutes to persons not in institutions has commonly been termed "categorical relief" or "aid to special classes," 3
2 See Lowe, Robert C. and Associates, Digest of Poor Relief Laws of the Several
States and TerritoTies as of May 1, 1936, Division of ocial Research, Works
Progress Administration, 1936.
s Usage differs widely as to the designation of the statutory forms of a sistance.
Thus, relief for the needy aged is variously known as "aid to the aged," or "oldage assistance"; relief for dependent children in their homes as "aid to dependent
children," "child weliare allowances," "aid to widowed mothers," or "mothers'
aid"; and blind relief as "aid to the blind" or "blind assistance." Usage also
differs regarding the inclusion of veteran relief as a form of categorical relief.
In this report, the term "categorical" is confined to three special classes of statutory relief: aid to the aged, aid to the blind, and aid to dependent children. I t
is, therefore, synonymous with the term "special allowances" as used in the
Urban Relief Series.
[
NT
'
NEr,pr
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 • 3
to distinguish it from general outdoor relief given to paupers in
accordance with the local poor laws. 4
Needy soldiers and sailors were among the first to benefit from
special legislation. By 1910 all but six States had made statutory
provision for relief of Civil War veterans. Many States had enacted
similar laws providing relief to veterans of the Mexican, Indian, and
Spanish-American Wars and the Boxer Rebellion. Since 1918 relief
for World War veterans has been provided by statute in 30 States.5
Legislation for aid to the aged, aid to the blind, and aid to dependent
children dates largely after 1910. The expansion of relief activities
in the United States through the enactment of State laws providing
assistance for these three special classes 6 is shown in appendix table
1, which gives the year of original enactment of enabling legislation
for each of these forms of relief. T able 1 indicates by 5-year periods
the spread of legislation for public assistance in their homes to the
aged, to the blind, and to dependent children.
Table 1.-Number of States 1 Enacting First Legislation for Aid to the Aged, Aid to the
Blind, and Aid to Dependent Children, in Specified Periods
Type of assistance
Year of original enactment
All years ........ . ............................................ .
Before 1910....................... _................................. .
1910 through 1914 .................................................. .
1915 through 1919 .................................................. .
1920 through 1924 .......... ..... ................................... .
1925 through 1929. ······-········-················ ··· ···············
1930 throu gh 1934 ... __ ............................ ... .............. .
1935....... ··········· _......... ............................... ······
1
Aid to the
aged
39
Aid to
Aid to the dependent
blind
children
33
46
3
2
2
8
19
10
5
5
5
5
20
19
3
3
1
8
Includes the District of Columbia.
Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin enacted laws providing aid to the
needy blind prior to 1910 but the further spread of such legislation
was distributed over a wide span of years. A total of 33 States provided such aid by the close of 1935.
Aid for dependent children appeared somewhat later than blind
relief, the first law being passed in Illinois in 1911, but this form of
assistance spread more rapidly. Twenty States enacted laws of this
type during the 5 years from 1910 through 1914, and nineteen States
from 1915 through 1919. Only 7 of the 46 States 7 providing such aid
in December 1935 introduced this form of legislation after 1919.
4
It should be noted that in many localities individuals who might be eligible
for some form of categorical relief, if there were legal provisions for it, still receive
relief under the regular poor laws.
6
Data on veteran relief legislation compiled by Robert C . Lowe, Division of
Social Research, Works Progress Administration.
8
For sources of data, see footnotes, appendix table 1.
7 Includi ng the District of Columbia.
4 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Th fir t law authorizing aid to the aged were enacted in Montana
and cvada in 1923, but the period of greatest development in this
type of legi lation bas been in e 1930. Eight tates nactcd oldage legi lation in the 5 years from 1925 through 1929, and ninet en
nd r the stimulus of the
cial
tates from 1930 through 1934.
curity Act 10 additional tates pa d laws during 1935, bringing
the total number of tates which had enacted old-age reli flaws to 39.
Tho above tabulation give an ac urate pictur of the spr ad of
enabling legislat,ion for categorical relief ince 1910, but it cannot how
important changes that have o curred in the application and coverage
of the laws. In many in tance , the date of enactment of a law does
not coincide with the fir t year of operation. Furthermor , many of
the Stat laws ar , or were, optional in haract rand have been inoprative in many of the county units for part or all of the period incc
their enactment. Revi ions in the law , and qualitative changes in
their admini tration and application, including eligibility requirements and the amount of a i to.nee rendered, could be as ertained
only by a surv y of individual countie in the tates with enabling
curity Act that all
legi lalion. Tho requir ment of the o ial
counties must participate in ext nding r li f to a particular category
before the tate can benefit from Federal grants-in-aid for that type
of relief have induc d many tates to make their laws mandatory upon
the county unit and will contribute to the continued growth of expenditures for the e form of relief.
Simultaneou ly with the differentiation in the type of relief has
occurred a gradual widening in the ba e of financial and administrative re pon ibility for relief activitie .8 This shift to larger governmental units has come about partly through a de ire for more efficient
administration and partly through the nece ity of making available
for relief purpo e a greater variety of revenue re ources than could be
tapped by the local governments. Poor relief has, with few exceptions,
remained a function of the local units. Veteran relief, on the other
hand, was initiated and has been supported predominantly by the
States. The newer forms of public assistance, including aid to the
aged, to the blind, and to dependent children, have commonly been
administered by county governments, with the State assuming partial
or complete fiscal responsibility as well as a degree of supervisory
control.
The extension, first to the States and then to the Federal Government, of part of the financial and administrative responsibility for
unemployment relief was a logical step in this evolutionary process.
Special legislation financing emergency unemployment relief was
enacted in 14 States during 1931, or before the period of Federal
8 See Lowe, Robert C. and Holcombe, John L., Legislative Trends in State and
Local Responsibility for Public Assistance, Division of Social Research, Works
Progress Administration, 1936.
qi
I~
~•
Cj
A" 11\tE
I
)
'E
I-
)
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
5
participation. Four States made initial appropriations for unemployment relief in 1932. By the end of 1935, all but five States, Georgia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia, had accepted
some responsibility for providing State funds for unemployment
relief .9
The practical effect of State and Federal participation in emergency
relief activities was to bring almost to a halt in most localities the
extension of outdoor poor relief by municipal and township units.
The poor laws remained in effect but were virtually inoperative. With
the withdrawal of the Federal Government from the support of
direct relief at the end of 1935, extension of relief in many of the States
reverted to the traditional poor laws, but a few States have merged
unemployment relief activities with poor relief under permanent
State Welfare Departments. It appears highly probable that other
States will follow this example.
Sources of Statistical Data
For a long-time view of the public relief burden the most inclusive
relief data are those on governmental-cost payments collected annually by the United States Bureau of the Census and published in
Financial Statistics of Cities. 10 Additional data on relief expenditures
over extended periods of years for public agencies and for public and
private agencies combined are available for individual States, notably
New York and Indiana, for individual cities, and for groups of cities. 11
A special inquiry of the United States Bureau of the Census covering
relief expenditures in 308 cities during the first quarters of 1929 and
of 1931 has supplied 2 bench marks against which to measure the
rise in relief expenditures during the recent depression. 12 The most
comprehensive data on relief costs for the early depression years are
supplied by the Urban Relief Series of the U. S. Children's Bureau.13
This series is based on monthly data from 120 large urban areas and
extends back to January 1929. A relief series for rural and town areas
9 See appendix table 1 for dates of first legislation financing unemployment
relief in individual States. For a complete record of such laws, see Lowe, Robert
C., Digest of State Legislation for the Financing of Emergency Relief, January 1,
1931-June 30, 1935, Municipal Finance Section, Federal Emergency Relief
Administration, and Lowe, Robert C. and Staff, Supplement for P eriod Jt1ly 1,
1935-February 29, 1936, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration.
10 U. S. Department of Commerce, Bu.reau of the Census, annual reports,
Financial Statistics of Cities Having a Population of Over 100,000, 1911-1981.
11 Sources for these data are given in footnote references at the beginning of the
sections in which they are discussed .
12 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, special report, Relief
Expenditures by Governmental and Private Organizations, 1929 and 1981, 1932.
13 Winslow, Emma A., Trends in Different Types of Piiblic and Private Relief in
Urban Areas, 1929-35, Publication No. 237, U.S. Department of Labor, Children's
Bureau, 1937. The Urban Relief Series was transferred to the Social Security
Board as of July 1936.
I t
6 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
was developed during 1936 by the Divi ion of Social R search of the
Works Progress Administration to complement the existing rban
Relief Serie . Monthly data from the. e twos ries have recently been
utilized by the Division of ocial Research to e tablish the combin d
urban-rural trend of total relief xp nditures in the nit d tates
since January 1932.14
The stati ti al data from the e sev ral sour es arc presented in
succeeding so tions of Part I to indicate tho basi of generalizations
that hav b on maclo oncerning r lief tr nds from HllO through 1935.
Long-time trends aro treated first, followed by a more detail d analysis
of changes since 1!)29.
TRENDS IN RELI EF EXPENDITURES IN SELECTED AREAS, 1910-1935
Governmental -Cost Payments for Outdoor Rel ief in 16 Cities, 1911-1931
An arly rcli f scrie disclo ing tho upward trend of relief costs in
16 largo citi from 1911 through 1931, the two decades preceding tho
period of Federal participation, bas been developed for this study from
data on governmental-cost payments for relief, collected by the Bureau
of tho en us and publi bed in Financial Statistics of ities. Governmental-co t payments include not only payments made to relief clients,
but al o the co ts incident to the operation and maintenance of relief
sorvices. 15 Payments for "outdoor care of poor," "aid to soldiers
and sailors," and "aid to mother ," separately recorded by the Bureau
of the cnsu , have been combined into a single series for outdoor
relief. Aid to the aged and aid to the blind are not separately tabuocial Re earch, Works Progress Administration, Current
os. 1- 10, 1936. Data for the
combined Rural-Urban Series supplied in unpublished form by T. J . Woofter, Jr.,
Coordinator of Rural Research, Division of ocial Research, "orks Progress
Administration. For methodology of combined series, see Woofter, T. J., Jr.;
Aaronson, Franklin; and Mangus, A. R.: Relief in Urban and Rural-Town Areas,
1932-1936, R esearch Bulletin, Series III, No. 3 (in preparation), Division of
ocial R esearch, Works Progress Administration, 1937.
1• The figures for governmental-cost payments include a share of county
payments for relief as well as city payments. In 8 of the 16 cities for which data
are given-namely, New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore, Boston, San
Francisco, Washington, and New Orleans-i:ounty and city government units
have been m erged so that the figures collected automatically include both city
and county payments. To insure comparability fo r the eight remaining cities,
the Bureau of the Census has allotted to each city its share of county expenditures
for the specified functions, prorating the county payments to the city in the ratio
of assessed valuations of the city to assessed valuations of the entire county.
A share of the county-cost payments has been allocated by the Bureau of the
Census only to ciites in Groups I and II in which the city and county governments
are not merged. The eight cities i ncluded here a re the only ones with separate
city and county governments which have been continuously in Group I or II
since 1911 . Thus, t hey a re the only large cit ies for which comparable data are
available for the fu ll period.
14
See Division of
Statistics of Relief in Rural and Town Areas, Vol. I,
I
)
l' 'E
J
OUTDOOR
RELIEF, 1910-1935 • 7
lated by the Bureau of the Census, but are included with general poor
relief in the :figmes for "outdoor care of poor." 16
The 16 cities included in the series are widely distributed geographically and had a combined population according to the 1930 Census
of 21,500,000, representing 17 .5 percent of the total population and
31 percent of the urban population in the United States. Considerable significance can, therefore, be attached to the trend of relief
costs for the group. The cities, listed in the order of size, are:
New York
Chicago
Philadelphia
Detroit
Cleveland
St. Louis
Baltimore
Boston
Pittsburgh
San Francisco
Milwaukee
Buffalo
Washington, D. C.
New Orleans
Cincinnati
Newark
Total governmental-cost payments for outdoor relief for the years
from 1911 through 1931 supply evidence of a continuing rise in the
public relief burden in these cities over the entire period, with the
upward movement greatly accelerated after 1929.17 Aggregate payments in the 16 cities amounted in 1911 to $1,559,000, in 1929 to
$18,989,000, and in 1931 to $64,142,000; payments per inhabitant in
these 3 years were $0.10, $0.90, and $2.94, respectively. Data for
individual cities, given in table 2, show that every city except Washington, D . C., experienced an extensive rise in per capita relief costs
over the 21-year period. The increase in Washington was comparatively slight. Governmental-cost payments for relief per inhabitant
varied sharply in the different cities.
A breakdown of payments by class of relief indicates that expansion
in "aid to mothers" 18 shares with "outdoor care of poor" the major
responsibility for the accelerated growth of relief costs over the period.
This rise in expenditures for aid to mothers, attributable to new legislative provisions, was particularly important prior to 1929. It is
significant that despite the increase in amounts expended for this
special category, there was no accompanying decline in expenditures
for "outdoor cnre of poor," either in total amount or per inhabitant.
Total governmental-cost payments for outdoor relief and payments
per inhabitant for "aid to mothers," "aid to soldiers and sailors,"
iG In Financial Statistics of Cities, "Outdoor Care of Poor" is a subdivision of
Group VI, "Charities, Hospitals, and Corrections"; "Aid to Soldiers and Sailors"
and "Aid to Mothers" are subdivisions of Group IX, "Miscellaneous Cost Payments." Aid to soldiers and sailors includes only relief and burial for needy
veterans and does not include pensions or bonus payments; aid to mothers covers
assistance in the home for the care of dependent children. It does not include
such care in institutions.
17 Data are for fisca,l years ending during the calendar year.
The annual
collection of Financial Statistics of Cities was suspended by the Bureau of the
Census for 2 years, 1914 and 1920; the collection was incomplete in 1921. For
other years for which data are missing, the classifications were not uniform.
18 Comparable to "aid to dependent children." See footnote 3, p. 2.
11 E
Table 2.-Governmental-Cost Payments for Outdoor Relief in 16 Cities, 1911-31
1
CX)
•
IInrludes operation and maintenance costs)
-i
;;,:,
,•
~
,•
fTI
C
City
1012
1911
1918
1917
1919
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
z
1931
0
r
Vl
.
z
Amount ln thousnnds
>
;;,:,
r
t
Total, 10 cities. __________
New York _____________________
Chi cago ________ _______________
Phi ladelphla ___________________
Detroit. __ _____________________
Cleveland _____________ ·------St. Louis ____ ___ _______________
Balti more __ _____ ______________
Dos too _____________ • - •• ___ • - -Pittsburgh ____ ___ ______________
Sao Francisco __ • ______________
Milwaukee __ .. ________________
BufTalo _____________ . __________
Wa.~h ln~ton. D . o ____________
New Orleans __________________
ClncinoatL. •• _________________
Newark __ _______ ______________
$1,550
$1,700
$3,488
$3,980
$6,183
$11,0·IO
$12,818
$14, 709
$14,814
$17,059
$20,011
$1~. 9S9
S:?8,00!
$(1.1,142
327
78
112
143
407
7l
592
93
339
177
734
156
400
175
821
116
417
187
I, 132
358
969
1,253
288
I, 443
427
1,671
313
l,&8
I , 051
242
I, 3S9
465
I, 514
277
1,01>5
559
2,944
1, 5 16
5b2
2,393
368
446
2,120
733
5,935
4SO
3,379
3. 45l,
H,'-51
l,b99
68
17
870
47
145
94
18
013
52
104
100
16
1,004
190
122
1,600
135
278
101
114
2,004
159
255
221
116
2,223
165
250
241
124
2, 176
162
61b
152
219
4,235
411
415
251
403
7,4',.7
4~
645
152
141
82
195
24
10
204
112
154
211
23
15
210
125
296
355
512
406
691
21
17
322
241
452
737
25
Ii
354
244
2, S80
2,908
- - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---2, 4r,4
188
158
6 15
5,312
5,702
5,807
7,44q
6,3S8
6,602
7,94 5
9,274
040
22,140
l
JO
332
53
12
70
71
30
118
122
I
17
363
38
17
72
81
27
0
0
28
II
72
54
148
54
109
80
74
168
446
19
12
420
26
299
13
301
181
220
492
2,485
295
243
liO
2,244
199
281
609
bil
258
165
2,601
410
306
375
3\.1
29
620
1, 076
29
1,295
1,466
2S
4',
49
276
3,7
51
391
310
29
423
366
22
641
67
l,z.q(J
1, b70
~
605
1,0.."-q
21'2
Iii
2,1,.,9
658
r
fTI
-r,
fTI
X
"'Q
fTI
z
0
:::;
C
;;,:,
fTI
,Vl
~
f
'°w
u,
Amount per Inhabitant•
•~
fTI
C
Total, 10 cities __________ _
Now York __ _________________ _
Chicago
___ a.
·------------------Philadelphi
_________________ _
Detroit._. _________ ._. ____ • ____ _
Clovolaud ___________________ _
$0. 10
$0. 11
$0. 21
$0. 23
$0. 35
$0. 62
$0. 67
$0 . 75
$0. 75
. 15
.05
. 23
. 26
. 18
.04
. 2-1
.05
. 56
. 26
. 29
. 23
.09
.6 1
. 25
. 31
.07
. 17
. 30
. 10
. 07
. 32
. 43
. 22
.90
. 27
.16
. 23
I. 24
.30
. 21
I. 32
. 33
$0. 85
$0 . 96
$0. 90
Sl.30
. 64
. 24
1. 60
. 61
. 29
2 0~
. 46
. 30
1. 61
. 62
. 3~
3. h2
. 30
. 12
50
. 53
$2. 94
- -.04- - -.03- - -.09- - -. - -. - -. - - - - - - -, - -I. - -1.1q
- - -1.09- - -1.33- - -3-12
1)$
II
15
II
90
.08
1.09
. 20
. ~5
.H
_pq
1. 76
9. 17
2 OS
.
.
St. Louis ______ ___ ______ ______ _
Bn!timore __ _____________ __ ---Boston __ ______________ ----- --P ittsburgh _____ ___ _______ - -- -- San Francisco ____ __ ________ ___
. 02
. 48
.10
. 03
. 03
. 51
.07
. 04
.09
.03
1. 16
.08
. 31
. 12
.03
1.19
.09
. 35
.14
. 02
1. 36
. 13
. 34
. 24
. 16
2.08
. 22
. 52
. 24
. 15
2. 58
. 25
• 47
• 27
. 15
2.84
. 26
.45
. 29
. 15
2. 76
. 25
1. 10
. 29
. 21
2. 83
. 30
.49
. 32
. 21
3. 35
. 62
. 51
. 35
. 21
3. 71
. 56
. 51
. 19
. 27
5. 42
. 61
.66
. 30
. 61
9. 54
. 72
1. 00
Milwaukee ___ ____ ___________ __
Buffalo __________ ___ _____ -- -- -Washington. D . c ____ _________
New Orleans __ ________________
Cincinnati. __________________ __
Newark _______________________
. 18
. 16
.09
. 02
. 19
. 15
. 18
. 18
. 08
.02
. 38
. 15
. 35
.30
.08
. 03
. 49
. 21
. 18
. 41
.06
. 04
. 49
. 27
• 35
. 48
. 05
.04
• 54
. 31
.61
. 72
. 97
. 05
.03
. 74
. 49
. 80
1. 29
.04
.04
. 79
. 53
. 87
1. 36
.05
.04
. 86
. 53
. 96
1. 59
.05
. 65
. 94
. 62
1. 11
1. 95
. 06
. 11
. 80
. 71
1.09
1. 90
.06
.06
. 94
. 83
2. 23
2. 56
. 10
. 05
1. 20
1. 49
4. 86
5.03
. 10
. 14
2.80
4. 19
. 84
.04
.03
. 74
. 42
•Less than $0.005.
Data for fi scal years ending in calendar year. D ata not available, or not available on a comparable basis, for the years omitted from this table.
• Based on annual population estimates of t he Bureau of the Census.
Source: U.S . Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census, annual retior ts, Financial Stat istics of Cities Havino a Population o ' Over 100,000, 191 1-1931.
1
0
C
~
0
0
0
;;,:,
~
C
;;,:,
rn
C
>
..
(
r
~
C
r
iii
,..,,
-'
'2.
0
.!.
'°w
•
V1
,0
10 •
TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
and " outdoor care of poor" 19 in the 16 cit,ies combined arc shown in
table 3.
Aggregate governmental-cost paymen ts for all types of outdoor
relief combined are compared in the accompanying diagram wit,h payments for the maintenance and operation of all general governmental
departmen ts, and with growth in population. Although it is possible
to establish trends over the period, there are certain definite breaks in
the curves in years for which da ta are not available. 20 I t is particularly
Table 3.-Aggregale Governmental-Cost Payments for Outdoor Relief in 16 Cities, by
Class of Re lief, 1911-1931 1
[Includes operation and maintenance costs)
Year
Outdoor
care or
poor
Total
Aid to
mothers
A.id to
soldiers
and sailors
Amount In thousands
1011. .....••............. ··••·•• •..•....••...•..•••••••.
1012..................•...••••....••••••••••.••••••.••..
1917 ••..••..••••••.••••..•.••••.•••.••••.•..••.•...•.•••
191 ····································-···············
1919 .•...•.......•..••••••••••..•....•••••...•••••••....
1923 ••.••••..•••••.•......•.....•.••..••....•••.•.....•.
1924 ............ •.•...••••••••••••••..•..••••••...••••••
1925 ••..••..••••••..•...••..••.....••.•••••.......•.....
1926 ....••...••.••.•••.....•...••.••..•.••..••••......•.
1927 .•••..••........••.•.••.••••••..........••...•..••..
1928 •.....••..•.••.••..•.........•..•...••.....••••.•...
1029 .•...•.•..•.•.....••....••••••......•...••••.....••.
1030.•..•.••.•••••••............•.••..••••••••....••••..
1931 ....••............••..••.•..•.••••....••.•••..•.....
$1,559
l, 700
3, 4
3,980
6,183
11,640
12,81
14, 709
14, 14
17,059
20,014
18, 9 9
$1,042
I, 177
1,801
1,90 1
2,139
3,205
3, 6!i9
4,671
6,415
6,634
7,364
6,733
13,553
42,998
28,004
64, 142
$ 14
53
1,054
I, 258
3,317
7, 450
7,986
,825
8,261
9,288
11,201
10,543
11,430
15,051
$503
470
033
73 1
727
985
1,133
1,213
1, 138
1,237
1,449
I, 713
3,021
6,093
Amount per Inhabitant •
1911. ............•....•.•••.•.••........••••••..•.•..•.•
1912...............•....... . ..•.....•••••...............
1917 .............•..............••......................
191 ....•..........•..••.•....................•••... ....
1919 .........•.....•............•.....•...............••
1923 ........•......••.......••.................•..•.....
1924 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••• ••• •••• •••••••••••• •
1925 .................... . ...••..............••...... . ..•
1926 ...•.......................... ..... ..............• ..
1927 ..... . . .. .. . .... ... ....... . ..... ..• •....••....••.. ..
1928 ..................................•.................
1929 ................ . ............ ......•............ . . ..
1930 . ......•.... ... . ... ........................... ..•• . .
1931. .. ...• .......... ........ ............ . .... ... .......
$0.<n
$0.10
• 11
. 08
• 21
• 23
• 11
.12
.12
.17
.19
. 24
. 27
. 33
. 35
.32
.63
I. 97
. 35
,62
. 67
. 75
. 75
. 85
. 96
.90
I. 30
2. 94
$0.03
. 03
$0. 06
.<Tl
.19
.40
.4 2
. 45
.42
. 4il
.54
.60
.53
• 69
.04
.0-1
. 04
.05
. 06
.06
.06
. 06
. <Tl
.08
. 14
.28
• Less tban $0.005.
, Data for fisca l years ending in calendar year. Data not available, or not a .-ailable on a com parable
basis, for t he years omitted from this table.
, Based on annual population estimates or tbe Bureau or the Censns.
Source: U. S. Departmen t or Commerce, Bureau or t he Censns, annual reports, Fi1111ncial Statiatiu of
Citie• Haoinq a P opulation of Ocer 100,()()(), 191 1-1931.
19 Altho ugh " outdoor care of poor" includes some aid to the aged and to the
blind, cost payments for these two special classes are believed to be relatively
small until 1930. Of t he 16 cities, only 3, Baltimore, San Francisco, and
Milwaukee, gave aid to the aged prior to 1930. Aid to the blind is not an
important category.
20 The curves in this diagram are plotted on a semilogarithmic or ratio scale,
and are therefore comparable for rate of change, although not for volume. The
slope of the curves indicates the rate of change: the steeper the slope the greater
the rate of change.
<
J _ 'E ,. 11
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
11
unfortunate that gaps in the relief curve occur in the depression years
of 1914- 1915 and of 1921- 1922. However, data for public relief
expenditures for these same and additional cities, compiled by Ralph
G. Hurlin and shown later in this report, probably reflect what happened in the 1921-1922 depression period. 21
It is apparent from figure 1 and from table 4 that relief payments
mounted during the 21-year period at a much more rapid rate than
5 0 0 0 - ~1
4000~
~
1
~
1
1
~ ~~-~~~~---.--.....--.....----.----.--..,........,_ 5000
1 1
Semi logori Ihm ic sco le --l--4-----l----l----l-----l---l-1----1-----1----1---1-----l-/~.---14000
3000L_..L_...L_l.._--L..----l---11:-.--1..-..L_---l--_l.._--l-----l---1--l--4-----l----l----+---I--II,- 3000
2000'---'---'-----'---'----'----''---1---'---'-----'---'----'----'-J...._+----+----l--+--------1-/
-·j,__...... 2000
Outdoor relief _ I ,
deportments ~
I 000 t_..1.._...1---1----1---l.--ll----l----l-----l----l----+---l----<l---l--+---+-,r+-----l---l-l-----l I 000
yI
.,
g'
~v
.,
"'
C
/
0
.s=
0
/
//___,____,_----,_,__+-.....___._..........-------1-----, 500
u
c
500
&'~.
l-----l-----1----l----i---1---11----1----1----+-- /.----l---1--1--4---+--+---l---l---ll---+---I 400
400
/
300
'---'---'---'--1---------1-___,__N'
n
200'---'---'-----'---'----'-___,__
I
I 09
0
~/--1---1--/
1911
1913
I
1915
I./'~
--
~opulotion
I
1917
&'u.
-l--------1----l-----l--l-'--l'- ~
'-""=---1---+-+-l---l 200
I I /,~~
I
~
A 11 genera I -+--+--+--A•,,.,
~--i 300
deportmen~ ~
/Jl_~
I
-,
Je·
.s=
u
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
100
0
1931
FIG. I - TRENDS OF POPULATION AND OF GOVERNMENTAL-COST
PAYMENTS FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
OUTDOOR RELIEF DEPARTMENTS AND OF
ALL GENERAL DEPARTMENTS
16 Cities, 1911-1931
Nole : Broken lines indicole dolo not ovoiloble or
not ovoiloble in comparable form for these years.
Source : U. S. 0eportmerTI of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, annual reports, Findnciol Stolistics of
Cilie~ Hoving a Population of Over 100,000, 1911 -1931.
21
AF - 1349, W: P.A.
Seep. 12 ff.
Cr
1
I
r
)Lll 1E /> Jr V' •CITY
12 •
TRENDS IN RELI EF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
payments for the support of all general departments of government~ and increased out of all proportion to population growth.
Whereas population in the 16 cities increased 45 percent, governmental-cost payments for all general departments 23 increased 300
percent and for relief more than 4,000 percent.
Table 4.-Population and Governmental.Cost Payments for Operation and Maintenance
of All General Departments and of Outdoor Relief Departments in 16 Cities, 1911,
1929, and 1931
Percent Increase
Hem
1911
1929
1931
1911 to 11911 to
1929
1931
Figures lo thousands
Population .......•... ··--····················
All general departments .. ·-··················
Outdoor relief. .......... . ..••....••.•...•••
Outdoor caro of poor • .........••.•••••••
A id to soldiers noel 1111flors .•.••..••.••.••••
Aid to mothers ...••••.••••.•.•••• - .•....
15,032
$303, 166
1,659
503
21,120
$1,080,191
18,989
6,733
1,713
14
10,64.3
I, 042
21,821
$1,220,412
&I, 142
42,99
41
256
1,11
64.6
241
6,093
15,051
t
45
303
4,014
4,026
1,111
t
t Percent Increase not computed because or smallness or base.
1 lncludes
aid to the aged and aid to the blind where given.
Trends in Rel ief Expenditu res in 36 La rge Cities, 1916-1925
The long-time view of public relief trend afforded by the data on
governmental-cost payments for the 21 years ending in 1931 cannot be
matched by similar comprehensive records of private relief or of total
public and private relief expenditures for the period. But further
knowledge of past trends is afforded by data for a group of selected
agencies in 36 large cities for the 10 years from 1916 through 1925.
The data, the results of a study made in 1926 by Ralph G. Hurlin, 24
of the Russell Sage Foundation, serve the further valuable purpose of
telling what happened to urban relief expenditures during the depression of 1921-1922, when the census compilations are not available.
This study represents the first attempt to develop trends in the field of
outdoor relief. Reports on relief expenditures were obtained from
selected public and private agencies in 35 of the 68 cities in the United
States having populations in 1920 of more than 100,000.25 With the
exception of Los Angeles, these included the 10 largest cities: New
York, Chicago, Philadelphia, D etroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Boston,
Baltimore, and Pittsburgh.
Although not necessarily more rapidly than for some individual departments.
Operation and maintenance only; excludes capital outlays and interest.
24 Burlin, Ralph G., "The Mounting Bill for Relief," The Survey, Vol. LVII,
No. 4, November 15, 1926, pp. 207-209.
25 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with a population of 75,000 was the other city
included in the study.
22
23
q1t1 C j
I~'
-1~
A" 11\tE
C'
r JLLI 1E P Jr
'✓
0
1"
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
13
The relief expenditures for 96 agencies show a distinct upward
trend over the 10-year period. The accompanying diagram, reproduced from Mr. Hurlin's article, compares this upward movement with
changes in the cost of living 26 and in population and shows the relief
trend adjusted to reflect the influence of these two variables, which
necessarily affect relief costs. 27 The 71-percent rise shown by the
400 - - ~ - - . . - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - , - - - - . - - - - , - - - - , - - - - , 400
Note, The curves representing relief expenditures
ore based on data from 96 agencies in 36
large cities.
C
200 ~
"'
Cl.
100
0'-19_1_6--'--19_1_7-'--19_1_8--'--19_1_9--'--19_2_0-'--l-92-l-'--19_2_2-1._l_9_23-'--l-9-24-'--l-9-25~0
FIG. 2 - RELIEF EXPENDITURES, COST OF LIVING,
AND POPULATION
1916-1925
Source : Reproduced from Hurlin, Rolph G.,
"The Mounting Bill for Relief," The Survey,
Vol. LVII, No.4, November 15, 1926, pp. 207-209.
AF· 1029, W. P. A,
26
Adjustment made on the basis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics cost of living
index.
27
In order that the curves in fig. 2 might reflect a central tendency in relief
expenditures rather than the tendencies of the few largest agencies, the amounts
expended by each agency were converted by Mr. Hurlin to relative numbers and
averaged for each year.
C'
,1 [
c l LI 1E A
Jr V ,c1p
14 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
corrected curve is substantially less than the 215-percent rise of the
original. The war-time inflation in living costs accounts for the
early dip in the adjusted trend. Both curves register the impact of
the 1921-1922 depression. It is significant that reli f expenditures
did not return to predepression levels after the upswing of the business
cycle, and that they resumed an upward trend by 1924.
The trends of aggregate expenditures of 17 public agencies and of
48 private agencies, expressed as relative numbers, are compared in
figure 3 with the trend of combined expenditures of the e agencies.
During the first half of the period the upward trends are almost
identical. The depression of 1921- 1922 led naturally to increases in
expenditures of both groups of agencies, but public expenditures
increased at a distinctly more rapid rate than private. This steeper
trend of public as compared with private expenditures for relief was
not limited to the depression years but was ontinue<l and accentuated
in su bseq uen t year .
400
400
Note: The curve representing totol expenditures is
based on doto of 65 agencies; the curves representing public and private agencies ore based on
doto of 17 and 48 organizations, respectively.
I
300
300
----
..
~
.
.
c
c
200
200
~
Q.
Q.
O
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
19 23
1924
1925 O
FIG. 3- RELIEF EXPENDITURES OF PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
1916-1925
Source : Reproduced from Hurlin, Rolph G,
" The Mount,ng Bill for Relief," The Survey,
Vol. LVII, No.4, November 15, 1926, pp 207-209.
AF-1031, W. P.A .
I
lll 'E I
J[
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
15
Aggregate expenditures for the two groups of agencies were about
equal in 1916 and showed a combined increase of 181 percent by 1925.
Amounts e:iq>ended by public agencies increased 215 percent, from
$1,685,000 to more than $5,300,000; private expenditures increased
143 percent, from approximately $1,507,000 to $3,661,000.
Rise in Relief Costs in 16 Cities Between 1924 and 1929
An important pathfinding study of the volume and cost of community welfare, made by Raymond Clapp for the year 1924 under the
auspices of the American Association of Community Organization,
gives further evidence of the long-time rise in relief expenditures.
Nineteen cities were included in this survey. For 16 of these--Akron,
Buffalo, Canton, Cleveland, Dayton, Des Moines, Detroit, Grand
Rapids, Indianapolis, Kansas City (Mo .) , Milwaukee, Minneapolis,
Omaha, Rochester, St. Paul, and Toledo-comparison can be made of
relief expenditures in 1924 with those for the year 1929, as reported to
the United States Children's Bureau. The 1924 data cover both
private and public outdoor relief, including mothers' aid and blind
relief. They may not be entirely comparable with those for recent
years, 28 but they are believed to be approximately so and to support
the conclusion that there was a general expansion in relief costs beTable 5.-Relief Expenditures in 16 Cities, 1924 and 1929
Source or data
City
Territory included
1
Raymond
Clapp•
U.S . Chi!·
1924
1929
dren 's
Bureau
Percent
increase,
1924 to
1929 3
Amount in thousands
Akron ............... .... ...... .........
Buffalo.... ........ ....... ..... ... ......
Canton .......................... ......
Cleveland...... .............. .... ......
Dayton .................. _......... ....
Des Moines._............. .............
Detroit........ ....... ..................
Grand Rapids.................... ... ...
Indianapolis ... _.. _.................. ..
Kansas City...........................
Milwaukee.............................
Minneapolis...........................
Omaha ................. _._........ .....
Rochester .................. _..... ......
St. Paul ..............................•.
Toledo ........................•.... ....
County .................. .
County .................. .
County .................. .
County .................. .
County .................. .
County ..................•
County .................. .
County .................. _
County ...........•.......
City ... .................. _
County .................. .
City ......... . .......... . .
County .................. _
City .. ................... .
County ........ ... ....... .
County .................. .
$138
739
$181
1,415
65
152
741
103
1, 179
225
161
142
1, 183
3,040
130
255
231
107
128
158
354
306
101
686
422
181
855
394
220
342
335
121
31
91
134
59
118
13
157
21
99
46
94
38
79
150
18
82
1 These are the territories included in the Children's Bureau Series; the Clapp data represented all agencies
operating in the city, which include county agencies.
2 C_lapp, Raymond, "Relier in 19 Cities," The Survev, Vol. LVII, No. 4, November 15, 1926, pp. 209-210.
• Sm~ the 2 sets of data are not completely comparable these percentages should be interpreted as an
approxunate measure of the actual change between the 2 dates.
28
The data for 1924 were collected for a particular study and were not the result
of a continuous reporting system which olJers an opportunity for subsequent refinement and check.
21Gl 2°-37--3
cr
I
r
r JLLI 1E A J~ V' ,c1p
16 •
TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
tween 1924 and 1929 which antedat d the rise t,o present depression
levels.
Every one of th 16 cities show d marked increa es in expenditures
during the interval from 1924 t,o 1929. In six of the cities the burden
increased less than 50 percent,, in six others from 50 to 100 percent,,
and in the remaining four from 100 to 160 percent. The median
increa e for th group was approximately 80 percent.
Outdoor Relief Expenditures in New Haven, 1910-1925
A prevailing upward trend in outdoor relief expenditures in the city
of N w Haven (Conn.) for the 26 years extending from 1900 through
1925 is revealed by data compiled in 1928 by Willford I. King. 29 The
comse of relief expenditures of both public and private agencies during
the period 1910 through 1925 is shown in figure 4. 30 The curves in
figme 4a represent actual xpenditure , inclusive of administrative
ost; those in figure 4b reflect adju tment for population growth and
convei ion to 1913 dollar .31
Private agencies bore a heavy hare of the relief burden in ew
Haven throughout the 16 years. The introduction of public r elief
for widowed mothers increased the proportion of public expenditures
Table 6.-0utdoor Relief Expenditures 1 in New Haven, Specified Years, 1910-1925
1910
1915
Expenditures In thousands
TotaL ___ . __ _____________ ___ ______ _________ ____ __
Public_________________________________________________
Private __ ·---------- ____ ___ ·------- _______ .____________
1920
1925
1
$66
$G9
$168
$290
1 - - - -1-- - - -1- - - - 11 - - -
16
50
14
55
61
117
112
178
Relative numbers or expenditures
TotaL_______ _______ __ ____________________ _______
100
105
255
1 - -- -1·- - --1-- --
Public_____ ___ __ ____ _______________ __ _____ ___ __________
Private______________ __ ______ ________________________ __
100
100
88
110
319
234
439
1- - -
700
356
Relative numbers or expenditures per inhabitant in terms of 1913 dollars
TotaL_ ____ ___ ___________________ ____ ____ ____ ____
Public_________________________________________________
Privale------------------·--·-·-·-------··-·-·- -- -----1
100 ,_____
92 ,____
102 ,___196
,____
100
JOO
i7
97
127
94
310
159
Includes cost or administration.
29 See King, Willford I., T rends in P hilanthropy, National Bureau of Economic
Resear ch, New York, 1928.
30 Between 1900 and 1910 there was a mild rise in the expenditures of both
public and private agencies.
31 Population estimates for intercensal years were made by Mr. King.
King,
Willford I., op. cit., p. 68. An index of prices of direct or consumers' goods was
used to r educe actual dollars to dollars of constant purchasing power. See King,
pp . 61-62.
q1t1 C j
I~'
~~-
'
A." JIVE
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 • 1 7
3 5 0 . - - - - , - - - --,-- - - , - - - - - , - - - - , - -- - ---r----.-----,350
~
O
2 Q Q 1 - - - - - + - - - - + - - - - - + - - - - + - - - - - + - I ---+----+--<2QQ
~
~
C
~
5 I 501-----+---+-----+- - - - + - - - 1
/~~
E
:
O
C
g
I 50 5
a le
~
~
~
~
1001-----+----+----+- - -+ /
t-- -r
I
50 ___
I
-_ -_-+-----t-----,>":-------+------i 50
o.___._ _,___.......__.._______,__ __.___ _.____,.___.__....__..,__.____._ _.o
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
(a)- Current expenditures
1 . 2 0 . - - - ~ - - - ~ - - - , - --
-
-,-- - - , - - - - - , - - - - , - - ~ 120
1.001-----1---- + -- --+-- - -+-- --+- -
1.00
~
0
:g
.60>-----+---
-,___---+-- - -+-----+- I - ---'c- - - - / ~ ' -
r<')
Q?
---+----1 .20
o.___._ _.__~_..___._ _.__ __.___.._______,__ __.___....___,.__.__ _. o
19 10
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
( b )- Expenditures per inhabitant,
in terms of 1913 dollars
FIG. 4 - OUTDOOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN NEW HAVEN
1910-1925
Source King , Will ford I , Trends in Philonlhropy,
Nollonol Bureau of Econom,c Research, New York, 1928 .
AF- 1105, W PA .
rr ·
1
r
r JLLI 1E A Jr V' ,c1TV
18 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
somewhat after 1920 but did not greatly alter the di · ion of the r lief
burden as between public and private re ources. At 5-year intervals
from 1910 through 1925, private relief comprised 76, 80, 70, and 61
percent, respectively, of the total.
Examination of the curves in figure 4a reveals only slight change in
the volume of public and private expenditures betw en 1910 and 1917.
After 1917, however, there is an abrupt rise in the volume of expenditures of both types of agencies. A temporary dip downward occurred
after the 1921- 1922 depre sion, but expenditures reached a new peak
in 1924, declining slightly thereafter. In terms of constant purchasing
power, the trend of relief per inhabitant is sharply downward during
the period of the World War. This drop, shown in figure 4b, is due
to the war-time inflation of prices, which reached a peak in 1920.
Total expenditures for outdoor r lief were more than four times as
large in 1925 a in 1910, but expenditures per inhabitant in terms of
1913 dollars were 1 s than doubled. Public expenditures increased
rclati ely more than private, although still representing the smaller
fraction of the annual relief bill in the city. Relative numbers in
table 6 indicate the changes in relief expenditures at 5-year intervals
from 1910 through 1925.
Outdoor Reli ef Expenditures in New York City, 1910-1934
Both public and private agencie have shared in a marked upward
movement in relief cost in ew York City during the past quarter
of a century. The trend of outdoor relief expenditures in ew York
City for the 20 years from 1910 through 1929 is shown in the accompanying diagram, which summarizes the data from a study completed
in 1934 by Kate Huntley for the Welfare Council of cw York City. 32
T he data include expenditures from both public and private sources
and extend over a period which includes the depression of 1914-1 915,
the postwar depression of 1921-1922, and the minor recession of
1927-1928. 33 The trend for the combined volume of relief expenditures
and the separate trends for public and for private relief are shown
graphically in figure 5a.
After 1916 there was a distinct shift in the relative levels of private
and public expenditures. Prior to that year relief expenditures from
public funds were comparatively small and confined to relief for a few
special groups, including veterans and volunteer firemen, and their
families, and the adult blind . In 1916, however, a new State law
provided relief for mothers with dependent children. From that date
there has been steady growth in relief from public funds, and since
32 Huntley, Kate, Financial Trends in Organized Social Work in New York City,
Columbia University Press, New Yor k, 1935.
33 The figures given here exclude expenditures for service and administration
incident to relief.
q1t' C j
It'
-1~
A" 11\tE
r
J LI 1E P J
'✓
c
•
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935
.
12
12
10
10
8
8
.
E
2
0
"
C
0
6
"
6
.!?
i
19
T/ _I"
Publ ic agencies
4
1 ___
2
1___
C
~
I
~
l___ t4- ---
4
2
Private agencies
191 4
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
(o)- Current expenditures
1.20
1.00 1------1----l---l------l-----l----l------1-----l----l-----ll.00
.80
All agencies
'\.
l'.?
l'.?
2
0
0
"
.60 l - - ---l-- ----l--
--1----
--1-- --1- l - - - l - - - - - l - - - - 1 - - - ,"-1------1
.60
st
:g
st
~
§
.40
.20
---
0 '--'---1--l---'----'---1----'----'--L--'----'--L----1----l.-L--1----l.-L-....I
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
19 22
1924
1926
1928
.20
0
(b)- Expenditures per inhabitant,
in terms of 1914 dollars
FIG . 5-
EXPENDITURES FOR OUTDOOR RELIEF FROM
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES
IN NEW YORK CITY
1910-1929
Source : Fig 5 (o) adopted, ond F,g. 5 (bl reproduced,
from Huntley, Kore, Financial Trends in Organized
Social Worl< in New Yori< City, Col umbia University
Press , New York , 1935 , pp 71, 75.
A F-1035, W. P.A.
Cr
<
JLLI 1E /> Jr V "ITV
20 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
1917 public relief xpenditures have consi tently exceeded those of
prival,e agencies. Three-fourths of all expenditures for relief in 1929
were from public resource , as contra tcd with le s than one-fourth
in 1910.
Inasmuch as there was no provi ion in cw York ity for general
public relief during this period the increase in expenditures is attributable almost entirely to relief to special clas es. The slight bulge in
the public expenditure curve for 1921- 1922 probably reflects the
increase in need during tho deprc sion but docs not include any large
amounts extended sp cifically for unemployment relief.
The growth in population in ew York City and the fluctuations
in purchasing pow r of relief funds during the period from 1910
through 1929 contributed greatly to the incrca e in annual relief expenditures. The e influence have been eliminated by Mi s Huntley
from the dat,a shown in fig ure 5b, in which xpcnditures for relief
arc expressed on a per-inhabitant basi , in terms of constant purchasing
power. 34 The steepness of the trend in relief expenditures is materially
lessened by this adju tment. Annual c.Kpcnditures per inhabitant, in
terms of 1914 dollar , increased approximately 300 percent from 1910
to 1929, as om pared with an increase of 970 percent in actual expenditures for cw York ity.
Compari on of relief cxpendit,ures for the e earlier years with data
for the 5 years ending wit,h December 1934 35 reveal a staggering increase in the relief burden since 1929. Total relief expenditurns in
1910 were only six-tenths of 1 percent of the expenditures for the year
1934. Even in 1930, the beginning of the depression period, they were
only 7 percent of the 1934 amount. In the intervening 3 years annual
expenditures rose rapidly in response to the needs of the unemployed.
Strenuous efforts of private organizations to meet the crisis in the
early phase of the depression arc reflected in the figures for 1931 when
there was a sharp increase in the proportions of private funds. The
passage of legislation in New York State in 1931 authorizing public
relief through the Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, the
first State emergency relief organization to be created in the United
States, marked the beginning of active public participation in unemployment relief in ew York City. Very substantial amounts of
relief from private sources were given during the next 2 years, but these
amounts represented a rapidly declining proportion of the total.
34 The cost of living index used to correct relief expenditures was derived from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics index of the cost of Jiving in New York City after
1914, and earlier data on retail prices of food for the North Atlantic Division
collected by the Department of Labor. The indices were revised by Miss Huntley
to accord more weight to food and rent, which are relatively more important in a
relief budget. See Huntley, Kate, op. cit., Appendix III for a full description of
the index used.
35 These data were collected by Miss Huntley for the Weliare Council of New
York City and are entirely comparable with those for earlier years.
q1ti C j
1~·
-1~
A " 11\tE
, J l 1E 1- J
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
21
It should be noted that even without any statutory provision for
public outdoor poor relief, public resources supplied the major portion
of relief funds in. New York City for at least 14 years 36 before the
establishment of an emergency unemployment relief program. Since
1933 public resources have borne a preponderant share of the total
relief bill. Private agencies accounted for only 4 percent of the total
in 1934. T he long-time shifts in the relative amounts of public and
private funds for relief purposes are shown clearly in table 7.
Ta ble 7.-Expend itu res for Outdoor Relief 1 From Pu blic and Private Resources, New York
Cit y, Specified Yea rs, 1910-1934
Year•
Amount in thousands
Percent
,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ , Total as
percent of
1934
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1910______________________________________ _
1915 ________ ______________________________ _
1920
-- _-- ___ - _-- __ - _- -- -- __ - - -- _- - - - - - - - _1925 __
______________________________________
1029 ______________________________________ _
1930_
--- _--- - _- - -- - - - - ---- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - --_
1031 ______________________________________
1932 ______________________________________ _
1933 ______________________________________ _
1934 ______________________________________ _
$971
1,395
4,750
7,729
10,387
12,926
48, 164
82,366
• 1!8, 361
• 176,514
$229
256
2,981
5,662
7,750
9,271
31,665
57,870
• 101,2 11
1 169,316
$743
1,139
1,769
2,068
2,637
3,654
16,499
24,496
17, 151
7,198
23. 6
18. 4
62. 8
73. 3
74. 6
71. 7
65. 7
70. 3
85. 5
95. 9
76. 4
81.6
37. 2
26. 7
25. 4
28. 3
34. 3
29. 7
14. 5
4. 1
0.6
0.8
2. 7
4.4
5.9
7.3
27.3
46. 7
67.1
100. 0
• Expenditures for administration excluded except as indicated in footnote 4 below.
• Data for 1910 tbrougb 1929 from Huntley, Financial Trends in Oroanized Social Work in Kew York Cily
those !or 1930through 1934 supplied in unpublished form by the Welfare Council of New York City.
' Derived from data carried to more places; therefore, dillers slightly from sum ol items.
• Includes payments to tbose workers who received relief wages on staffs of relief projects. Does not incl ud e
wages paid for CW A employment, which totaled $8,751,000 in 1933 and $34,467,000 in 1934.
Expenditures for Public Outdo o r Re lief in N ew Yo rk Sta te, 1910-1934
D ata on expenditures for public outdoor relief in New York State,
compiled and made available by the State Department of Social
Welfare, 37 show a gradual expansion in relief costs for 20 years before
the precipitous rise beginning in 1930. The data, which are exclusive
of administrative costs, represent expenditures for home (direct)
relief, including aid to veterans; for work relief; and for three types of
categorical relief-aid to the aged, aid to the blind, and aid to dependent children. 38 T he figures do not include expenditures of the
Civil Works Administration, which made wage payments in New York
State in 1933 of more than $14,000,000 and in 1934 of more than
See fig. 5a.
Supplied in unpublished form. Data for 1910 through 1915 for fiscal years
ending September 30; for 1916, 9 months ending June 30; for 1917-1934, fiscal
years ending June 30.
38 Reimbursable expenditures for relief incurred by private agencies for public
charges are included. Expenditures for the years 1932- 1934 for home and work
relief represent commitments made by the Temporary Emergency Relief Administration of ew York State and hence do not cover some small amounts of
local relief not reimbursable from State funds.
36
37
r
1
)Ll 1 1E /> Jr V'
c1p
22 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
240,-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - ~ 240
220
220
200
200
FIG. 6- EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC OUTDOOR RELIEF
NEW YORK STATE
1910-1934
Source : New York Stole, Deportment of
Social Welfore, unpublished data.
q1tr- C j
1~1
~~-
V
A.I• 11\tE
fr
r )Lll 1E P Jr V
c
IT
23
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
$60,000,000. The combined volume of expenditures for home (direct)
relief, work relief, and categorical relief over the 25-year period are
shown in figure 6.
Between 1910 and 1916 little change in the total amount of relief
is recorded, but after 1916 expenditures mount substantially, increasing gradually until 1931 when there is an extremely sharp rise which
continues during the next 3 years. The introduction of child welfare
allowances in 1916 and of aid to the aged in 1931 accounts for the
expansion in categorical assistance . The startling increase in home
relief and the inauguration of work relief followed the creation of the
New York Temporary Emergency Relief Administration in 1931.
The rising relief costs, even before 1930, were due only in small part
to the growth of population in New York State. Total expenditures
rose from $885,000 in 1910 to $17,786,000 in 1930 and $215,601,000 in
1934, while expenditures per inhabitant rose from $0.10 in 1910 to $1.41
and $16.51 in 1930 and 1934, respectively. Actual expenditures for
the several classes of relief and expenditures per inhabitant at 5-year
intervals from 1910 through 1930 and for the year 1934 are shown
in table 8.
Table 8.-Expenditures for Public Outdoor Relief in New York State , Specified
Years, 1910-1934
1
General relief
Year
Total
Home
relief•
I
Work
relief
Categorical assistance
I
I
Aid to
Aid to
Aid to
the aged the blind depe nd ent
cb1ldren
Amount in thousands
1010 _________ ___ __________________________ _
1915 _______________________ -- ______ -- -- -- - _
J92() ______________________________________ _
1925 ______________________________________ _
1930 ______________________________________ _
1934 _____ ---- -- --- _------- --------- ------ --
$885
1, 277
4,351
8,548
17,786
215, 601
$830
1,222
1. 457
2,184
8,517
104,921
$35,638
$12,65 1
$55
55
66
209
323
372
$2,828
6, 154
8,946
12,019
$0. 97
$0. 01
. 01
. 01
. 02
.03
. 03
$0. 27
. 53
. 71
. 92
Amount per inhabi tant '
1910 _____ - --- -- ------------ ---- ------ -----1915_ ______________________________________
192() ______ --- ____ -- -- _______ _______________
1925 ___________ ---------- _--- -- ----------- _
1930 _____ ---- ------- _--- ------- -- ------ ---1934 _______ ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- -- - ----- __
$0. 10
. 13
. 41
. 74
1, 41
16. 51
$0. 09
.12
. 13
.19
. 67
8. 03
$6. 55
1 Data for 1910 and 1915 are for fiscal years ending September 30; data for other years are for fiscal years
ending June 30.
2 Includes veteran relief.
3 U. S, Bureau of the Census annual State population estimates used; computed from unrounded data.
Expenditures for Public Outdoor Poor Relief in Indiana, 1910-1931
Annual expenditures for public outdoor poor relief in Indiana show
that this State shared in the general rise in public relief costs after
Cr
il'✓ E
r JLLI 1E A Jr V ,c1p
24 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
1910. These data were ompiled by the Indiana State Board of
Chariti s from quarterly reports of townshlp officials for the years from
1890 through 1931, and they w re presented graphlcally in a recent
report of the Governor's ommi ion on nemployment Relief. 30
Analysis here is confm d to the years 1910 through 1931, which come
withln the scope of this report. 40
0000.-------..-------"'T""-------.--------.---,eoo
6000
600
Sem,logor11hm1c scale
4000
2000
200
,, ,,
.
,, ,,
~ IO00
.,,
0
-g
~
:,
/
100
.
80 ~
800
600
60
Expend i tures
0
0
.c
I-
400
/
,, ,,
,, ,,,
40
200
20
1001-"""-:...._---+-- - - - ---1---- - - - + - - - - - - 4 ~ 1 0
80
1910
8
1915
1920
1925
1930
FIG. 7- EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC OUTDOOR POOR
RELIEF IN INDIANA
1910-1931
Note Broken lines indicate dote nol ovoiloble or
not ovolioble ,n comparable form for these years.
Source · State of lnd ,ono, Governor's Comm,ss,on
on Unemployme nt Ret,ef, Year Book April 1933 June 1934, July 1934 - June /935
3ij State of Indiana, Governor's Commission on
nemployment Relief, Year
Book, April 1933- J une 1934, J uly 1934-June 1935, pp. 3-9.
40 Between 1890 and 1895 expenditures for outdoor relief were at a higher level
than in any subsequent year until 1921. In 1890, the first year for which data
are available, public expenditures for outdoor poor relief totaled $560,000. By
1895 they had risen to $630,000. Thereafter there was a progressive decline,
the level of expenditures between 1900 and 1910 being somewhat below that in
the next decade.
qi
I~'
-1t
Ci
A" 11\tE
, J L 'E I J
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 • 25
The annual amounts expended for outdoor poor relief increased from
$266,000 in 1910 to $4,681,000 in 1931, while expenditures per inhabitant rose from $0. 10 to $1.44. Expenditures in selected years beginning with 1910 are given in t able 9. The data are exclusive of admin-
istrative costs and represent all outdoor relief granted from public
funds, except public assistance to the blind and to mothers with
dependent children.
Rates of increase in annual expenditures and in expenditures per
inhabitant, compared in figure 7, have been very similar. The two
curves, plotted on a semilogarithmic or ratio scale, reveal a considerable increase in the rate of expansion in expenditures during the
1914- 1915 and the 1921-1922 depressions, and a very sharp expansion
during the depression years of 1930 and 1931.
Table 9.-Expenditu res for Public Outdoor Poor Reli ef 1 in Indiana, Specified
Years, 1910-1931
Year
1910 _____________________ _
1915 _____________________ _
1920 ______________ __ _____ _
1
Amount
Amouot
in
per
thousands inhabitant
$266
435
417
Amount
Amouot
in
per
thousands inhabitant
Year
1
$0.10
.15
.14
1925 _______________ __ ____ _
1930 ___ _______ ___________ _
1931_ ___ _________________ _
$841
2,506
4,681
1
$0. 27
. 77
l.'14
U. S. Bureau of the Census State estimates of population used to compute expenditures per inhabitant.
Following the 1914- 1915 depression there was almost no decline in
annual expenditures. The failure of expenditures to contract after
the revival of business is doubtless due in part to the decline in the
purchasing power of the dollar during the World War. Immediately after the 1921- 1922 depression there was a drop from the peak,
but this drop was followed immediately by a marked upward movement
which continued and was greatly accelerated at the onset of the depression in 1930 and 1931.
THE RISE IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES SINCE 1929
Expansion in Urban Relief Between 1929 and 1931
Until the current depression the gradual rise in relief costs over the
years was a matter for State and local rather than national concern.
But with the advent of the depression, relief costs throughout the
country moved rapidly upward, overtaxing local and State resources
and thus focusing attention on the Nation-wide problems of unemployment and the relief of distress caused by unemployment. This
abrupt change in the scope and focus of the relief problem suggests
the need for a review of relief expenditures since 1929, the last year of
comparatively "normal" relief costs.
The first attempt to collect statistics of the volume of relief on a
Nation-wide basis was made by the United States Bureau of the
Cr ·
1
r
)Lll 1E /> Jr V >CITY
26 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Census 41 during the summer of 1931 at the request of the President's
Organization on Unemployment Relief. As the depression grew
more acute and demands for relief increased sharply with decreasing
employment, need for such ation-wide measurement of the relief
problem had become evident.
Information indicating the amounts of relief disbursed by public
and private agencies to families in their homes and to homeless men~
during the first quarters of 1929 and 1931 was collected and tabulated
separately for 308 cities of over 30,000 population, and for counties
and smaller incorporated places. 43 Administrative expense was
included in the figurns for some agencies but not for all so that the
amounts given understate for both periods the total expenditures
for relief and it administration. 44 It is important to realize that the
fir t quarter of the year normally represents a seasonal peak in relief
operations and hence expenditure in the first quarter of 1929 were
probably somewhat larger than tho e for the other quarters of the
year. In 1931, however, the growing severity of the unemployment
cri is may have more than counterbalanced the seasonal factor, leading
to higher expenditures in subsequent quarters of the year. Since
returns from the counties and smaller incorporated places were incomplete, discussion here is confined to the 308 cities grouped by States
and by geographic divi ion .
Country-wide expansion in urban relief expenditures between the
two periods is shown by the figure for different geographic divisions,
given in table 10. The combined expenditures of the cities in these
nine divisions rose 241 percent between the first quarter of 1929 and
the fir t quarter of 1931 , or from $16,621,000 to $56,669,000. Governmental relief expenditures increased 217 percent and private expenditures 286 percent. Individual State aggregates are given in appendix
table 2.
Striking variations are evident both in the amount of relief disbursed
and in the degree of expansion in relief in the different geographic
divisions. These variations reflect in part at least the promptness
41 The U. S. Children's Bureau and the Russell Sage Foundation cooperated in
the survey, obtaining data for cities over 30,000 population through previouslyestablished reporting contacts. Reports for expenditures for relief in cities having
less than 30,000 population and for county governments were obtained by the
Census Bureau chiefly through correspondence with postmasters and county
officials.
42 Includes relief to special classes as well as direct and work relief.
43 R eturns were received from 308 of the 310 cities having 30,000 or more
inhabitants in 1930. No returns were received from Santa Ana, Calif., or from
Pawtucket, R. I. Six States, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Vermont, and Wyoming, contain no cities of 30,000 or more inhabitants.
44 It was intended that administrative costs be included in every instance,
but for many agencies it was not possible to segregate the cost of administering
relief from other administrative functions, so that only the amount of relief
granted was reported.
y1
11
~•
C
1
r, " 11\tE
I
)LL' 'E ,. J
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
27
Table 10.-Expenditures for Relief to Families in Their Homes and to Homeless Me n
in 308 Cities, 1 by Geographic Division, First Quarters of 1929 and of 1931
Amount in thousands
Cities in geographic d:vision of over 30,000 population
Number
of cities
First
quarter
of 1929
I
2
First
quarter
of 1931
Percent of
increase
from 1929
to 1931
Total expenditures
All divisions __ ------------------------------------N ew England __ ___________ __ ___ _____ _________ ___ ___ _____ _
Middle Atlantic__ ______ ___ ___ ___ _____ _____ _________ ____ __
East
th CentraL
West Nor
N ortb
CentraL------------------------------------___________________________________ _
308
South Atlantic __________________________________________ _
East South
-- ----------------------- --- -------_
West
South CentraL
Cen traL_____________________________________
Moun tain _______________________________________________ _
Pacific __________________________ ____ ____________________ _
34
13
21
$16,621
$56,009
~1
:-----1----1---
44
64
81
~
8
22
3,100
5,612
3,878
1,142
587
214
281
269
1,539
7,585
21,250
17,935
2,219
1,407
698
866
447
4,265
145
279
363
M
140
226
209
00
177
Governmental expenditures
All divisions ______________________________________ _
308
$10,802
$34, 201
217
New England ___ __ ______________________________________ _
Middle Atlantic ____ ------------------------------------East N or tb CentraL ---------- ---- --------- ----- __ ______ _
West N ortb Central__ ___________________________________ _
Sou th A tlnnti c ____________ ______________________________ _
Ee.st South CentraL __ ----------------------------------West South Cen traL _____ ------------------------------Mountain ___ ____________________________________________ _
Pacific _____ ____________________ __ _______________________ _
44
64
81
21
34
13
21
8
22
2,532
3,798
2,559
565
159
40
87
193
869
6,569
9,819
12,252
1, 101
364
274
392
304
3, 126
160
159
379
95
128
589
352
57
260
308
$5,819
$22,468
286
Private expenditures
All divisions_____________________________________ __
New England__ __________________________________________
M iddle Atlantic__________________________________________
Ee.st Nor th CentraL________________ ________ ______ __ _____
West Nor t h CentraL ___ -- --- ------------------------ ---South Atlantic________________ ___________________________
Ee.st Sontb CentraL __ -- ------------- - ------------------West South Central_________________ ___ ________ __________
Mountain_______ _________________________________________
Pacific __ ----------------------------------- -------------
- - - - 1 - - - -- 1 - -- - 1 - - - -
44
64
81
21
34
13
21
8
22
568
1,814
1,318
577
428
174
194
76
670
1,015
11,431
5,683
1,118
1,043
422
474
144
1,138
79
530
331
94
144
142
145
89
70
1 Cities with a population of over 30,000.
' Since figures are rounded to the nearest thousand, totals will not in all cases equal the sum of the parts.
Source: U. S . Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, special report, Relief Expenditures bv
Governmental and Private Organizations, 191/9 and 1931, 1932.
and force with which the cities in these different areas felt the impact
of the depression and the extent to which organized relief met the
ensuing distress. But it should be remembered that percentage
change is definitely affected by the amount of city relief expenditures
in the several areas in the 1929 predepression base period. A relatively small percentage increase in expenditures may reflect a relatively
high standard of care in 1929 rather than failure to meet increasing
relief needs in 1931. This is definitely the situation in the cities in
the New England Area, which registered an increase of 145 percent
in total relief expenditures as compared with a 241 percent increase
for the combined areas. Expenditures per inhabitant in the New
llf
il'✓ E
•
I
r
r JLLI 1E A Jr V 1 c1TV
28 •
TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-19 35
England cities were, a indicated in table 11, more than double tho. e
in other areas in the 1929 quarter, with th xception of the Mountain
Area.
Table 11.-Expenditures per Inhabi tant for Relief to Families in Th eir Homes and to
Homeless M e n in 308 Cities,1 by Geographic Division, First Ouorters of 1929 and
of 1931
Oeoeraphic divis ion
Number
of cities
First
Quarwr
or 1929
First
quarter
or 1931
All di visions ____ ____ _________ __ _____ __.... ·-.·- .•. • . . . •••. _••.
308
$0. 34
$1. 17
New England ..... •········· · ·-· · ·· ·· ··· ··- ·· · ······· ···············
Middle Atlantic .. . .•.•..•....... .. ·····-·····-· · ····· .. . •... ... . ..•
East North CentraL ..... . .....•..•..••.•.. . •... ....••... . . . . .. . .• .
West North entral . •····· ·· ····················· ············-·····
South Atlantic ...... . ••... .... ..........•.•••••. _._ •.•...• . .........
East outh Central. ....••.. _......• _..•.....• _•..... . • . ......... .•.
West Soutb Central .••..•.....•.... . •.......... . .. . •••.......•... . .
Mountain . .• . .. . .•....... . ...•...•.....•.••. .•. •. •. .... . • . •..•. .••.
Paciflc ... . . . .. . ..•. . .....•........ ·-····· ..• •. . . •. •.• . . . •.. ••. . .. . .
44
64
I
21
34
13
• 75
1.85
1.37
1.43
. 67
.3b
.31
.34
.16
• 14
• 11
.40
.33
21
8
22
.39
.45
. 35
• 67
.91
Cities with a populntion of o, er 30.000.
1
Wide range in the ratio of governmental relief expenditures to total
e>.--penditures for relief a.pp ars from the data for geographic divisions
and for the individual States. 45 While the proportion of governmental
expenditures in all cities ombined declined only slightly between
the two quarters, from 65 to 60 percent, there was significant decline
in the Middle Atlantic tates, wbi h were particularly active in the
provision of unemployment relief through private emergency organizations. A marked rise in the proportion of public relief is recorded
in the East South Central, West South Central, and Pacific Divisions.
During the first quarter of 1929 public relief constituted less than 25
percent of the total city relief in 11 States 46 and more than 75 percent
in 8 States; governmental expenditures were from 25 to 75 percent
of the total in 23 States and the District of Columbia.
Table 12.-Governmentol Relief Expenditures as Percent of Total Expend itures for Rel ief
to Famil ies in The ir Homes and to Homeless Men in 308 Ci ties,1 by Geograph ic
Divisi on, First Ouo rte rs of 1929 and of 1931
Geographic division
Kumocr
of cities
First
quarter
of 1929
First
quarter
or 1931
All divisions . . ...... .......... ............................... .
308
65.0
00.4
New England. ___ ··········-······························ -····· ·-·Middle Atlaotic ... . •···················· · ···· ··· ·········-·········
East North Central. .. •········-·······-·-·····-····················
West North Central. .............................................. .
Soutb Atlantic .......... . ............... ·-•·····················•···
East South CentraL. . .......................................... ... .
West South Central. . . . .. ......................................... .
Mountain ......................... •...... -· ..... . ..... ... ·- ....... .
Pacific .... ... . . ..................... . .............................. .
44
81. 7
64
67. 7
66.0
86. 6
46. 2
1
81
21
21
30. 9
8
71. 8
56. 5
73. 3
22
49. 5
27. 2
18. 6
68.3
49.6
25.8
39. 4
45. 3
34
13
67.8
Cities witb a population or over 30,000.
See table 12 and appendix table 2.
Cities in two of these States, Alabama and Delaware, reported no public
relief in 1929.
45
46
I~
qi
-1~'
Cj
A" 11\tE
J LI 1E P J V
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 • 29
Relief Expenditures in 120 Urban Areas, 1929-1935
An invaluable record of urban relief trends prior to the period of
Federal participation in relief is afforded by the Urban Relief Series of
the U. S. Children's Bureau, which supplies continuous monthly data
on relief expenditures from public and private funds in 120 major
city areas from January 1929. 47 Not only does this series provide the
connecting link for the 34 months between the onset of the depression
and the inauguration of Federal relief but it includes some 9 months of
"prosperity" preceding the stock market crash in October 1929. It
also affords the opportunity for seeing the Federal relief program in
relation to the relief operations of other public and private agencies.
Inasmuch as important shifts in emphasis on different types of relief
and on various sources of relief funds have taken place in the past
several years, and are lilrnly to continue to take place in the future,
particular value is attached to this series, which gives a picture of the
over-all relief situation in these urban areas. The series does not
include wage assistance extended through the work programs discussed
in Part II of this report. 48
The urban areas represented in the series include 99 cities with
populations of over 100,000 in 1930, and 21 cities with populations
between 50,000 and 100,000. They represent two-thirds of the total
urban and somewhat more than one-third of the total population of
the United States. The cities are listed in appendix table 4.
A graphic record of the major changes which have occurred in relief
expenditures for these urban areas during the past 7 years is given by
the series of diagrams presented in this section. Major changes in the
relative importance of private relief, general public relief, and special
allowances 49 appear in figure 8, which shows the monthly relief
expenditures for all cities and the variations in the three main classes
of relief during the period from 1929 through 1935. The annual
47 These data are exclusive of administrative cost.
The Urban Relief Series was
initiated in 1929 by the Russell Sage Foundation which built up a collection of
monthly data for relief agencies in 76 U. S. cities and 5 Canadian cities "'ith
populations over 100,000. This series was transferred as of January 1932 to the
U. S. Children's Bureau and wn.s expanded to include other urban areas, mostly
between 50,000 and 100,000 in population, for some of which monthly statistics on
relief and transient care had been compiled since late in 1930 by the Children's
Bureau at the request of the President's Organization on Unemployment Relief,
or which had been collected in connection with the Bureau's project for the collection of Social Statistics in Registration Areas. The Urban Relief Series was transferred to the Social Security Board as of July 1936.
48 Omitted are the Civil Works Program, the Works Program, and special programs administered by the FERA, including the emergency education, college
student aid, rural rehabilitation, and transient programs.
49 Special allowances include expenditures made under State laws authorizing
grants from public funds for mothers' aid, old-age assistance, and aid to the blind.
The term is synonymous with public categorical relief, as used in this report.
Sec footnote 3, p. 2.
r,
30 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
IOO , - - - - - . . . - - - - . . . - - - - . . . - - - - . . . - - - - . . . - - - - . . . - - W or_k_s _,
90
C.W.A.
Progrom
1n operot1on
n operation
f- ' -I
f-
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1929
1930
1931
FIG. 8- TREND OF RELIEF EXPENDITURES FROM PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE FUNDS
IN 120 URBAN AREAS
1929-1935
*
Includes o,d IO lhe oged, o,d IO fhe blind,
ond 01d lo dependenl children
Source: Winslow, Emmo A , Trends ,n 01f/erenl
Types of Public ond Private Relief ,n Urban
Areas, 1929-.35, Publlcolion 237, U. S.
Deporfment of Lober, Ch ildren's Bureou, 1937
AF · 1365, WP. A.
expenditures and percentage distributions by class of relief are given
in table 13. Monthly expenditures for the various types of relief,
expressed as relative numbers, are shown in appendix table 5. 50
The group of private relief agencies is comprised of nonsectarian
family societies, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish family organizations,
emergency relief agencies under private auspices, and a number of
miscellaneous organizations giving relatively small amounts of outdoor
60 These relative numbers were constructed for this report.
For absolute
amo unts, see Winslow, Emma A., Trends in Different Types of Public and Private
Relief in Urban Areas, 1929-35, Publication No. 237, U.S. Department of Labor,
Children's Bureau, 1937, appendix table A, p. 69.
q1t1 C j
It'
~~-
A." 11\tE
, )Lll 1E 1- Jr
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 • 31
relief to families in their homes. The American R ed Cross and the
Salvation Army are in this last group.61 Agencies giving general public
relief include local poor relief offices, public welfare departments,
public veteran relief organizations, and local emergency relief administrations. Agencies extending special allowances are those
offices or bureaus administering public aid to the aged, to the blind,
and to dependent children. 52
Tobie 13.-Expenditures for Relief From Public and Private Funds in 120 Urban
Areas, 1929-1935
Public funds
Grand tota l
Year
Total
I
Iallowances
Special
General
Private
fund s
A mount in thousands
T otal, 7 years·-·········•····-• - ·
1929 __ . . . ............................. .
1930 .. ·· ········-······•-···•-·······•·
1931 .... ·-·····························
1932 ·- ··············-··-············ · ··
1933 ... ·········-··-··•-·····-•·-··-·•·
1934 ...... ·-······-· ····· ·········· ····
1935 •. ··· · ···········-·················
$2,553,045
$2,365,350
43, 745
71,4 25
172, 749
308, 185
I 448,921
I 667, 153
• 840,867
33,449
54, 754
123,320
251, 104
I 421,032
I 652, 467
2 829,224
$2,104,509
$260,841
$187,695
f - - - -- -1 - - - - - 1·- - - - · 1 - -
14,853
33, 510
88,594
208,694
I 379, 722
I 608,880
'770,256
18,596
21,244
34, 726
42,410
41,310
43, 587
58,968
10, 296
16,671
49,429
57,081
27,889
14,686
11,643
82. 4
34 . 0
46. 9
51. 3
67. 7
84. 6
10. 2
42. 5
29. 8
20.1
13. 8
7. 4
23. 5
23. 3
28. 6
18. 5
9. 2
6. 5
7. 0
6. 2
Percen t dist ri bution '
T otal, 7 years ....... ..... .... ... .
1929.·-·········-·-·--·······-·-·······
1930 . . · ·--···-············-···-·-···--·
1931. ... ..... .. ....... ···-·-··· ... ·-···
1032 .. ·- ·············-·-·····-···-·····
1933_ ··· ·······-·······-·······-·-·····
1934. ··········--···-····-·············
1935 .. · -····· ·· ·······-·-·· · ···········
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
I 100. 0
I 100. 0
2 100. 0
92. 6
76. 5
76. 7
71. 4
81. 5
93. 8
97. 8
'98.6
I
I
I
191, 3
'91.6
2. 2
I. 4
Excludes expenditures un der the C iv il Works Administration .
Excludes expenditures un der tbe Works Program .
' Computed from unrounded data.
1
2
General Rise in Ur ban Relief
The total relief bill for the 120 cities for the 7-year period was
more than $2,553,000,000. Combined annual expenditures mounted
from the 1929 low of $44,000,000 to the present all-time high of more
than $840,000,000 in 1935. It is significant to note that although
1932 represented the lowest ebb in business activity during the
depression, expenditures for relief in these urban areas have more
than doubled since that year. 53
Disaster r elief a dministered by the American R ed Cross is not included.
Statutory aid t o veterans is class ified with general public relief a nd not
with special allowances. Prior to 1934 the Children's Bureau maintained a separate classification for veteran relief, but has not found it feasible to segregate the
data for 1934 and 1935. For purposes of consist ency , data for veteran relief have
in this report been included in general public relief for the entire period.
63 It should be remembered that these data do not incl ude wage assist a nce.
Por a discussion of the trend of relief and wage assistance combined , see Pa rt II.
61
52
21612 ° -37--4
Or
I
r
r JLLI 1E A Jr V' "ITV
32 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
In 1929, which may be deemed a year of comparatively normal
relief expenditures, special allowances, or public categorical relief,
constituted 42 percent of the relief bill for these urban areas. General
public relief constituted 34 percent and private relief 24 percent
of the $44,000,000 total. By 1935 these proportions had shifted
extensively, with general public relief forming 92 percent of the va tly
larger relief bill. Special allowances and private relief represented
only 7 percent and 1 percent, respectively, of the total expenditures
for the year. The percentage distribution of relief expenditures for
each of the 7 years is hown in figure 9.
Percen t
40
20
0
20
100
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Private
.f IG.
Special/
allawances
General public
9-PERCENT DISTRIBUTION"'OF RELIEF EXPENDITURES
FROM PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS
IN 120 URBAN AREAS
1929-1935
* Each bar rorols 100 percenr
Source W,nslo.-,, Emma A, Trends ,n Different
Types of Public and Pnvole Relief m Urban Areas,
1929-35, Publicor ,on 237, US 0eporlmenr of
Labor, Ch ildren's Bureau, 1937.
The important role played by the private agencies in the winters
of 1930-1931 and 1931-1932 is apparent. Existing private agencies
and newly-created emergency committees made a substantial effort
to meet the increasing relief needs but the voluntary contributions
collected in emergency relief drives were expended over comparatively
short periods of time, resulting in marked fluctuations in the volume
of private relief. During this same period expenditures by general
public relief agencies increased significantly, but the most startling
rise in this type of relief occurred after July 1932, when the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was authorized by the Emergency
q1ti C j
I~'
~~
A.\' 11\tE
C
, JLLI 1E
t J ,
c
r
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
33
Relief and Construction Act to make loans to the States and local
subdivisions for relief purposes.H Resources liberated by this and
subsequent acts 66 made possible the tremendous growth in public
disbursement during the second half of the 7-year period.
Relative Proportions of General Public and Private Relief
The interplay of public and private efforts to meet the emergency
relief needs is thrown into bold relief by the series of relative numbers
plotted in figure 10. These relatives were computed on a base of
average monthly expenditures for the 3 years 1931-1933 equaling
100. The curve for public relief excludes special allowances, since
these forms of assistance are not primarily intended for families
whose dependency is due to unemployment. The expansion of private
contributions during two successive winters of voluntary relief drives
contrasts sharply with the decline in those contributions after the
assumption of responsibility by the Federal Government. This
decline must be attributed in part to the exhaustion of private resources as well as to a diminution of private initiative after public
funds became available. Even more spectacular than the slump in
private expenditures is the concomitant rise in expenditures for
general public relief.
Both general public and private relief reflect the seasonal peak in
expenditures during the first quarter of the year. Statutory relief
through special allowances shows no such seasonal variation, since it
is usually given in the form of regular monthly payments.66
The relative numbers for January expenditures in each of the 7
years 57 show that private relief rose abruptly from 26 in 1929 to a
peak of 233 in January 1932, and had by January 1935 fallen to 31.
General public relief rose from 7 in January 1929 to a peak of 427 in
January 1935. This peak in general public expenditures coincided
with the 7-year peak in total relief expenditures for these areas.
As might be expected, the expansion in the general public relief
burden for these 120 urban areas was due almost entirely to the increase in assistance for the unemployed. Public emergency relief was
distributed by local poor relief offices, departments of public welfare,
emergency commissions, and relief administrations, and after July 1932
was composed in part of Federal funds. Expenditures by emergency
6• By congressional action on June 18, 1934, States were relieved of any obligation to repay loans made under this Act. Hence, Federal participation in relief
truly dates from the first loan from RFC funds. Loans made to local subdivisions
have not been waived.
66 Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933; National Industrial Recovery Act;
Act of February 15, 1934; Emergency Appropriation Act, Fiscal Year 1935;
Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935.
56 See fig. 8.
61 Relative numbers for the 84 months are given in appendix. table 5.
fr
1
r
)Lll 1E A Jr V ;cr,v
34 • TRE NDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
reli f a<l.ministrntion compr' ed from 97 to 99 p rcent of total general
public relief during the month from eptember 1933 through December 1935. 63 The proportion of emergency relief fund dropped during
the , A program and began to decline again with the introduction
of the Works Program and the withdrawal of the Federal Government
from direct relief in the lotter part of 193;",.
500 , - - - - - - . - - - - - , - - - - ~ - - - - - - - ~ - - - -Works
--~rogrom
CWA
in operat ion
450
f-
I- -I
400 i - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - +-
---+------!-- - - 1 1 - - - ~
350
.
D
E
~
-0~
.;
0:
250
200
Private /,
relief : 7
- - - ->- - - - . - - --
I
I
'
150
,,,I
I
'
I
:
#
,'
I
0
I
f
:/I \,
Average month,
1931 - 1933, 100
100 ~ - - - - . - - - :
,:
_
_
:
------•I
_ _ __..,
\
.
I
I
I
t
~
\,
,.
-r'·•\
\ - : - - • . - .-
! \ __/
50
.
o _
.; \
·••·--•'.--····---/
I
'
···-···1···•..... r.1--·---·
o b=:::'.'.'.'.t::::=:.._ __JL_ _l__ _J__
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
_l_ __J
1934
1935
FIG. 10- EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL PUBLI C RELIEF AN D
FOR PRIVATE RE LI EF IN 120 URBAN AREAS,
EXPRESSED AS RELAT IVE NUMBERS
1929- 1935
Source , Winslo..,, Emmo A , Trends ,n D,fferent
Types of Public ond Pnva e Rel,ef in Urban Areas,
1929 - 35, Publico ,on 237, U S Deporl ent of
Lober, Children's Bureau, 1937
AF- 1363 1 W. P.A.
e u. . D epartment of Labor, Children's Bureau, monthly bulletins, Chan ges
in Different Types of Public and Private Relief in Urban Areas. E xpenditures
"reported to FER A" include in some instances small amounts of local public
relief not administered by the Emergency Relief Administration.
·gltl C j
I~'
~~•
-./
A:'-' JIVE
Cr
I
r
r )lll 1E A Jr V
c
IT
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
35
Table 14.-Expenditures for Relief From Public and Private Funds in 120 Urban Areas,
Expressed as Relative Numbers, January 1929-January 1935
[Average m onth 1031-1933 =100]
Public
'l'otal
Month and yea r
General
J anu ary 1929 _________________ ---------------- -- -- -----J anuary 1930 . _________________________________________ _
January 1931. __ ____________________ __ _________________ _
J anuary 1932 ________ ___ _______________________________ _
J anuary 1933 . __ ___________ --- __ ----- ------------- __--- _
J anuary 1934 ___________ ------------------------ _______ _
January 1935 __________________________________________ _
7. 1
12. 4
37. 2
64. 4
146. 2
136. 1
426. 9
14 . 9
20. 0
55. 6
93. 8
135. 1
118. 3
332. 8
Private
Special
allowances
46. 5
50. 3
72. 7
103. 5
Ill. 6
104. 6
136. 7
26. 3
31.8
132. 9
233. 4
100. 3
40. 8
31. 4
Rise in Special Allowances
The three types of special allowances responded only mildly to the
emergency situation created by widespread unemployment. This is
apparent, from t able 15, which gives annual expenditures for aid to the
aged, aid to the blind, and aid to dependent children. These forms of
relief are designed to aid classes with specific handicaps not directly
connected with unemployment. Because of their legal eligibility
requirements and financial limitations they are relatively inflexible to
depression need. There is some evidence, however, that increasing
need during the depression served as an impetus both to enactment of
new legislation and to expansion of case loads for these statutory forms
Table 15.-Expenditures for Special Allowances in 120 Urban Areas, by Type of
Assistance, 1929-1935
Year
T otal
Aid to the
aged
Aid to the
blind
$89, 4i7
$17,864
I Aid
to dependent
children
Amount in thousands
Total, 7 yea rs____________________________________
$260,84 1
$153,500
1----;1----1----1-
1929 ______ __ - - --- --- -- ------ - -- --- --- ----- --- ----------1930 _______ _______ ____ __ __ ___ ---------------- ___ ________
1931__________ _____ _____________________________________
1932 __ ----------- -- ---- --- ---------- --------- -- ------ --1933 ________ ------ -- --- --------------------------------1934________ ____________________________________________
1935 __ ---- ----------------- -- - ------ -- ---- ------------ --
18,596
21, 244
34,726
42,410
41,310
43,587
58,968
1, 514
1,912
2,196
2,475
2,674
3, 193
3,900
17,073
18,272
22,107
24. 283
23,343
23, 740
24,682
34. 3
6. 9
5. 0
8.1
9.0
6. 3
58.8
91.8
86.0
9
1,060
10,423
15,652
15, 293
16. 654
30,386
Percent distribution •
Total, i yea rs ___________________________________ _
1929 ___________________________________________________ _
1930 __ -- __ -- ________________________ -- ________ ---- ___ -- _
1931 ___________________________________________________ _
1932 ___________________________________________________ _
1933
- _- - - - - - . - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - ----_
1934__________
___________________________________________________
1935 _____________________ ___ ___________________________ _
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
.
30. 0
36. 9
37. 0
38. 2
51. 5
5. 8
6. 5
7. 3
6. 6
• Less than 0 .05 percent.
1
Compu ted Crom unrounded data.
cr
11\!E
11
I r
r JLU'1E A J~ V' 1 c1TV
63. 7
57. 3
56. 5
51. 5
41. 9
36 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
3.0 , - - - , - - - - , - - - - - - - , - - - - . . . - - - - - - - , - - - . . . . - - - -
.
.. .
I
,'
2.5
/
i-----t----lf-----+----+---+-----1--:
.: /
I
I
Aid to dependent children
•
I
2 .0
~
.2
0
"
C
1.5
0
i
1.0
0.5
1--------<f--- - - i - - --+- ---+----+-----+---~
;•
Atd to the bl ind
-~------~-~--~~/
0
____ _
'-------=·--··-·_··__....____
- - - - - , - , •••• ..!
...t....._ _ _J...__ _ _1.-_ __J_ _ _.J
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
FIG . 11- EXPENDITURES FOR 3 CATEGORIES OF RELIEF
IN 120 URBAN AREAS
1929-1935
Source Winslow, Emma A., Trends ,n 0 1fferenl
Types of Public and Privale Relief in Urban
Areas, 1929 -35, Publication 237, U. S.
Deportment of Labor, Children's Bureau, 1937.
Ar·l389, w. P.A.
of relief. The curves in figure 11 show the course of expenditures in
the 120 urban areas for these 3 types of relief.
Aid to the blind increased only slightly at a fairly constant rate over
the 7-year period. The steep rise in the CW"Ve for aid to dependent
children may represent, in very slight degree, expansion in the coverage
of existing legislation but suggests also that increasing numbers of
eligibles found it necessary to apply for this type of public relief
because of depleted private resources, or because of the effects of the
depression on relatives or others who had formerly contributed to
their support. The rapid and substantial rise in the amount of old-
QI
It
~t
Ci
P. '
1I\tE
I
)LL/ 'E I )
'
<I
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
37
age relief is explained largely by the introduction of old-age assistance
in several cities under the provisions of new State legislation. Financial difficulties of local and State governments, caused by unprecedented relief burdens combined with declining revenues from tax sources,
presumably account for the slump in aid to the aged and in aid to
dependent children during 1933 and 1934. Categorical relief did not
benefit from Federal grants in these years but was :financed solely
from State and local funds. 59 Furthermore, there has been no tendency on the part of the States to finance categorical relief by borrowing.60 Beginning in 1936, however, Federal funds for relief to the
aged, to the blind, and to dependent children were made available
under the Social Security Act to those States with laws conforming
to minimum Federal requirements. As a result, there has been a
very sharp expansion in the volume and relative importance of these
types of relief since that date.
Relative Proportions of Work and Direct Relief
The relative proportions of general relief distributed in the form of
direct and work relief before and during Federal participation in
relief activities reflect a growing preference for the latter type of
relief for the unemployed. The recent development of work relief
as a means of meeting the needs of the destitute unemployed is
partially indicated in figure 12, but the omission of the wage assistance programs from the Urban Relief Series tends to obscure the
essential continuity of the policy of work projects as a means of assisting the needy unemployed. Thus, the drops in the work relief curve
during the winter of 1933-1934 and during the latter part of 1935
do not signify real interruptions in the development of a Federal
work relief policy, since the extensive programs of the Civil Works
Administration and the Works Program, respectively, were operated
on a modified relief basis during these periods.
Work relief was by no means unknown in this country prior to the
current depression and was practiced on a small scale as early as
the depression of 1914- 15,61 but it was not to be found in the 120
69 FERA Rules and Regulations No. 3, issued July 11, 1933, provided that
direct relief should not include relief for widows or their dependents and/or aged
persons where provision was already made under existing law. This ruling did
not, of course, prevent the extension of general relief to needy persons in these
classes when there was no legal provision for categorical relief, or when State or
local funds were inadequate to care for all those eligible for these types of assistance.
60 See Lowe, Robert C., Analysis of Current State and Local Funds Specifically
Assigned to Various Welfare Activities, Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration, March 16, 1936.
61 Colcord, Joanna; Koplovitz, William C.; and Kurtz, Russell H .; Emergency
Work Relief, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1932, p. 12.
Or
I r
r JLLI 1E A Jr V' ,c1p
38 •
TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
cities in significant q uantiti . in 1929 nor in 1930 until the la t quarter
of the year. There were om mall work proje ts in operation but
the e were conducted primarily for purpo es of administ ring a
"work tc t" rather than a a means of providing ystcmatic work
opportunity to the needy unemployed. De pite th fact that the
early work reli f figure , for the rea on cited, are not trictly omparable with tbe lat r figures for work relief under the Federal Emergency Reli f Admini tration, 62 they have value in affording at least
a rough mea ure of the volume of th e early work r lief projec .
The data do not reveal the intermittent chara ter of many of the
program , which were of hort duration and predicated on the hope
that pro perity and revival of private indu try would occur promptly.
Table 16.-Expenditures for General Direct and Work Relief
1929-1935
I
in 120 Urban Areas,
Percent 1
y
r
Total
Total, 7 year,; ___ ••.••••..•..••
19'.n ••• ·••••··•••·•· •• •·•·•••···••••
1930.................................
1931..... •. . .. .• . •. . .• •• •. .••.•. •• ••
1932.. • • . . . •. .. ••••.•• .. . •••• .• .•••..
1933. . ••• ••••• •• •••• .•••• •••••• ••••••
)934.. ........... ..... ..•.........
1935.. ... ....•. ... . ... ••..
••
Work
Direct
2, Z/2, '.If 1
1. C3J. 41~
f,71, ;:;s
i O. i
25,149
50, I 1
138, OZl
2f',5, 7i5
• 407,611
I f.23,5/",ll
'7 1, 'J9
25, 13)
29
3, 2ll
37,157
r11, OI
I 112. 19'J
a 215, 4'32
' 23'}, {lf,2
W.9
92. 4
i3. I
1-----1-----1-----1-4F.,3.',3
100, i;r,G
IW, 6i7
295,412
408,104
544,917
i~- •
72.::.
&5. 4
00. 7
\\'or
29.3
0.1
7. 6
2';.9
2l.~
I
I
I
27.5
34. 6
30. 3
• Include ~enernl relier e,penditure. by both puhlic 11nd pri , eu, 11genries.
• Computed from unrounded data.
• F.xclud expenditures under t he C'i\"il Works Admin i.!trstion.
• Excludes ewenditures under tho Works Program.
During 1929 work relief accounted for only one-tenth of 1 percent
of relief expenditures in the 120 cities. 1n 1934 and 1935 approximately one-third of the total relief expenditures were in the form of
work relief wage . The annual amounts expended for work relief and
for direct relief in the 120 urban areas from 1929 through 1935 and the
relative proportions of the two forms of relief are shown in table 16.
The e proportions do not, of course, convey the full import of the trend
toward work and away from direct relief as a means of caring for the
able-bodied unemployed, because they do not include amounts
expended for either Civil Works Administration or Works Program
wages. The influence of these two programs in transferring large
numbers from the work relief rolJs is evident from the precipitous drops
62 Instructions for FERA statistical reports were to include as "work relief"
only actual work relief projects and not work equivalents (work for relief) or
work tests required of recipients of direct relief. Direct relief was synonymous
with home relief. See FERA Form lOA General Instructions, Federal Emergency
R elief Administration, 1933.
Yq1tr c j
I~'
~~-
-./
A-IC WE
cr
I r
r JLLI 1E A Jr V
c IT
39
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
60,-----.----.----,------r-----,----~---.
Works
C.W.A.
Program
m operation
in operation
1-· -l
I--
FIG.12- EXPENDITURES FROM PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS
FOR DIRECT RELIEF * AND FOR WORK
RELIEF ** IN 120 URBAN AREAS
1929-1935
*andExcludes
oid lo the oged, aid to the blind,
oid lo dependent children .
**Excludes C.W.A., C.C.C., ond Works Program.
Source : Winslow, Emma A., Trends in Different
Types of Public ond Private Relief in Urban
Areas, 1929 -35 , Publ ication 237, U. S.
D~portment of Labor, Children's Bureau, 1937.
AF•l367, W. P. A.
in the work relief curve in figure 12. Their effect on the total relief
burden for the same periods may be seen from figure 8. 63
Since the introduction of Federal relief and work programs, work
relief sponsored by private agencies has declined to a negligible percentage of the total amount spent for this form of relief. The relative
extent to which private and public relief agencies in these cities
utilized work relief measures during these 7 years is shown in table 17.
63 Discussion of these work programs, sponsored by the Federal Government
duri ng the second half of the 7-year period, will be given in Part II of this r eport.
Or
" 11\tE
I r
r JLLI 1E A J~ V' ,_clTV
40 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1 9 35
Table 77.-Expenditures for Work Relief From Publ ic and Pri vate Fu nds in 1 20 Urba n
Areas, 1929-1935
Percent,
Amount In thousands
Year
Total
Total, 7 yea rs . . .. ............
1929 ..• ···••··········· · ············
1<130. •••····•···• · ••••••· •• •••·•·••·•
103 1........................ .•••....
1032 .• •··••••••••••••••·•••••···••••
1933.. .••.•.....••.•.•...•••••.•...•
1034 ... .•..•.....•..•.........•...•.•
1935......... . ••..••••••••.•.•••..
$1171, 75,5
Public
$1332, fl29
Private
Puhllc
$.19, 12il
04 2
•- - - - · • - - - 2.~- ,----·t----14
86.1
29
3, 28
37,1 57
611, 09
'112, IW
2 215, 462
I 236,982
I, 77
22,670
62,051
2,050
14, lil!7
14,047
I 05, 463
0, 736
'21 4, 281
I 2:16, 461
!, I I
I
621
4',, 6
00. 7
78. 7
2 94. 0
•99. 5
• 90
Prlvat~
5.8
13. 0
53. 5
39. 3
21.3
6. 0
0.5
0. 2
• Compu ted from unrouoded data
• Fxcludes exr,eoditures uoder tho C'lvil Wot ks Admlnlstrall•m.
• Excludes expenditures under the Works Prol!ram
Relief Expenditures in 385 Ru ral-Town Areas,
1932-1935
The relief serie so far pre ented relate almo t exclusively t,o urban
area . Unfortunately there are no comprehen ive statistics for rural
areas prior to 1932.
rban-rural compari ons are po sible, however,
for the 4 years 1932 through 1935. The Divi ion of ocial Research
of the Work Progr
Ad.mini tration has recently inaugurated a
relief series for rural-town areas which provides continuous monthly
data on relief expenditures from January 1932.M Thi series is complementary to the erie for 120 urban areas which i described in the
preceding section.
The Rural-Town Series includes expenditures for outdoor relief
from both public and private sources in 3 5 repre entative rural counties and town hips in 36 tate . Reports cover entire counties in all
States except 1as achu etts and Connecticut, which are represented
by individual town hip .
ome of the counties and township have
towns and small cities with populations up to 25,000. Together the
sample areas contain 11.5 percent of the total rural-town population
of the United State .65
Types of assistance represented in the series are general and veteran relief; statutory relief to the aged, to the blind, and to dependent
children; Resettlement emergency grants; 66 and private relief. Excluded from the R ural-Town Series, as from the Urban Series, are all
64 The Rural-Town Series was inaugurated in July 1936.
Available data on
relief expenditures in the sample areas since J anuary 1932 were collected to extend
the monthly series back to that date. For 1935 and 1936 data were obtained from
areas in 36 States ; for 1932, 1933, and 1934 from areas in 24, 26, and 35 States,
respectively. The series was projected backward by means of m onthly link
relatives, bringing the data for the entire period up to a 36-State level.
65 See appendix B for a map showing the distribution of the sample counties
and townships.
M Grants made by the Resettlement Administration on an emergency basis to
meet the immediate needs of clients.
yl
I~
-1~
j
A" 11\tE
J LI 1E /> J V
1~
OUTDOOR RE LI EF, 19 10--1 935 •
41
expenditures for wage assistance extended by the Civil Works Admin istration and the Works Program agencies and relief disbursed by the
Federal E mergency Relief Administration through its special programs. Omitted also are all loans made by the R esettlement Administration. 67
Table 18.-Expend it ures for Outdoor Relief From Publ ic a nd Priva te Funds in 385
Ru ral .Town A reas, 1932-193 5
Public funds
Year
Total out•
Tbo aged,
Resettle·
General
door relief Total pub•
the blind, mentemer·
and veter· and
ge:::,cy
depend·
lie
an
grants
ent children
Private
funds
Amount in thousands
Tota l,4years .. _ ........
1932..... ......................
1933...........................
1934.......... ..... ............
1935..... .............. ... .....
$119,093
$118,183
$108,071
$9,833
10,478
22,984
39,835
45, 796
10,223
22,688
39,664
45,608
8,163
20, 737
37, 478
41, 693
2,060
1,951
2,186
3. 636
$279
$910
279
255
296
171
188
1- - - - 1 - - - -·l-- - -1-- - -1-- - -+·--- -
Percent distribution
Total, 4 years·-·········
1932..... ............... . ..... .
1933.......................... .
1934. .......... ............... .
1935.......................... .
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
99. 2
97. 6
98. 7
99. 6
99. 6
8.3
19. 7
90. 7
77. 9
90. 2
94. I
91. I
0. 2
8. 5
5. 5
7. 9
0. 6
0.8
2.4
1. 3
o. 4
o. 4
Annual expenditures for each class of relief and for all classes combined in the 385 rural-town areas are given in table 18 for the years
1932 through 1935. The table shows also the relative importance of
the various classes of assistance in the successive years. T otal expenditures for outdoor relief in the 385 rural-town areas amounted to
$10,478,000 in 1932 and to $45,796,000 in 1935, an increase of approximately 337 percent. During the same interval total expenditures
in the 120 areas represented in the Urban Series rose 172 percent. 68
I n the rural-town areas, as in the urban areas, general public relief,
including aid to veterans, was the largest single component of the
relief structure. Expenditures for this class of relief in 1932 amounted
to $8,163,000 and constituted 78 percent of the total outdoor relief
in the 385 counties and townships. In 1935 expenditures for this
class of relief totaled $41,693,000 and constituted 91 percent of the
grand total.
T hroughout the 4-year period private funds contributed a negligible
proportion of the relief bill. Even in 1932, when large amounts of
87 Burials, hospitalization, and loans, which are included to a small extent in
the data reported for the Urban Series, are not included in the Rural-Town Series.
However, the amounts for th_se items in the Urban Series are small and uniform
and do not affect appreciably the trend of that series.
ea See table 13, p. 31 , for data from Urban Relief eries.
Lr
1
I r
JLLI 1E A Jr V 'CITY
42 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES,
1910-1935
private emergency funds were being raised for the relief of un mployment in the itie , private relief con tituted le thun 2}~ p rcent of
the total expenditures in the 3 5 rurul-town area .
Statutory assi tunce for the ag d, the blind, and d pendent ch.ildr n
was relatively more important in the rural counties and towns than
in the urban areas. While expenditures for these type of relief in
1932 repre ented 20 percent of the total relief in the 3 5 rural-town
areas, they were but 14 percent of the total in the 120 urban areas.
Between 1932 and 1935 xpenditures for these special classes ro e
, appreciably in ab olute amount , but they declined substantiall y
in relative importance.
The expansion occurring in the combined expenditures for the
three group wa due almo t entirely to increa e in the amount of oldage a istance. Th.is incr a e was induced by the enactment of new
tate laws providing a si tance to the needy aged. 69 Annual expenditures for aid to the aged, aid to the blind, and aid to dependent
children are given in table 19. Marked hifts in the relative volume
of aid to the aged and of aid to dependent children are revealed by
the table. A similar but le s pronounced hift in empha is between
the c two form of allowance wa indicated by the data for urban
areas.
Tobie 79.-Expenditures lor Rel ief to the Aged, the Blind, and Dependent Children
in 385 Rural -Town Areas, 1932-1935
I
Year
T otal
Aid to t he
aged
I
Aid to the
bhD d
11.
Amount in th ousa nds
T otal, 4 years ____ __________ ______________________ _
1932 _____________________________ ____ __________________ _
1933 ___________________________________________________ _
1934 __ __ ____ __ ___________________ ______________________ _
1935. - - --- - - --- -- - ------- -- - - - - -- - - - --------------- - - - --
de~~d~nt
children
S9, 833 ,_ _$4_,_868_,_ _iw
_s
2, 060
732
229
1, 951
742
241
2, 186
3, 636
970
1,099
968
895
1, 008
1, 024
2, 370
267
258
49. 5
10. 1
11.l
12. 4
40. 4
46. 9
12. 2
65. 2
7. 1
40. 9
Zl. 7
Percent distribution
Total, 4 years ___________________________________ _
1932 ____ __ __ _________________________________ __________ _
1933 _____
- - -_______________
- _. - - - - - - - - - -- -_____
- - - - -____
--- -____
- - - -___
- - ____
- -- - -___
- - -______
- - - - - -___
- - -_
1934_
1935 __ _______ _______________________ _____ _________ ____ __
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
35. 5
38. 0
53. 4
49. 6
Relief Expenditures in Rural and Urban United States, 1932-1935
The establishment of the Rural-Town Relief Series, on a basis comparable to the Urban Relief Series, has made feasible for the first
time the construction of a combined Urban and Rural-Town R elief
69
See table 1, p. 3, for number of States enacting legislat ion during this period
to provide this form of assistance.
q1tr- C j
I~'
~~•
-./
A:'-.• JIVE
cr
r
r JLLI 1E A Jr V ><1•
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 • 43
Series reflecting fluctuations in total public and private outdoor relief
expenditures in the United States and permitting direct comparisons
of the volume and trend of the various types of relief in rural and in
urban areas.
Such a combined relief series has recently been built up by the
Division of Social Research on the basis of reported expenditures in
the 120 urban and 385 rural-town sample areas. Monthly data for
the two relief series were generalized to represent the total urban and
total rural-town population in the United States; the resulting urban
and rural-town series were combined for each month, by type of
assistance, to give estimated monthly expenditures for the whole
United States. 70 Monthly indices of the combined expenditure series
for total outdoor relief from January 1932 through December 1935
are shown in appendix table 6 together with the indices of the component urban and rural-town series. 71 The indices were originally
computed with average monthly expenditures in the fiscal year ending
180
I I I
I I I I
Works Program
m operot1on
CWA
160
m operot1on
I
1----1
140
/ l''crl
~~'i'-,\.
120
.,"
"
100
I
--fl-¥'
80
!:l'
Urban-,•..
60
40
20
•
Total
/'
•
□y
- I 'T.
I 40
100
--~
,
'~,
J
80
60
I ,'\.:-, .,,,-"J
"F··. .,;:_., ~
-- .
,.··--1-.1.---.:r~/r
I 60
I 20
, ·.-···· !
-~
Average month 1935 • 100
E
f-------------
180
40
I
20
Rr-ywn
0
Jon Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct
~
I~
~
I~
Jon Apr Jul Oct
~
I~
Jon Apr Jul Oct Dec
~
I~
0
FIG. 13-TRENDS OF EXPENDITURES FOR OUTDOOR RELIEF
IN RURAL-TOWN AREAS, URBAN AREAS,
AND TOTAL UNITED STATES
January 1932- Oecerober 1935
Source: Division of Socio I Research, Rurol Section,
Works Progress Administration, based on data from
Rural·Town Relief Series and Urban Relief Series.
AF-2 223 1 W PA
7° For complete description and methodology of the combined series and
monthly indices for the component types of relief, see Woofter, T . J ., Jr.; Aaronson,
Franklin; and Mangus, A. R.: op. cit.
71 The series for urban United States represents counties with cities of 25,000 or
over and Connecticut and Massachusetts townships of 5,000 or over; the series
for rural-town United States represents counties with no city of 25,000 or over
and Massachusetts and Connecticut townships of less than 5,000.
cr
'
11\!E
<
I
r
JLLI 1E A Jr V ,c1rv
44 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
June 1936 equal to 100. For the purpose of this r port the indices
have been converted to an earlier ba e, with average monthly expenditures in the calendar year 1935 equal to 100.
forked similarity in the trend of outdoor relief expenditure in
urban and in rural-town ar a for the 4 month from January 1932
through D ecember 1935 i di played by the curves in figure 13.
The e curve , plotted from index numbers, are contra ted with a
curve repre enting outdoor relief di bursement in urban and rural
nited tale combined. In January 1932 the rural-town index was
1 .3, the urban index 34.5, and the combined index 30.6. After the
Federal Emergency Relief Admini tration wa e tablished, expenditures in nu-al area in rea ed at a omewhat more rapid rate than
expenditure in urban area . In January 1934 the rural-town index
wa 50.6 and the urban index 43.6. Emergency expenditure for
drought r li f during the fall and winter of 1934-1935 explain in part
the ri e in the rural index in that period. In J anuary 1935 the rural
index regi tered 139 .2 as contra tcd with 122.7 for the urban index.
The efiects of the ivil Work program and the Works Program in
reducing expenditures for outdoor relief are reflected in each of the
curve .
E timated annual expenditure for outdoor relief in urban and in
rural-town nited tate in the 4 year from 1932 through 1935 indicate that expenditures in rural-town areas have become a larger
fraction of national relief expenditure , increa ing from approximately
To bie 20.- Estimated Expenditu res fo r Outdoor Rel ief in Ru ral
Uni ted States, by Type of A ssistance, 1932-1935
1932
T ype or assistance
Rural
1933
I
Urban
Rural
I
C rban
1
and in Urban
1934
I
I
I
Rural
{;rban
1
1935
Ru.ra,l
I
Urban
A!Doun t in thousands
Total outdoor relieL _.
lsss,843 1$4-15, 985 1$198, 005 1$647, 424 1$344, 549 1$965,365 1$397, 169 Js1, 217, 037
P ercent d istribution
T otal outdoor relieL ..
Public relieL . ... . ... . . .....
General and veteran .. . . .
Aid to special classes __ . .
Aid to the aged ... . ..
Aid to t he blind .....
Aid to dependent
children .. . ...... . .
R esettlement emergency
grants ..... . . ... . ......
P rivate relief. . . . ... . . .......
100. 0
100. 0
-97.-4 - -1. 4
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
93. 8
85. l
99. 6
M.5
5. 1
2. 5
0. 7
91. 5
6. 3
2. 4
0. 5
5. 0
1.9
0~
--- --- - - -
82. 6
14. 8
3.5
2. 1
67.
13. 6
5. 2
0.
98. 7
91. 0
7. 7
3. 2
1.0
9. 2
7. 6
3. 5
-
2. 6
-
18. 6
-
1. 3
.7
3. 1
0.6
-
6. 2
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
99. 6
9Ll
7. 9
5. 5
0. 6
91.8
6.
3. 5
0. 5
3. 4
1.8
2.8
-
0. 6
0. 4
1.4
- -97. -8
- - - - --
2. 2
98. 6
-
1 R epresents counties containing no city ol 25,000 or over, and Massachusetts and Connecticut townships
of Jess t han 6,000.
• Represents coun ties containing cities of 25,000 or over, and M assachusetts and Connecticut townships
or 5,000 and over.
Source: Un pu blished data from Division of Social Research, Worts P rogress Administration . Esti•
mates based on data from Rural•Town Relief Series and Urban Relief Series.
qi
1~1
-11
1
f) l•
C'
C
11\tE
<
JLLI 1E P Jr V
0
1"
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 •
45
one-sixth of the total annual expenditures in 1932 to nearly one-fourth
in 1935. Differences in the relative importance of the component
types of relief in urban and in rural-town areas and distinct shifts in
importance over the 4-year period are apparent from the percentage
distribution of annual expenditures in table 20. Noteworthy is the
decrease in the percentage of private relief in mban areas and the
decline in the percentage of assistance to the aged, the blind, and
dependent children in both mban and rmal-town areas. Both of
these changes can be attributed in large part to the tremendous expansion in general public (emergency) relief over this period. As
has already been indicated, total assistance to the aged, to the blind,
and to dependent children has increased both in absolute and relative
importance since December 1935.
COMPARISON OF TRENDS OF PUBLIC OUTDOOR RELIEF IN ALL SELECTED
AREAS
In the previous sections analysis has been made of data on relief
expenditures of public and private agencies in selected areas and groups
of areas. These data cover different spans of time within the period
1910 through 1935. In order that the sepaJ:ate trends may be compared to show whether they reveal similar or unlike tendencies, annual
expenditures of public agencies in the different areas or groups of
areas are plotted in :figure 14. Although some information on expenditures of private agencies has been included in the earlier analysis,
it is excluded here in order to obtain the maximum uniformity. The
curves are plotted on a ratio or semilogarithmic background and
consequently are strictly comparable for trend.i2
Examination of the diagram reveals general consistency in the
several curves-an upward movement in public relief expenditures
over the entire period from 1910 through 1935, with a very pronounced acceleration of the rate of change in 1930 and in subsequent
years. There is too little evidence for the early depression of 19141915 to support conclusions concerning relief expenditures in this
period of business recession. It should be noted, however, that all
the curves which incorporate data for the 1921-1922 depression show
a decided bulge for those years, followed immediately or shortly
thereafter by a continued upward movement . It is apparent that
relief expenditures in the selected areas did not recede to their old
levels with the return of prosperity.
In view of the fact that the curves in figure 14 represent singly or
collectively very substantial portions of the United States, considerable significance can be attached to the agreement in the trends which
they display. Together they offer convincing evidence of an underlying upward trend in outdoor relief eJ..rpenditures during the last
72 For a ummary presentation of the data from which the curves were plotted,
see appendix table 7.
C,
r
r JLLI 1E /> Jr V ,c1p
46 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
t3 4,2CM,OOO
Sem1l09orilhmic scale
308 CITIES /
11 12,000
US Bureau 1
of Census 1
I..
,// ! 64 14Z 000 ll69,l16,000
........oo.
16 CITIES
Financial Slolls1ics of Cities
116,000
1/-/
-- -------
_//
,,.~,,poo
NEW YORK STATE
Deportment of Social Welfare
I
--1
1
,t 229,000
I
16
CITIES
Clopp
and
17,636,000
__
T'"""·:::.~r:--
, ee~,ooo
14,68 1,000
I
.._
385 RURAL AREAS
INOI ANA
Boord of State Char i ti es
W PA Oi v,s,on of
Social Research
I
1266,000
t S.,301,000
1'0.223,000
I
I l,5-95,694po0
RURAL ·URBAN US
(Est,moted)
W PA Oiv,s,on of
Soc ,ol Research
t446,&4~,ooo
1910
1925
1920
1935
1930
FIG. 14 -TRENDS OF EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC OUTDOOR
RELIEF IN SELECTED AREAS
1910-1935
Nole : Broken lines indicate doto not available or
not available in comparable form for these years.
Source : Compiled from sources indicated in chart.
AF-1449, W.P.A .
q1t1 C j
W
~~
f." 11\tE
r JLLI 1E t n v
c1
OUTDOOR RELIEF, 1910-1935 • 47
quarter of a century. New forms of public assistance have contributed to the increase in annual expenditures and to gradual shifts in the
incidence of the relief burden from private to public resources and
from local to State and Federal units of government. The assumption by the Federal Government of a part of the responsibility for
caring for the needy unemployed has accelerated the upward trend in
relief expenditures during recent years and has induced further shifts
in the relative importance of different types of assistance.
Two important developments in relief trends are not apparent from
the chart. One is the decline in the relative importance of private
relief to an insignificant portion of total outdoor relief. The other is
the increasing emphasis on work relief and work projects as a means
of providing aid to the needy unemployed. Federal work programs
have, in some instances, departed from traditional relief concepts in
determining eligibility and earnings of employees and have extended
assistance at a higher level of adequacy than was provided by existing
relief agencies. Wage payments under these programs have been
excluded from the relief series presented in Part I, so that these series
understate for 1933, 1934, and 1935 the total burden of noninstitutional assistance.
21Gl2 °-37-5
cr
1
r
)Lll 1E A Jr V ,c1p
Part II
Public Outdoor Relief and Wage
Assistance, 1933-1935
49
Cr
II
I r
r JLLI 1E A Jr V' ,c1p
Part II
PUB LI C OUT D OO R RELIEF AND
WA G E A S S I S T A N C E, 1 9 3 3 - 19 3 5
PART II of this report attempts to measure the national burden of
public assistance, exclusive of institutional care, during the last 3
years of the quarter century ending December 31, 1935. The
relief series presented in Part I have related only to selected areas
and have excluded wage assistance extended through the various
work programs initiated by the Federal Government during 1933 and
1935. To that extent, therefore, the series in Part I fall short of
giving a complete measure of the trend and volume of public assistance in the areas and periods covered.
MEASUREMENT OF THE COMBI NED RELI EF AND WAGE ASSISTANCE
BURDEN
Traditional concepts of relief have assumed: (1) that relief should
be given at a subsistence level; (2) that it should be given only to
persons found through a means test to be in need; and (3) that it
should be continued only so long as need continues. The employment programs operated by the Civil Works Administration, the
Civilian Conservation Corps,1 the Works Progress Administration,
and other agencies participating in the Works Program have embodied
some but not all of these concepts. Accordingly, wage payments
made by these agencies were not considered relief, in the strict sense
of the term, and were not incorporated in relief series currently compiled during these years.
Although these work programs have not conformed to a strict
relief pattern in respect to eligibility and earnings, the wages extended
have been largely a substitute for relief. Thus, these wage payments
constitute a new form of public assistance that must be considered
1 The more familiar designation of Civilian Conservation Corps is used to refer
to the Emergency Conservation Work program, which includes, in addition to
CCC, consPrvation work on Indian reservations and in the territories.
51
,r
"L J
52 • TRENDS IN RELI EF EXPENDITU RES, 1910-1935
in conjuncLion wiLh t.he more tradit.ional form s of outdoor relief if
we are to have a cornprehensi e measure of the public burden of
caring for needy and clistres ed persons during this period. Only
by con tructing such a comprehensive measure does it become
pos iblo to interpret and to evaluate corr Uy the changes t.hat have
taken place in tho trend and volume of t.he component part.s of t,he
public as i tance sLrucLure.
The task of Part II, therefore, i to develop an integrated outdoor
relief and wage assistance cries for the total nited States by splicing together tho data on three major types of public assistance extended to families and inclividuals during 1933, 1934, and 1935-i. e.,
emerg ncy relief,2 categorical relief, and wage as istance.
Comprehensive data on the emerg ncy relief and wage assistance
programs are available for these 3 years largely because the Federal
Gov mment participat,ed actively in the administration and financing
of the e forms of aid. Tho Federal Emergency Relief Administration
was not e tabli hed until ay 1933 but its collection of emergency
relief data was extended back to the beginning of that year. 3 The
Federal agencies conducting wage a istance programs have also
maintained monthly tatistical records of their operations and e.xpenditures. However, the Federal Government did not participate during
these years in the ad.mini tration or financing of categorical relief, and
there was no provision for Federal collection of monthly data on
categorical relief. 4 To complete the total public relief and wage
a sistance structure it has been nece sary to estimate the volume of
statutory relief extended monthly to the aged, to the blind, and to
dependent children during this period. 6 For reasons which will be
presented in the section immediately following, the consolidated
series based on expenditures has not been supplemented with a
consolidated case series.
Descriptions of the data included under each of the major classes of
aid are given in succeeding sections of the report. Individual programs are cliscussed only as far as necessary to explain their inclusion
in the series and their relation to the total public assistance structure,
which is presented in the concluding sections of Part II.
2 The term "emergency relief" is practically analogous to the term "general
relief" as used in Part I of this report, but it includes in addition to direct and
work relief a small amount of specialized relief, which will be described subsequently.
3 T hese early data are partially estimated.
Summary reports on monthly
expenditures were obtained di rectly from the States; estimates on case loads were
prepared from State records.
~ Some annual data on categorical relief were collected prior to 1936 by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and by the Children's Bureau of the U.S. Department
of Labor. See appendix D . Since J anuary 1936 data on categorical relief have
been collected by the Social Security Board fo r all States qualifying for Federal
grants-in-aid and fo r some other States reporting voluntarily.
5 See appendix D fo r methodological note on estimates.
I~'
-1~ 1
A" 11\tE
r JLLI 1E /> J V
PU!3LIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 •
53
A group of charts analyzing the trend and volume of emergency
relief under the general relief program of the FERA is presented at
the end of the report to illustrate the necessity for interpreting
changes in this one class of assistance in the light of changes occurring
concurrently in other classes. The charts serve the further important
purpose of demonstrating the extreme variations in State relief patterns which underlie the consolidated series for the total United
States.
Individual judgments will differ as to the desirability or appropriateness of incorporating in an integrated series all of the items that have
been included here. The attempt has been made to include expenditures of all programs which had any definite relief attributes, but in
view of the controversial nature of various items the composition of
the series has been described in detail, and attention has been directed
to the inclusion or exclusion of specific expenditures concerning which
there is likely to be difference of opinion. Opportunity is thereby
offered for the reader to appraise the validity of the series and to make
such adjustment as he wishes within the limitations of the primary
data. Other types of integrated series could be developed which would
differ both in content and in major classifications of data. It might
be desirable in certain instances to segregate the data according to a
direct relief-work classification or to develop a series which would
exclude payments to persons not certified as in need.
The series developed here is not strictly a relief series, since it
includes payments to employees whose need had not been established
by application of the means test. Payment~- to uncertified employees on the Works Program and to employees of the Civil Works
Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps who were not
drawn from relief rolls have been included in order to present a
complete picture of persons benefiting from the wage assistance programs. The nonrelief nonadministrative persons on the FERA
Emergency Work Program were included for a similar reason. The
wage assistance programs departed in various ways from previous
concepts of relief as regards eligibility and level of assistance, so that
it is difficult to apply any uniform criteria to determine the extent
of need of persons benefiting from them.
Even if it had seemed desirable for purposes of this report to
exclude payments to cases not certified or without prior relief status,
it was not feasible for the entire 3-year period or for all of the programs that have been included in the series to segregate wage payments on that basis. Records of the Civil Works Administration did
not distinguish between employees with previous relief status and
employees drawn from the ranks of the general unemployed. Prior
to July 1935 the Civilian Conservation Corps did not report enrollees
according to relief status.
~
V
C
T
54 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
COMPARABILITY OF CASE-LOAD DATA
A onsolidated series representing the number of cases rec 1vmg
emergency relief, wage assistance, and categorical relief each month
during 1933, 1934, and 1935 would afford a far more realistic measure
of the extent of need and the magnitude of the public a istance
burden than is afforded by the expendit,ure data, whi h are much
a[ected by changes in the value of the dollar and by differences in
standards of care. 6
nfortunately, it is not po ible to construct a
composite ca e-load series for the period from 1933 through 1935
by direct addition of reported ca e figures.
omprehen ive data on
the number of ca cs receiving emergency relief were collected monthly
over this period and records were al o maintained of the number of
per ons employed on wage a istance programs. However, no
monthly data are available on the number of ca es receiving old-age
relief, blind relief, or aid to dependent children during the e years,
and it i difficult to estimate national case loads for these categories
of relief.
Even for the emergen y relief and wage a si tance programs the
data on ca e loads cannot be added together becau e of lack of
homogeneity in the case units and because of extensive duplication
in ca e counts. This duplication r ulted when ca es received
a istance from two or more programs, either concurrently or succe ively during a month.7
The number of ca es given emergency relief and the number of
persons receiving wage a istance under the several work programs
during 1933, 1934, and 1935 are recorded by months in table 21, but
the data there presented cannot be totaled to show a combined caseload trend. The term "ca e" as u ed in this table has a variety of
meanings. Even among the several programs comprising the broad
emergency relief program it has two distinct connotations. The case
unit under the general relief, rural rehabilitation, and transient
programs represents an individual, family, or other group of persons
treated as an entity by the relief agency, and hence is highly variable
in size and compo ition. Under the emergency education and college
student aid programs the case represents the individual employee.
The employee is also the case unit for the Civilian Conservation Corps,
the Civil Works, and the Works Program agencies.
See p. 59 for further discussion of the deficiencies of the expenditure series.
An estimated monthly series r epresenting the net total number of persons
aided by emergency relief and work programs during the period 1933 through
1936 has recently been developed by the Didsion of R esearch, Statistics, and
Records, Works Progress Administration. See, Ross, Emerson and Whiting,
T. E., "Changes in the Number of Relief R ecipients, 1933-1936," FERA
Monthly Report for June 1936, Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance,
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1936, pp. 1- 21.
6
7
q1ti Ci
I~
~t
A" 11\tE
, JLLI 1E r, J
'✓
-r
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 •
55
In addition to differences in the composition of the case unit, the
case data for the separate programs cover different time intervals. In
some instances the figures include all cases given assistance at any
time during the month. In other instances they represent the
number being aided at some particular period, such as the last week
of the month or the peak week in the month. Because of the constant
turnover in case loads, figures presented on either of these last two
bases constitute an understatement of the total number aided during
the month.
The fact that the case units for the different programs are not
uniform does not alone preclude the addition of the case-load data
in table 21. An even more serious obstacle is the continuous interplay between the emergency relief agencies and the wage assistance
agencies, resulting in extensive duplication in monthly case counts.
This duplication is not limited to persons and families receiving
assistance from two or more agencies simultaneously, but occurs
whenever cases are transferred from one program or type of assistance
to another during the course of a month. Accordingly, duplication
in case counts is greatest during the periods of transition from one
major program to another. No comprehensive data are available to
measure the duplication in monthly case counts arising either through
such transfers or through concurrent assistance extended by different
agencies,8 but some idea of the sources and extent of such duplication
can be gained by a brief examination of the administrative relationships which existed between the various relief and wage assistance
programs.
From the time the Civilian Conservation Corps was established
in April 1933 there has been some duplication between the case counts
of that program and those of the emergency relief agencies. The
majority of the young men enrolled in the Civilian Conservation
Corps were recruited from families on emergency relief rolls. These
enrollees were, for the most part, required to contribute a substantial
share of their earnings to their families. This contribution was sufficient in some instances to remove the family from the emergency
relief rolls, but in other instances the family remained on relief during
8 See footnote 7, p. 54.
The Administrator of the Works Progress Administration estimated the amount of duplication between cases on the rolls of the emergency r elief agencies and on the rolls of the wage assistance agencies as 337,000
in January 1934; as 84,000 in January 1935; and as 1,020,000 in January 1936.
A still greater volume of duplication unquestionably occurred in months other
than those cited, when the Civil Works program was in process of organization
or liqtridation and when the Works Program was in the organization stage. See
statements of Harry L. Hopkins, First Deficiency Appropriation Bill for 1936,
F-2-tract from H earing B efore the Subcommittee of House Committee on Appropriations in Charge of Deficiency Appropriations, 74th Cong., 2d sess., 1936,
pp. 206-208.
Or
I r
r JLLI 1E A Jr V "ITV
To bie 2 7.-Cases
I
Receiving Emergency Relief and Wage Assistance , Continental Un ite d States, Janua ry 1933-December 1935
2
•
Emergency reliel
Wage assistance
..
..
,_, C
Year f\Dd montb
r
~
-
r
Total
omergency relie!, exelusive
ol non relielemployees
and trnnsients
General rcliel program., FERA, and othor
emergency rehel agencies
Total ~OD·
em! rcliel, Direct
reliel
exclusl"e
ol nonreliel only
employees
Work
reliel
U1
0,.
Special programs, FtRA
Resettlement Ad·
ministraNonreliel
Ci.-il
tion
employees Erner- Rural
Other
Works
(emer- Works Ch·il Ci,·ilian
Colle~• TranProgress Works
not on ad- gency rehabil- student
gency
Admi
n- Works ConserProgram
vation
Admlnismlnistra- educa- itatlon
sient
•
aid
grants)
lstra- Ser'"ice Corps 1 tration agencies•
ti,e pro]•
lion
tlon
ects •
-I
;:o
m
z
0
Vl
z
;:o
m
C
.,,
m
m
X
Cases In thousand s 1
-,:,
m
JOSS
JFebruary
an uary··...
· ······-·-·---··-··---·
____________________
March___
. _________
April.
_________··-·-----------·
_______________
M ay ____________________________
June . ___ .. ______ . __________ ._._.
Jul y ________________________ ____ _
August. . _______________ _________
September .. ___ .. _______________
October_··---------------------·
November
______________________
December ___ __ . ___ ___ __ ____ __ . __
t
r
1934
January··---. _____________ . -. - -February __ _____ _____ _____ ______
March.···-·---··
-·-- ---- -----April.. . ______ ___ ______
______
__ __
May ____________________________
JU 110 •• _ •• -- _ -- -- _. -- -- __ • -- --· --
July _____________________________
Au gust. _________________________
September ______ ·-·-------·-·· __
October-·--· -·· ·-··-·---·---·--November ·------------·--··---December ··-· .. · ·-· ··--·--· --- --
74,200
74,610
'5,080
74,914
7 4, 723
74, 191
3,008
3,76 1
3,405
3,445
3,829
3,078
2, 95~
3.153
3,697
4. 445
4. 435
4,331
4, 305
4,620
4, 742
4,814
6,004
6,281
74,200
74,6 10
75,080
7 4. 914
7 4. 723
7 4. 191
3,008
3,761
3,405
3,445
3,827
3,068
2,028
3,088
3,603
4,355
4,337
4. 201
4. 356
4,576
4,620
4,640
4,821
5,078
7 2, 720 7 I. 570
'2.880 ' J , 730
7 3, 110 7 I. 970
7 2. 065 7 I, 949
7 2. 82 1 7 I, 002
72,547 7 1. 645
2. 229
I, 670
2. 042
I, 718
I, 439
I, 965
I, 98 1
I, 464
2,275
1,553
2,001
167
2,835
2,993
3,443
3,267
2,970
2,750
2,630
2,652
2,668
2,618
2. 656
2,774
93
95
160
1.088
I, 362
1,505
I. 725
I, 024
I, 952
2,000
2,165
2,303
r)
-
--
')
(l
-
')
--
')
•)
--~
rifl
')
')
(•)-
2
10
')
f':;
07
67
62
63
64
63
68
76
78
25
33
33
24
17
8
0
0
13
23
31
34
-
----
--(')-
18
27
31
34
40
--
---(')-
I
31
60
66
62
34
f'l
11)
69
46
06
52
60
100
100
z
0
(')
tr)
')
')
')
')
(•)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
104
135
167
181
204
2H
273
201
26S
268
243
=i
---
--
-
-
--
I, 475
3.438
37
141
4!i
190
2;0
305
291
2:!3
2i6
336
313
C
;:o
m
,Vl
:2
~
,c
w
u,
3.879
3. 21 6
I,~
3b
I
-
--
-
II
212
126
----
32i
317
243
309
330
2;5
3S3
379
330
3, 6
3~1
3H
1995
Jr,nuory ______________________
___
February _______________________
March __________________________
April__ ___________ __ _____________
May _____________ _______________
June_______________________
_____ ---------------------Ju]y
______August _______ -- _________________
September ______________________
October ____________________ _____
November ______________________
December _______________________
5,490
5,473
5,494
5,371
5,188
4,822
4,397
4,250
3,933
3, 7,a
3,485
2,746
5,276
5,240
5, 172
5,013
4,842
4,534
4,369
4,218
3,908
3,722
3,462
2,608
2,830
2,606
2,802
2,737
2,645
2, 512
2,440
2,807
3,019
3,077
3, 116
2,549
2, 446
2,435
2,370
2,276
2,197
2,02 1
I, 929
1,4 11
889
645
346
59
72
67
54
57
58
63
62
52
29
19
13
7
40
42
44
44
41
32
28
32
25
19
Ii
8
72
87
173
210
205
204
<"l
t
II)
(12)
(12)
(12)
102
103
105
104
100
52
("l
r
13
11)
(13)
(")
246
240
281
288
281
269
263
249
170
140
110
83
---
6
130
-
-
-
-
-
392
367
288
362
376
418
470
580
524
541
534
497
(')
-
157
"411
"929
"2,081
II 3,014
(')
6
13
59
no
162
214
252
The term "case" as used here refers to individuals employed on work programs as well as family and nonfamily cases receiving relief on a budget deficiency
basis. Administrative employees are excluded . All figures are rounded independently to the nearest thousand so
that totals may not
the exact sum of the parts.
• Monthly data on case loads for the severe.I programs refer to different periods of time, as follows: Emergency relief,equal
exclusive of payments to nonrelief employees not on administrative projects, all cases receiving relief during the month; nonrelief employees not on administrative projects, number employed
during peak week of month; transient~ estimated
number receiving relief during the month; Civil Works Administration and Civil Works Service, number employed during last week
of month; Civilian Conservation ,;orps, peak
number of persons at work during month; Works Progress Administration and other ,vorks Program agencies,
number
employed
at any time during month. The data for rur'.11
rehabilitatioP include only cases receiving advances during the month indicated.
• Includes nonrelief persons working on the ERA Work Program whose services are charged to specific work projects or tool and sundry equipment projects.
• Estimates made by Division of Social Research, WP A, of family and unattached cases receiving relief during the month under Federal transient program.
Estimates based on
midmonthly census and total registration figures .
• Includes Indians employed by ECW in conservation work on Indian reservations. Excludes reserve officers.
• See appendix C for complete list of Federal Government units participating in the Works Program as of December 31 , 1935.
' Estimated or partially estimated.
8 Not available.
' Fewer than 500 cases.
10 The Civil Works Service projects, for clerical and professional persons, were essentially a par t
of
CW A program, although financed from emergency relief funds. They
were absorbed by CWA during February 1934. The peak of CW A employment, exclusive of CWS, was the
3,983,000 during the week ending January 18, 1934. Liquidation of the program began shortly thereafter. Employment during the week ending March 15 was 2,368,000.
11 Not in operation in summer months.
n Transferred to Resettlement Administration. That agency continued to make loans for rehabilitation purposes, which were gradually placed
on a stricter financial basis.
C=s recei,-ing tbese loans have been omitted from the data, as ha"e a small number of cases that received advances
from State rural rehabilitation corporations after July 1, 1935.
"Transferred to National Youth Administration. Included in WPA beginning September 1, 1935.
11 Cases receiving aid under
National Youth Administration included as follows: September, 35,000; October, 184,000; November, 234,000; December, 282,000.
Source: Data for emergency relief were obtained from tho Division of Research, Statistics, and Records of the Works Progress Administration and from
Resettlement Administration; those for wage assistance from the Division of Research, Statistics, and Records of tho Works Progress Administration, the National Youth
Administration, the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, and the Office of Emergency Conservation ,vork.
1
"
C
c;,
C
n
)>
V)
V)
~
)>
z
n
!'1
n
...
i
w
l
-0
w
1..
-0
"'
V1
•
V1
-.J
58 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
part or all of tho enrollee's period of enlistment. 9 Ev n if the family
wa dropped from the emcrg ncy relief rolls, there was some overlap
in ca e counts for the month of enrollm nt.
ery ext nsive duplication cxi tcd bctw en a cs on mcrgcncy
relief rolls and cases on the rolls of the ivil Work Administration.
Tho laUor agency, which operated for about 4½ month , was expected
to draw one-half of its maximum number of employ cs from relief rolls
before accepting applications from tho general unemployed group.
S vcral weeks of tho brief span of operation of this program were
required to bring employment to its peak of 4,192,000 per ons, 10 and
s vcral additional w ks w re r quired for liquidation of the program
and tho rcab ·orption into the mergency relief program of mployccs
able to meet tho n eel tc t.
Again, with the development, of tho Work Program in tho econd
half of 1935, there was a large- cale movement of cases from the
emergency relief roll to the rolls of the various Works Program agencio . This movement wa lik wi o accompanied by a large amount of
duplicate recording of ca e . Movement was principally to the rolls of
the Work Progre
Admini iration, which ab orbed employable
per ons from the general relief program and also from the emerg ncy
education and tran ient programs. Tho fact that emergency relief
admini trations were urged to furni h r lief allowances to all relief
ca cs tran f rred to the Works Progre Administration for a period
suffici nt to maintain the ca es until the re eipt of the fir t pay check
contributed further to duplication in ca e count during tho period of
tran fer.
ot only was there duplication between the emergency relief agencies on the one hand and the wage as istance agencies on the other,
but there wa also some duplication between the wage a sistance
agencies themselves. This duplication existed particularly between
the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration and between the Works Progress Administration and the
ational Youth Administration. Duplication also arose from cases
receiving some form of categorical relief in addition to emergency
relief or wage as istance.
It is evident from the above discussion that reported case data for
the period from 1933 through 1935, although far more comprehensive
and adequate than any previously compiled, do not provide complete
information for an integrated monthly series measuring with precision
9 Unpublished data from a special survey made by the Division of Research,
Statistics, and Finance of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in the
"inter of 1934-35 indicate that approximately 37 percent of the families represented by former CCC enrollees were remoYed from the relief rolls as a result
of the CCC enrollment.
1° For the week ending January 18, 1934.
This figure is exclusive of persons
employed on administrative projects.
qltl C j
I~
~~
A" WE
<
J LI 1E A Jr V
c1~
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 •
59
the unduplicated number of cases benefiting from public relief and
assistance programs. It should be equally apparent that changes
occurring in the emergency relief load during this period cannot be
properly interpreted except in the light of changes that occurred in
the case loads for other forms of aid.
Until the case unit is standardized with respect to the period covered
and workable techniques are developed for eliminating duplication in
case counts as between agencies, 11 it will be difficult, without extensive
estimating, to construct an integrated monthly series which will
reflect the interplay between the three forms of public assistance.
Some administrative adjustment and integration of the various
assistance programs is a necessary step in the achievement of more
adequate case data. In the meantime, the expenditure data afford
a more satisfactory measure of the volume and trend of the total
public assistance burden.
LIMITATIONS OF EXPENDITURE SERIES
As indicated earlier, an expenditure series also has distinct limitations. Monthly expenditures for the various programs are, of course,
expressed in dollar units and can be combined without duplication
to show the total monthly expenditures for relief and wage assistance
in a given area. These monthly data provide an accurate measure
of the trend and volume of relief costs, but are not entirely satisfactory
as a measure of relief need because they reflect differences in the cost
of living and in the level of care provided. Hence there is no simple
and direct relationship between changes in expenditures and changes
in case loads.
The effect of cost of living changes on the trend of relief expenditures
has been illustrated in Part I. 12 A general rise in relief standards and
the introduction of new types of relief providingmoreliberalrelief allowances were also noted as having contributed to the upward trend in outdoor relief expenditures. Since the initiation of Federal emergency relief
and employment programs, these variations in standards of care have
been more pronounced, and their effect on relief trends has been accentuated by rapid administrative shifts from one type of assistance
program to another. Thus, the transfer of cases from the subsistence
benefits of the early FERA program to the regular wage payments of
the Civil Works Administration, the transfer of cases back to the
emergency relief rolls, and the subsequent assignment of cases to the
security wage payments of the Works Program have produced
fluctuations in the combined e:>..l)enditure trend which do not coincide
with fluctuations in the combined case loads of these agencies.
11 Progress had been made by individual States in eliminating duplication in
case data, but techniques for this p,u rpose have not yet been applied nationally.
12 See pp. 13, 16, and 18 ff.
C
1
I r
)Lll 1E A Jr V >CITY
60 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Tho dillorences in eligibility requirements and in levels of payments
under the work programs explain, in large part, the omission of wage
assistance data from current relief series. Nevertheless, these differences do not seem to justify the exclusion of this type of assistance from
an integrated eA-penditure series intended to reflect changes in the
total burden of public assistance outside of institutions. 13 It is, of
course, extremely important to consider the effects of the higher
standards of assistance in interpreting the combined trend of expenditures for relief and wage assistance and to dillerentiate clearly between
changes in expenditures and changes in case loads.
COMPONENT PARTS OF THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BURDEN
The combined volume of public emergency relief, wage assistance,
and categorical relief extended to families and individuals in the
United States in the 3 years 1933, 1934, and 1935 is estimated as
approximately $5,375,000,000. This figure does not include expenses
for administrative purposes, expenses for materials, supplies, and
equipment, or certain other expenses incident to the operation of the
relief and wage assistance programs. 14 The grand total of all expenditures of agencies administering relief and wage assistance in 1933,
1934, and 1935 would be substantially higher. The percentage distribution of the $5,375,000,000 extended to cases, shown in figure 15,
indicates that more than 65 percent of the total was for emergency
relief, 30 percent for wage assistance, and less than 5 percent for
categorical relief.
Obligations incurred 15 for emergency relief, including direct relief,
work relief, and some specialized aid administered by the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration and State and local emergency
relief agencies, amounted to approximately $3,513,000,000. Wage
assistance, or earnings of employees of the Civilian Conservation Corps,
the Civil Works Administration and Civil Works Service, the Works
Progress Administration, and other Works Program agencies, amounted
to $1,605,000,000. Expenditures for three categories of dependents,
the aged, the blind, and dependent children, are estimated at roughly
13 It should be noted that the relief series themselves include data from various
types of private and public relief agencies, extending care at widely different levels
of adequacy.
14 With the exception of small amounts of nonrelief expenditures for some of the
special programs of the FERA. In the case of these special programs data r epresenting total obligations incurred have been used, since administrative and
other costs incident to their operation cannot be segregated over the entire
period.
15 Monthly data for emergency relief represent amounts "obligated" for relief
during the period; those for wage assistance and categorical relief represent
amounts "expended." This distinction is maintained in the discussion of the
component parts, but in the consolidated tables and charts the term "expenditures" has been used to cover both types of financial transactions. Over a period
of time "expenditures" tend to approximate "obligations incurred."
Digitized by
INTERNET ARCHIVE
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 • 61
Other Works Progro m wages
W.P.A. woges
Civi l Works woges
Woge assistance - 129.9 %
CCC woges end subsistence
Eme rgency work relief
Soec1ol program relief
Emergency rel ief - 65 3 %
Direc t emergency r elief
Aid lo the oged, lo lhe bl ind,
and to dependent children
Categorica l rel ief - 4 .8 %
$5,375,000,000
FIG. IS-PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE S*
FOR PUBLIC RELIEF AND WAGE ASSISTANCE
IN THE UNITED STATES
1933-1935
*
Represents omounl s e,tended to families end individuals.
Excludes odminislrolive end other costs incident to the
operation of the relief end woge ossistonce programs.
Source · D1v1s1on of Reseofch, S1ot1stics, and Records,
Works Progress Adm,n,strohon . Est.moles of colegor1col
relief bosed on m,scelloneous sources listed ,n appendix O
AF• 1463, WP A .
C'
'r
62 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
$257,000,000. These sums represent substantially payments in cash
or kind to families and individuals. 16 They are exclusive of the cost
of Federal surplus commodities distributed in the 3 years through the
American Red Cross, the Federal Surplus Relief, and Federal Surplus
Commodities Corporations and of the cost of commodities produced
and distributed through work relief projects set up for production for
use.
The technical difficulties involved in attaching a value to surplus
commodities are very great, and statistical data concerning the monthly
distribution have been compiled only in terms of quantities issued. 17
In some communities surplus commodities comprised an important
share of the relief distributed, and omission of their value would
result in a serious understatement of the total outdoor public assistance extended in the area. For the nited States as a whole the
omission is less important.
Emergency Relief
The term "emergency relief" came into common usage rn the
depression when emergency appropriations were made to finance
general relief programs. It includes both direct and work relief and
a small amount of relief to special groups cared for under the FERA
program. Emergency relief ha not, as its name might suggest, been
restricted to families whose need arose from the unemployment
crisis or from other hazards, such as drought or flood, but bas in
practice been extended in some degree to other classes of dependents,
including some of the aged, the blind, and dependent children, not
provided for by statutory categorical relief.
The period 1933 through 1935 extends over two phases of Federal
participation in emergency relief. The first phase antedates the
creation of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration; the second
phase coincides with the period of active operation of that agency,
which began to function on May 23, 1933, and had determined final
grants to the States by December 1935 in anticipation of the complete
16 The data do not include, for example, grants made for self-help
cooperatives
or for the FERA land program.
11 For summary statement of quantities of goods distributed by the Red Cross,
see American R ed Cross, The Distribution of Government-Owned Wheat and Cotton,
June 1, 1934, pp. 80--83. The total amount expended for Government wheat
and cotton distribution in 1932 and 1933 was $73,598,452. This includes processing and transportation costs but excludes administrative expenses. For data
on surplus commodities distributed monthly through the FSRC and FSCC from
October 4, 1933, to December 31, 1935, see Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation, Report of the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation for the Calendar
Year of 1935, April 1, 1936, pp. 10-11. Expenditures during this period, chargeable to State grants for commodities, processing, and transportation, totaled
$123,397,493. Ibid., p. 8.
JI
it z u by
, TE R'iE TAR, HIVE
I(
181 fl
11
''IA L v
"
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 •
63
withdrawal of the Federal Government from emergency relief
operations. 18
In the first phase of Federal participation emergency relief was
administered by State and local agencies not subject to Federal
administrative control, but some of these agencies were financed in
part by Federal funds advanced to the States and localities on a loan
basis through the Emergency Relief Division of the R econstruction
Finance Corporation. 19 In the second phase emergency relief was
administered primarily by State and local emergency relief administrations under the supervision of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, which made grants-in-aid to the States and prescribed rules
and regulations pertaining to eligibility, standards, and procedures.
In some instances these State and local administrations represented
a continuity of organizations which had operated earlier; in other
instances they were entirely new administrative units. But in either
case they were subject to some degree of F ederal control. Where
new administrative machinery was set up the old machinery was
virtually displaced, even though the statutory basis for its functioning remained.
Data used in this section relating to emergency relief are those
reported to the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. 20 During
the period of operation of the FERA the data represent substantially
but not exclusively obligations incurred for relief by State and local
emergency relief administrations. Small amounts of local poor relief
and veteran relief continued to be extended by agencies not reimbursed
from Federal funds and thus not subject to Federal regulation. Some
but not all of this local poor relief and veteran relief was reported by
the States. For the United States as a whole the data presented here
for emergency relief are believed to represent substantially the total
volume of public outdoor relief disbursed, exclusive of categorical
relief and of the value of surplus commodities.
Emergency relief was extended to needy clients on the basis of investigation, either in the form of direct relief allowances or work relief
wages. Both types of benefits were adjusted in amount to the budget
deficiency of the relief case, except for those cases aided by the college
student aid, rural rehabilitation, and transient programs, and were
distributed either in cash or kind. The data reported to FERA on
18 The Federal Emergency Rel ief Administration was continued after December
1935, but only for purposes of liquidation.
19 See footnote 54, p. 33.
20 Except in November and December 1935 when emergency grants of the Resettlement Administration are also included. These emergency grants amounted
to $99,000 in November and to $2,442,000 in December.
21612° -37---G
cr
I r
r JLLI 1E A Jr V' "ITV
Table 22.-Expenditures
1
for Emergency Reli ef, Wag e Assi stance, and Categorical Relief, Continental United States, January 1933-December 1935
0-
~
•
Emergency relier
--l
;:o
X
,•
~
C
X
r
Yenr and
month
~
to
K
<
=a
30
E-<
----Total, all pe-
e
General relier program, FERA, and
other emergency
agencies
m
i:3'
Rpecial programs, FER.\
Wage assistance
.
-c,
=
" ..
·-e,..
.!!;
Categorical relier (estimated>•
V)
s:: u
~
"
.,.&
a
>,
.,
.;
f
tl
.,
::,
.,
.;
~
~
-~A
0
E-<
· 1··
0
t!;:
u-
-».9
""
.,_
..o>:,ti
S-o
r.i"
:E _
<".,
:,
.,to
c'"
. ..,
. . .=
-.,_
. ~.,
_..,
~§
';;;-c
·.;
c.,
·a.,
"'c
tjp:
ee
.,,e
~c
f.~
,,,_
r;:
0
0
p:
" '
~...:-
~
.,.,
.,
.
~9
E-<
-~<E
'
'C
~- 0
.,..,
0 s~~~
....
.
:-O!:;
6f
~-a ., . ., ~8
=~ = . . 0 JJ~~·e
'5C.. f:
o~=~
~-:;:
c... :: ..
c c:".,J'l
C: ~.::.
.
5
.
0
C
:,0
~==
:;;
-5
.,,-
... 0 C:
?::
0
'0
.,
.,
'0
f"c;
.~8
!;.<!?
0
0
'C:
§o
.._O CC!
;::E~
<! C
C
.:!!
_.,
.,..,
z
<
E-
m
C
m
£~
m
<"
"O
5
s,.C
'0
s::c:
s
0
<
I
;:o
.::c
~~
~=
Amount In thousand~•
.
z
0
...,
X
m
z
0
I
=i
I
riods ....•.. /$5, 374,867 $3,512,000 $1,972,0181$1,33 1,0-l51$34, 101 $57, 02-11$14, 030 $09, 529 $2, 5-11 $1,60-l,0071$693, 056 $2-1, 050i$601, 7101$2-14, 370 $40, 8931$256,
SS0t22, SS0rl , 640tll2, 360
C
;:o
m
_v,
Year 1933
n
l
Total.. ___ I, 003, 000
First halL _____
454,828
January ______
1 63,096
February _____
'60,806
March ________
t 82,671
April _________
74,970
Mny . ________
8 1,423
June __________
81,057
Second hnl L .•.
638, 172
July __________
70,650
August. ______
75,865
September ___
72,751
October. _____
81, 120
November. ___
100, 783
December ••••
222,003
743,506 481,060
307,201 256, 80-l
I 57,056
I 39,051
I 42,463
I 63,066
176,821 • 50,201
69, 11 6
44,325
41,318
60,058
62,385
39,425
346,30 1 225, 160
66,605
34,675
57,514
33,401
55,081
32, 788
60,506
35,254
43,377
05, 830
45,671
50,779
256,400
139, 148
1 18,005
1 21,5\3
I 20,610
24,312
25,160
22,630
117,352
21, 581
23, 706
21,066
24,826
21,7 15
3,468
415
-
--
415
-
4
61
350
----
-
3
-
--3
--3
4,610
I, 250
--
1 478
'441
1331
3,369
339
316
328
422
677
I, 287
-
-
2,0.30-l 166, 147
22. iOi
--
--166, 14i
-
100
$, 715
13,892
257, 59,
14,385
12,662
11, Ol,9
14,025
3S. 213 21,181
105, 424 144,966
6,840 IOli,31,
- 22, iOt
-
5,MO
--
-
627
5,213
-
100
I:\, 715
13,892
!,5,610
l-l,38b
12,662
II, 9S9
14,925
16,405
15,245
------
-
-
-
----
-
~
69, 1001 25,640
34,920 13,000
6, ().JOI 2,230
2,240
5,840
5,b50
:!.190
5,760, 2,160
5, ;501 2.140
5.6.~0
2,130
34, 2701 12,750
5,670
2, 120
5,690, 2. 110
6,6801 2,120
5,6001 2. 120
5. 7401 2, 140
2,140
5,8001
6. 600
3, 2."01
630
540
540
540;
550i
5.'\01
3,350
550
MO
560
560
560
570
36. 50
I\ 0
3, 0
3, 060
3.
3,
3, ,0
3,
1,.
3,
3,
3,
3.
3.
3,
f
,0
w
VI
Year 1934
TotaJ.. ___ 2,073,325 1,236,050
First half _______ 1, 147,306
469,405
January . _____
291,454
48,233
February _____
236,088
51,191
March ________
2ZI, 468
62,591
April _________
129,646
93,253
May _________
133,648
100,603
June ________ __
129,002
104,535
Second half_____
926,019
766,645
July __________
133,810
108,071
August _______
148,422
121,715
141,106
September•...
115,053
156,053
128, 254
October .····November ____
169,947
142,920
December ....
176,682
150,633
656,538
304,472
43, 752
45,851
54,288
54,544
54,032
51,104
352,066
50,179
54,591
52,951
59,614
63, 224
71,506
507,859 13,051
137,982 6,735
1,561 1, 056
I, 705 1,480
3,395 1,670
33,805 1,247
48,964
897
48,554
385
369,876 6; 316
53,300
376
61,678
595
55,864
547
00, 067 1,192
70,001 1, 741
68,868 1,866
Total.. •.. 2,208,541 1,533,434
First half.. _____ 1,102,367
938,028
January ______
194, 476
166,899
February _____
180,991
153,936
March _______ _ 184,622
159, 756
April._ _______
186,688
159, 740
May _________
185, 113
157,634
June __________
170,477
140,063
Second half... __ 1, 106,175
595,406
July ________ __
166,096
130,924
August _______
121,604
168,866
September ____
161,471
100,811
October .. ____
183,284
JOI, 693
196,762
November •..•
80,475
December. ___
59,999
229,696
834,412
427,531
77,535
72,802
75,482
71,969
67,061
62,681
406,880
65,731
71,375
71,659
77,215
67,598
53,304
566,687 20,635 40,243
400,490 13,862 40,243
77,952 2,421 1,957
68,751 2,334 3, 782
66,949 2,530 8,100
66,463 2,459 12,426
69,514 2,415 12,244
59,861 1,703 10,735
157, 196 6,773
58, 798 1,502
43,423 1,836
23, 753 1,211
19,879
985
9,298
848
391
2,045
8,681
1,563
--
2
520
1,042
7,118
686
783
I, 133
1,273
1,539
1,703
7,790 42,132
3,370 15,282
19 1,844
325 1,830
846 2,392
946 2,700
923 3,367
311 3,139
4,420 26,850
3,520
4,067
547 4,013
1,267 4,841
I, 340 4,984
1,266 5,423
Fl
-
--
--
-
760,375
641,051
237,281
178,907
158, 737
30,253
17, 765
18,108
110,324
19,339
20,257
19,563
21,189
20,267
18,709
527,800 18,219 214,348
527,806 18,219 95,026
211,884 9,552 15,845
155, 774 8,263 14,870
o 403 12,584
145, 749
16,194
14,059
- 17,436
329
II
18,096
3
119,322
19,336
3
- 20,
257
- 19,563
21, 189
20, 267
18, 700
=
---
--
---------
_
_
-
-
76,900
36,850
5,940
5,990
6,140
6, 140
6,280
6,360
40,050
6,400
6,450
6,490
6,610
6,760
7,340
32,570
14,600
2,260
2,330
2,410
2,470
2,570
2,650
17,880
2,730
2,790
2,840
2,900
3, 050
3,570
7,070
3,450
570
570
570
580
580
580
3,620
590
590
600
610
610
620
37,W18, 71,
3,n
3,00
3, 16
3, 09 0
3, 13 0
3, 130
18, 55 0
3, 080
3, 07 0
3, 05 0
3, 10 0
3, JO,o
3,1510
244,379 40,893 110, 790
273 51,350
8,060
-8,210
8,450
8,690
1
8,880
273
9,060
244,379 40,620 59,440
2
707
9,330
5,312 2,600
9,550
II 16,813
5,398
9,740
II 34,270
8,298 JO, 020
II 67, 110 10,921
10,230
II ] 20. 872 12, 694
10,570
64,470
28,530
4,270
4,460
4,650
4,850
5,050
5,250
35, ll40
5,450
5,660
5,870
6,080
6,320
6,560
7,970
3,870
630
640
640
650
650
660
4, 100
670
670
680
690
690
700
38,351
18, 95
3, 16
3, 11
3, 16
3, 19
3, 18
3, 15
----
----
------
Year 1935
<'l
Ill
-
7,138 52, 779 2,541
7,138 30, 764
1,346 5,689
1,346 4,921
1,380 5,315
1,385 5,038
1,297 5,101
384 4,699
- 22,015 2,541
(')
4,893
4,971
4, 187
3,612
10 09
2,633
1, 718 102,442
j:i
:i
----
564,317
112,988
19,517
18,845
16,416
18,257
18,599
21,354
451,329
25,841
37, 712
50,921
71,571
106,056
159,228
----
----
-
270,045
112,715
19,517
18,845
16,416
18,257
18,598
21,082
166,330
25,132
29, 799
28,700
29,003
28,025
25,661
---
--
19,4(
3, 21
3, 21
3, rn
3, 2!:
3, 2~ 'O
3, 31
1 Excludes expenditures for administrative purposes, for P.Urchases or materials, supplies, and equipment, and for miscellaneous purposes, with the exception of small amounts or
such expenditures for the emergency education, rural rehabilitation, and transient programs. Beginning with May 1934 expenditures for work relier include earnings or nonrelief
employees not on administrative projects. Data for Civil Works Administration include hire paid to owner-drivers or teams, trucks, and mechanical equipment.
• Estimated. See appendix D for method or estimating categorical relier.
• Includes subsistence, Includes also wages and subsistence ror Indians employed by ECW in conservation work on Indian reservations.
• See appendix C for complete list of Federal Government units participating in the Works Program as or December 31, 1935.
• All figures rounded independently to nearest thousand so that totals may not equal the exact sum or tbs parts.
• CWS projects were transrerred to CW A arter February 1934,
'Not In operation during summer months.
• Transrerred to Resettlement Administration. Loans made by that agency are omitted from the data as are a rew advances made by State rural rehabilitation corporations after
July 1, 1935. Emergency grants ror subsistence begun in November 1935 are included.
• Transrerred to National Youth Administration, Included in WPA beginning September 1, 1935.
10 Vouchers certified for emergency grants.
11 Includes student aid under National Youth Administration, as follows: September, $221,000; October, $1,653,000; November, $2,005,000; December, $2,395,000.
Source: Data for emergency relief were obtained rrom the Division of Research, Statistics, and Records of the Works Progress Administration, and from Resettlement Administration;_ those for wage assistance from the Division of Research, Statistics, and Records or the Works Progress Administration, the National Youth Administration, the Bureau or
Labor r:statistics, and the Office or Emergency Conservation Work; those for categorical relief are estimates based on miscellaneous sources described in appendix D.
"'O
C
co
r
;=:;
)>
V')
V')
~
)>
z
("\
!"1
.....
'°ww
..!..
'°w
V,
•
°'
VI
66 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
obligations incurred for emerg ncy relief repr sent cash payments
plus the value of relief in kind. 21
180.---------------------------,
CWA
Wor k1 Program
1n operollon
,n operotlon
160
r,
c,ol program
140
120
~
2.
100
0
'O
C
:g
i
80
60
40
20
0
Jon
Apr
Jul
Oct
Jon
1933
Apr
Jul
Oct
Jon
1934
Apr
Jul
Oct Dec
1935
FIG. 16- OBLIGATIONS INCURRED FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
EXTENDED TO CASES, F. E.R.A.
January 1933 - December 1935
Source
Division of Research, Stot1s11cs, and
Records, Works Progress Admin,slrotion.
AF-1447 1 W.P. A.
Obligations incurred for emergency relief extended to cases in the
3 years from 1933 through 1935 totaled $3,513,000,000, of which
$3,307,000,000, or 94 percent, was given in the form of general direct
and work relief.2 2 The remaining $206,000,000 was distributed
through specialized programs operated by the Federal Emergency
Relief Administration to aid particular groups of dependents. These
special programs were the emergency education, rural rehabilitation,
college student aid, and transient programs. Amounts expended
21 Relief agencies followed diverse methods in determining the cash value of
relief commodities distributed during a month so that the data reported are not
absolutely uniform in this respect.
22 Emergency grants made by the Resettlement Administration are included
as direct reliP,f.
qi
1~·
-11
Cj
P. " 11\tE
, J L ~E ,
,r , , 1
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 • 6 7
monthly for direct and work relief and for relief under each of the
special programs in the 3 years are given in table 22. The volume
of obligations incurred for direct and work relief and for all of the
special programs combined are recorded in figure 16. This chart
represents the first segment of a consolidated chart, presented later
in this section, 23 which includes also data for wage assistance and
categorical relief.
Direct Relief
It is evident that direct relief formed the backbone of the emergency
relief program. It was administered in a continuous and growing
stream over the 3-year period, with a slight seasonal movement in
each of the 3 years. For 1933, 1934, and 1935 obligations incurred for
direct relief aggregated $1,973,000,000. The greatest volume of
direct relief was distributed in 1935. The peak in this type of relief
was reached in January 1935, when obligations totaled $77,535,000.
That level was substantially maintained, with only a slight slump in
the summer months, until November 1935, when there was a marked
decline. The high level of direct relief during the period of organization of the Works Program is probably accounted for by the shifting
of cases from work to direct relief pending full development of the
Works Program and by the payment of direct relief to cases transferred to the Works Program but awaiting their first pay checks.
The sharp drop in direct relief in December 1935 presaged the complete withdrawal of the Federal Government from emergency relief
in 1936.
Work Relief
In contrast to direct relief, work relief was administered discontinuously in two separate phases: the work relief projects prior to the
Civil Works Administration and the emergency work relief program
following. The early work relief projects were initiated by the States
and localities before the Federal Emergency Relief Administration
was established. They continued thereafter, subject to rules and
regulations prescribed by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, until the creation of the Civil Works Administration in November 1933. Work projects on a straight relief basis came to a virtual
close at that time. The Emergency Work Relief Program of the FERA
was inaugurated in April 1934 when the Civil Works program was
terminated, and it tapered off gradually in the second half of 1935
with the development of the Works Program. As is evident from
figure 16, expenditures for the early work relief projects were relatively small in comparison with those for the Emergency Work Relief
Program.
23
Seep. 75.
Cr
I r
r JLLI 1E A Jr V ,c1TV
68 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Work relief is included as emergency relief rather than as wage
nssistance, b cau e FERA clients on work relief were subject to the
same regulations in respect to need as were direct relief clients, and
their earnings were scaled to budget deficiency in the same manner as
the direct relief benefit. Furthermore, FERA work relief expenditures have been commonly includ d in existing relief series, while
wage assistance has been excluded.
Beginning with May 1934 the data for the Emergency Work Relief
Program include work r lief paym nts to employees without relief
status who were engaged on projects of a nonadministrative character.24 B tween May 1934 and December 1935 such payments to
nonreli f p r ons amounted to $101,324,000.
Special Program Relief
The sp cial programs ponsored by the FERA were separately
admini ter d and were financed from earmarked grants, although
some of them were not more specialized in character than various
work relief proj cts under the general relief program, notably those for
prof es ion al and technical workers. Special program relief constitutes a very small part of the total volume of assistance. It is not
included in either the rban Relief eries or the Rural and Town
Relief erie , but is incorporated in this con olidated series for two
reason : one, it has a definite relief character; two, it is necessary to
in ure continuity between the emergency relief and wage assistance
data. Most of the activities of the special programs were taken over
by the Works Program agencies, and wage assistance extended for
them is included in the data for that program during the latter months
of the series. 25
2 • There is no essential difference between such payments and payments under
wage assistance programs to workers selected from the general unemployed.
They are retained in the emergency relief data because they were an integral
part of the FERA Work Relief Program.
26 An exception has been made in the case of the rural rehabilitation activities
which were taken over by the Resettlement Administration in July 1935. Advances made for emergency and subsistence goods under the rural rehabilitation
program of the FERA are included in emergency relief, in accordance with the
practice followed in FERA statistical reports. Loans made by the Resettlement
Administration are excluded, although the emergency grants made by that
agency are included. The differentiation in treatment of loans under the two
programs is somewhat arbitrary and can be justified only by the more formal
investigation procedures and financial requirements which were gradually instituted by tbe Resettlement Administration. Loans and commitments made by
this agency during 1935 for rehabilitation purposes were to a considerable extent
in completion of agreements made originally by the rural rehabilitation corporations and hence do not differ greatly from the "advances" prior to July 1935.
Amounts loaned during 1935 were as follows: July, $12,645; August, $1,070,696;
September, $876,946; October, $1,508,987; November, $1,965,727 ; December,
$2,472,036. A small number of advances made by State rural rehabilitation
corporations after July 1, 1935, have not been included in the data.
I~'
~t·
A." il\tE
1
)Lll 1E I
J
\I
<I
PU~LIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 • 69
The transient program was authorized by the Act creating the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration. Obligations incurred for
transient relief were separately reported from July 1933 although earmarked grants were not made to the States until September 1933. 26
Some transient relief distributed from State and local funds prior to
April 1933 is included in the data for general relief for those months.
From April 1933 through D ecember 1935 obligations incurred specifically for transient relief totaled approximately $99,500,000. This
sum includes not only relief extended in cash and kind to transients
but the cost of subsistence in shelters and some other expenses incident
to the operation of the Federal transient program. 27 The transient
program, which was partially a work relief and partially a direct relief
program, continued to operate throughout the second half of 1935,
but there was marked reduction in the volume of expenditures for
transients in September and in the ensuing months. 28
The emergency education program, which was a work relief program
for needy teachers, was established in October 1933 and continued
operations throughout 1934 and 1935. Obligations incurred for this
program, amounting to $34,000,000, include some administrative
salaries and other nonrelief costs which are not separable. These items
are small and do not have any appreciable effect on the series. The
emergency education program was gradually absorbed by the Works
Progress Administration during the latter half of 1935.
From the viewpoint of expenditures the college student aid program
was the smallest of the special programs. It was in effect a work relief
program designed to give limited :financial assistance to needy college
students. Established experimentally in Minnesota in December
1933, it was extended to other States in February 1934. Its activities
were confined to the academic year. The program was transferred
to the National Youth Administration as of September 1935. Total
obligations incurred for college student aid prior to its transfer
amounted to nearly $15,000,000. This amount is exclusive of overhead costs and represents actual amounts received by students.
The rural rehabilitation program was established in April 1934 and
functioned until July 1935 when it was transferred to the Resettlement
26 Figures for April, May, and June are estimated.
It should be noted that the
data on obligations incurred cover all transient relief reported to the FERA, including that given by local emergency relief administrations. These data do
not match the estimated case data shown in table 22, which represent cases cared
for in transient centers and camps under the Federal transient program.
27 It is not possible to segregate administrative cost and cost of plants and equipment for the entire period. For purposes of consistency these costs have been
retained in the data throughout. Total obligations incurred from July 1934
through June 1935 were $63,791,000, of which $6,247,000, or approximately 10
percent, was for materials, plants, and equipment.
28 Intake to transient bureaus was formally closed September 20, 1935, and liquidation of case loads proceeded rapidly after that time.
1
r'
r
JLLI 1E A Jr V 'CITY
70 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Administration. During this period obligations incurred for rehabilitation and subsistence goods advanced to clients and for other costs
incident to the development of the program amounted to $58,000,000.
Rehabilitation and subsistence goods, for most of which notes were
executed by clients, do not perhaps represent relief in the strictest sense
of the term but are included with relief expenditures in view of the fact
that the assistance was given in lieu of emergency relief and that
opportunity was provided for working off a portion of the loans by
employment on work relief projects.29 Most of the loans were still
outstanding as of the end of the year 1936. Tbe rural rehabilitation
program wa carried on in 45 States, but more than 75 percent of the
obligations for subsistence and rehabilitation goods were incurred in
13 tates. Hence, while expenditures for the program are relatively
unimportant in the national public A.ssistance burden, they constitute
an important part of the relief structure in some areas.
Wage Assistance
The term "wage a si tancc" ha been used arbitrarily in this report
to connote earnings from public work programs embodying some but
not all of the traditional concepts of relief. 30 A number of Federal
agencie created during the years 1933 and 1935 sponsored employment programs of a modified relief nature intended to assist needy
workers, either by obviating the necessity for emergency relief or by
substituting useful employment for the relief allowance. These agencies include the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Civil Works Administration, the Civil Works Service, the Works Progress Administration, and other emergency units created in connection with the
broad Works Program authorized by Congress in April 1935.31
The public works program authorized by Title II of the ational
Industrial Recovery Act in June 1933 is not regarded as a wage assistance program but as an extension of normal public works. Projects
were let by contracts to private employers, wages were at prevailing
rates, hours of work were normal, and employees were hired in the
open labor market. Accordingly, wages on these projects, including
those sponsored by the Federal Emergency Administration of Public
Works (PWA), are not included as wage assistance. Beginning in
July 1935 many of the projects sponsored by PWA were financed from
funds appropriated for the Works Program and hence were subject to
the requirements that preference in employment be given to relief
clients and that wages and hours be regulated to a security wage.
29
See footnote 25, p. 68.
See p. 51.
31 The National Youth Administration, the Resettlement
Administration, and
the Rural Electrification Administration were other emergency units created in
connection with the Works Program. A complete list of participating units will
be found in appendix C.
30
1•
[ I( t1;
NT \NEf APC
'v
l
gin
L ,~. ,,,
,,11 1 EP
y
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 • 71
300,------------------~--------,
280
260
C.W.S.
240
'-:
220
200
Other
180
Works
Progra m
160
agencies
'- ::
140
120
100
W.P.A .
'-
80
60
40
20
oi.....--.-11111.
Apr
Jul
o,t
Jan
1933
Apr
Jul
Oct
Jan
Apr
1934
Jul
Oct Dec
1935
FIG. 17 - EXPENDITURES FOR WAGE ASSISTANCE
IN THE UNITED STATES
April 1933- December 1935
Source Division of Research, Srotistlcs, and
Records, Works Progress Admin istration
AF -1499 , W. P. A,
Wages paid on these PWA projects are therefore included in the wage
assistance data.
The wage assistance programs operated over widely different spans
of time and varied greatly in magnitude. They were likewise diverse
in their methods of selecting employees and in determining earnings.
Nevertheless, each program had a definite relief aspect and affected
significantly the course of public expenditures for relief over the 3-year
period.
The combined amount of wage assistance extended under the programs during the 3-year period was approximately $1,605,000,000.
Monthly expenditures for earnings of workers employed by the
separate agencies are shown in table 22. The sequence of the programs
and the relative volume of assistance distributed by them are shown
graphically in figure 17. It is apparent from the chart that expendicr
: r
r JLLI 1E A Jr V ,c1TV
72 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
turcs for wage a sistance w re not evenly di persed ov r the 3 years
but were cone ntrated in the fir t half of 1934, when the WA program was in operation, and in the second half of 1935, wh n the Works
Program was being develop d. More than two-thirds of the total
volume of wage a istance for all period wa di pen ed during the e
2 half-year period .
Civilian Conservation orps
Expenditure of th
ivilian on ervation orps, fir t of th modified r lief agenci to be r at d, were more evenly di tributed than
those of other wag a si tance program . Payment for wage assistwas created and ontinued
ance began in pril 1933 wb n the
uninterrupt d through 1935 and subsequently. Its activities became
C enrollees
a part of th Work Program after April 1935. 32
r eiv d ub i t nc in camp plus the monthly wage, of which a
sub tantial bare wa allotted to dependent . Through these
ollotment a large amount of family relief wa relea ed in the home
lo alitie . 1onthly expenditures varied with enrollment levels but
incr a ed gradually over the p riod. Aggregate expenditures for
wage and ub i t nee by the clo e of 1935 were 601,710,000, of
which 456,79 ,000 was for wage . Sub i tence co ta well as wage
payment are includ d in the data, ince ub istence is given as a
uppl mcntary return for the work done by enrollees and may be
con idered a part of the e tabli bed wage. Excluded from the data
are all admini trativc co t , including amount paid to re erve officers
in charge of camps.
Civil Works Admini tration
The ivil Work Admini tration operated activ ly for a period of
about 4½ month . It wa launched in ovember 1933 to speed the
employment of needy workers and a ist in the re toration of purchasing power as a ba i for recovery. An employment goal of
4,000,000 was set for December 15, 1933. Two million of this number were to be taken from the relief loads prior to December 1, after
which date another two million were to be taken from the general
ranks of the unemployed without the application of any means test. 33
32 As of July 1, 1936, Emergency Conservation Work was r emoved from the
Works Program and has since operated with funds provided by specific appropriations, the first of which was contained in the First D eficiency Appropriation
Act, Fiscal Year 1937.
ee Division of Research, Statistics, and Records, Works
Progress Administration, Report on Progress of the Works Program, October 15,
1936, pp. 49, 55.
33 Weekly r eports on CWA employment and expenditures did not distinguish
between persons taken from relief rolls and persons not from relief rolls, so that
it is not possible, even if it were deemed desirable, to separate the amounts dispensed to the two groups. Informal estimates indicate that considerably more
than hall of the total workers had relief status prior to their transfer to CW A.
q1t1 C j
I~'
~~-
-./
A\' 11\tE
r
J LI 'EI- J V
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 •
73
Employment on CWA projects was at prevailing wage rates for
normal hours. Thus, wages under the CWA program represent a
distinctly higher standard of assistance than was accorded under the
CCC and other wage assistance programs. The Civil Works Service
was a part of the Civil Works program. It was formed to
sponsor work projects for clerical and professional workers, who
could not be employed on the construction projects of the regular
CWA program. These projects were financed from FERA funds
until February 1934, when they were absorbed into the regular CWA
program.
The total amount expended for wage assistance under the shortlived CWA and CWS programs was approximately $718,000,000, 34
equal to almost 45 percent of all expenditures for wage assistance
during the 3-year period. Only $24,000,000 of this amount was for
the CWS program. Monthly expenditures for wage assistance under
the CWA program reached their peak in January 1934 when they
totaled almost $212,000,000. The decision of the Federal Government to terminate the Civil Works Administration and replace it
with a program of work projects operated on a straight relief basis
resulted in rapid liquidation of CW A activities and the transfer of a
residual load of needy employees to the general relief rolls of the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration. The drop in wage assistance payments for April 1934 and the immediate and subsequent rise
in emergency relief expenditures mark this shift in administrative
policy.
Works Program
The Works Program, authorized by the Federal Emergency Relief
Act of 1935, was the third important wage assistance program of the
Federal Government. It included within its scope the existing CCC
program, as well as numerous other permanent and emergency units
of the Federal Government. Most important of the new agencies
was the Works Progress Administration, created to coordinate the
entire employment program as well as to administer work projects.
For purposes of the consolidated relief series, only WP A and CCC
payments have been shown separately. Expenditures of all other
agencies participating in the Works Program have been combined.
The participating agencies are listed in appendix C.
The relief aspects of Works Program employment are clearly indicated by the enabling legislation and the rules and regulations governing eligibility and earnings. These require that preference in employment be given to able-bodied relief workers and that except where
specific exemption is made a minimum of 90 percent of the employees
3' Excludes earnings of persons employed on admini trative projects.
Includes
hire paid to owner-drivers of teams, trucks, and mechanical equipment.
r'
r
, )Lll 1E /> Jr V
,c
ITV
74 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
on any project be drawn from certified relief clients. Earnings for
other than supervisory and administrative employees are set at a
security level and vary in amount a cording to geographic lo ation
and class of work performed. Hourly wage rates are stablished for
different regions with hours of work adjusted to permit employees to
earn the monthly wage applicable to the type of work performed. 36
Exe pt for
payments wage a istance dispensed under the
Works Program attained no considerable volume until August 1935.
With the rapid tran fer of mployables from the emergency relief rolls,
expenditures for wage a i tance by WPA and other participating
agencies mounted steadily, as shown by figure 17, while emergency
relief expenditure gradually d clined. 38 The net ffect of these two
movements on the total burden of public relief and a istance will
appear from the combined tr nd shown later in this section.
Categorical Relief
During 1933, 1934, and 1935 relief to the aged, to the blind, and to
dep ndent hildren wa admini ter d by tate and local agencies
operating out ide the sphere of F d ral financial or administrative
control.
ince there wa no country-wide collection of monthly
statistical data r lating to categorical reli f for this period, 37 monthly
timates of total xpenditures for the e types of aid have been prepared for thi study from information available from miscellaneous
sources. The e sources are li ted in appendix D, together with a
de cription of the method u ed in timating the monthly expenditures for each category.
From the e timates it appears that approximately one-quarter of
a billion dollars was expended in the nited tates during the 3-year
period for relief to the aged, to the blind, and to dependent children.
Of this total amount, the aged received about 4 percent, the blind
8 percent, and dependent children 44 percent. Estimated monthly
e>..rpenditures for each cla s of relief are shown in table 22.
Combined expenditures for categorical relief, estimated at
$34,920,000 for the first half of 1933, incre<Lsed over the period approximately 70 percent to an estimated total of $59,440,000 during the second half of 1935. Most of this expansion occurred in old-age relief,
which has constituted an increasing proportion of total expenditures
for categorical relief. Estimated expenditures for this type of assist35 Section 7 of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 conferred upon
the President the right to fix such rates of pay as he believed would accomplish
the purpose of the legislation and "not affect adversely or tend to decrease the
going rates of wages paid for work of a similar nature." After June 1936 hourly
earnings were determined in accordance with prevailing rates, in keeping with
provisions of the Emergency Relief Act of 1936.
3 6 See fig. 16, p. 66.
37 See Part I, pp. 35-37, for data from the 120 urban areas included in the Urban
Relief Series from 1929.
qltl C j
II
~~
-./
A!• 11\tE
r
J LI 1E P J V
<I
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE , 1933-1935 •
75
ance rose from $13,090,000 during the first half of 1933 to $35,940,000
during the second half of 1935, constituting 38 percent and 60 percent,
respectively, of total categorical relief in the two periods. The
enactment in a number of States of new laws providing aid to the
aged accounts for the relatively large increase in this category.
The general expansion in categorical relief during 1935, which is
indicated by the monthly estimates, is doubtless due in part to the
anticipated operation of the Social Security Act, which was approved
in August 1935 but did not function until January 1936, when the
first grant was authorized.
THE COMBINED TREND OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
The combined trend of outdoor public assistance for the 36 months
in 1933, 1934, and 1935 reveals marked fluctuations in total monthly
expenditures as well as major changes in the amounts spent for the
350r------------------------CWA
I Worl<s
I
1n operollon
300
in
Program
operot 1on
250
"'
0
200
0
'O
C
.!?
~
ISO
100
so
Jan
Apr
Jul
1933
Oct
Jan
Apr
Jul
Oct
~on
1934
FIG. IS-TREND OF MONTHLY EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC
RELIEF AND WAGE ASSISTANCE
IN THE UNITED STATES
January 1933- December 19~5
Source · 0 1viston of Resea rch, Stot1st1cs, and Record s,
Works Progress Adm ,n,strot ,on. Esflmotes of ca tegorical
reltet based on m1 scelloneous sources li sted in oppendot D.
AF-1481, w P.A
IA L
I,
"
V
7 6 • TRE NDS IN RELI EF EXPENDITURES, 191 0-1 9 35
component types of a i to.nee. Th changes in the relative irnportan e of emerg ncy relief, wage as istan e, and categorical relief,
shown in figure 1 , are caus d primarily by administrative shifts from
one form f F deral a sistance to another, re ulting in changes in the
type and level of assi to.nee extended to needy individuals and families.
Effects of Adm inistrative Shifts in Re lief and A ssistance Programs
ategorical relief was a relatively small and constant portion of
outdoor public u is tan e during this period. The bulk of expenditure was for g n ral emerg ncy relief and wage a istanco, with
mpha is alternating betw en the two. Except during the comparatively bri f period in which tho ivil Works Ad.ministration was in
operation and the period of Works Program development, emergency
relief cons ti tut d the preponderant share of the total. Larger monthly
paym nts xt nd d under the e two work programs explain in part
the bulge in the ombined trend during tho winter of 1933- 1934 and
the upward movement during the laUer part of 1935. The 3-ycar
peak in expenditur occurr din January 1934, when the Civil Works
program wa at it h igbt.
ombined expenditures for public assistance in that month totaled 291,454,000.
Interdependence of Relief and Wage Assistance Trends
omparison of the trend of total expenditures for the three types
of public a istance with the trend of expenditures for categorical and
Table 23.-Mon thly Expen d itures for Emergen cy a nd Ca tegori cal Re lief and for Emergen cy Relief, Categorical Relief, a nd W o ge A ssistance, Expressed o5 Relat ive Numbers,•
Conti ne ntal Uni ted States, January 1933-December 1935
[Average month 1033-1935= 1()0 ')
Emergency Emergency
relier cale·
and CBle· gorica
I re lie!,
gorical
and wage
relier
assistance
Year and month
Year and month
Emergency
Ei:::r~:1e:Y relier, cat.e.
gorical
gorical relie~
relier
~?s~~
1934
January ... ............ .
February .............. .
March .... ............ .
April .................. .
May .. .....••..........
June ................... .
July ................... .
August ........•........
September ....... . ..... .
October ............... .
November ... .......... .
December . ............ .
61
07
79
72
60
65
59
60
58
63
68
54
43
47
55
50
55
55
51
51
49
54
74
149
1934
January . .. . ........... .
February . ..... •.. ..... •
March ..... . ........... .
April •.... ............. .
May . • .. ...............
J une ................ ... .
52
55
66
95
111
106
105
158
152
87
90
86
July ................... .
August ..........•.....
September.......... ... .
October ... . ........... .
ovember.........•....
December ............. .
100
122
90
116
120
95
105
14~
151
ll8
99
114
1935
January ............... .
February ........ . ..... .
March ..............•. ..
April .................. .
May ...... . ........... .
June ................... .
July ................... .
August ................ .
Septem her ............. .
October. ............. . .
November. ......... ... .
Decem her. .....••......
167
155
161
161
159
142
134
125
106
107
87
67
130
121
124
125
124
114
111
113
108
123
132
154
1 Rounded to the nearest unit.
.
.
• Base values are as follows: Emergency and categorical relier, $104,718,611; emergency relier, categoncal
relier, and wage assistance, $149,301,861.
I~
~t
A." 11\tE
I
)LL 'E ,. J
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 • 77
emergency relief emphasizes the limitations of the relief series in
Part I, which are exclusive of wage assistance. Obviously the trend
of public expenditures for emergency relief was as significantly affected
in these 3 years by the development of the wage assistance programs
as by the impact of unemployment and drought. The months of
lowest expenditure for categorical and emergency relief are the
months of peak expenditure for all types of assistance combined.
On the other hand, the months of peak expenditures for categorical
and emergency relief are the months in which expenditures for wage
assistance were comparatively small, thus tending to hold down the
level of the combined series. The relative numbers shown in table 23
facilitate comparison of the trends of categorical and emergency relief
and of total outdoor public assistance for the 36-month period.
80
60
C
~
Q)
a.
40
20
Jon
Apr
Jul .
Oct
Jon
Oct
Jon
Apr
Oct Dec
Jul
1933
1935
FIG. 19-PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY EXPENDITURES
FOR PUBLIC RELIEF AND WAGE ASSISTANCE
IN THE UNITED STATES
January 1933-December 1935
Source : Division of Research, Statistics , ond Records,
Works Progress Administration. Estimates of categorical
relief bosed on miscelloneous sources listed in appendix D.
AF-1493, W. P. A.
The interplay and reciprocal relationship between wage assistance
and emergency relief is effectively illustrated by figure 19 which shows
the relative rather than the absolute volume of expenditures for the
three components of the public assistance structure over the 36
months. The percentage figures are given in table 24.
Cc
r
, JLLI 1E A Jr V "IT"
78 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Table 24.-Perce nt Distribut ion I of Expenditu res for Emergency Rel ief, Wage Assistance,
and Categorical Reli ef, Continental Un ited States, January 1933-December 1935
Y car and moo t h
_-:: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
~:t: ·- --------------------------------------------/ 93$
~~:~y
!~~;;: ·:·: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
J uno__
July
__ _
Total
Emergency
Wage
Caw~orlcal
public
r lief
asslstaooe
re i cf
essistaoce
· ·--------·--·------·----··------··
·---- --····---·------·----------·-- ··-
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
90. 6
91.6
n9
92. 2
ll2. 2
76. 1
73.
75.
75. 7
74 6
60. 0
22. 9
100. 0
100. 0
100 0
1000
1000
1000
1000
100. 0
100. 0
100 0
100 0
100. 0
74 . 5
9. 4
8.4
7. 1
7. 7
7. I
6. 9
7. 4
7 5
7 8
7. 0
6. 2
2, 6
16. 6
21. 7
27. 6
71. 9
82. 0
81.0
80. 8
82 0
81. 6
2. 2
84. 1
85. 2
1.4
75, 8
60.
23. 4
13. 3
14. 1
14 4
13 7
13. 9
13. 6
II g
10. 6
2.0
2. 5
2. 7
4. 7
4. 7
4 g
(. 8
(. 3
4. 6
4 2
4.0
(.2
85. 8
85. 1
10. 0
10. 4
8 g
4. 2
-l.5
-l.6
4. 7
-l. 8
6. 3
6. 6
6. 7
6. 0
5. 5
6. 2
(.6
0. I
10. 7
17. 0
1 .8
16. 7
16. 5
1 .4
34
1934
S~:J:
?y -.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~:~' ------------ -... ··-··-----·------------·-------·
--
June __ ·-------· ····--·- _········----------------···- __
Jul y_
- --··· • ··-······------------··-·---------f :
rber. _:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::--:::::::
N
ovember•_______
.·-· __ ·--- ___
Deoomber
___ . __ . ___________
••.-----····-··--------··--_______ _ _______ .• _____ _
1936
January ---·------·· ·-·-------------- ---------·· --·-February . ________ •• -- -----------····· -··--- --·- ··--·M arch __ -· __ ...... ···-- -·····-···-·-·--·----··- -· ---·
~:~'-:::: :: ::::: :::·::: :::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :::
J une ••. ·- •• ____ ••• _•• _. _•.• _. ---· . ·--·· .. ·- ·- ·- __ -· ___ .
J ul y ___ --- -- -----·-- -··-- -- ------- --------- ·- ------ -·--August ____________ --------------··-·-·---- ____ ----··
September
______________
-----------October _______
• ___________________
___ ---------·-----____________________
November _______ -· ____________ _____ ___ ____ __________ _
D ecember--- --- ------------------------·--------·-----1
100. 0
100 0
1000
1000
1000
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
1000
1000
100. 0
100. 0
86. 5
g
85. 6
85. 2
2 2
7 .
72 0
62 4
55. 5
40. 9
26. 1
7
10. 0
12. 5
15. 6
22. 3
316
39. 0
53. g
69. 3
F or absolute figures up00 which t hese percentages are based, see table 22.
E mergency relief con tituted m ore than 90 percent of total expendit ures for outdoor public a i tance in January 1933, at which time
wage a si tance was nonexisten t. By J anuary 1934, emergency relief
h ad dwindled to 17 percen t of the monthly total while wage assistance
had risen to 81 percent. Emergency relief again accounted for the
major share of expenditures in January 1935, with wage a sistance only
10 percent of the to t al. With the initiation of the Works Program in
the latter half of 1935 emergency relief began to decrease and wage
assistance to increase in relative importance.
VARIABILITY IN UNDERLYING ST ATE TRENDS
The consolidated relief and wage assistance series which has been
constructed provides a measure of the trend of expenditures in the
total United States. The development of consolidated relief and assistance series for the separate States and localities has not been attempted in this report but it is certain that if such series were built up
they would show wide variability. Evidence of such variability
among the States is supplied by the charts at the end of the report,
git' C j
I~
~~•
A." 11\tE
r JLLI 1E P
J V
<I
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 • 79
which trace for the general relief program only the trends of obligations incurred for relief extended to cases and of cases receiving relief
in the United States, in nine geographic divisions and in the individual
States, from July 1933 through December 1935.38 The data charted
here represent the largest component element in any consolidated
series for the respective areas in these 3 years. The span of active
operation of the Civil Works Administration and of the Works
Program within the period covered is indicated by cross-hatching of
the background. This cross-hatching serves two useful purposes: it
flags the ~ajor cause of the decline in the volume of emergency relief
operations occurring in these two periods and it calls attention to
differences among the divisions and States in the timing of the impact
of the wage-assistance programs.
Further evidence of the variability in State relief patterns, which
would be reflected in State or local consolidated series, is supplied by
figures 21, 22, and 23. These charts, all constructed on the same
general principle, provide three sets of State comparisons for the general relief program at half-yearly intervals from July 1933 through
July 1935. The first chart relates to obligations incurred for relief
per inhabitant; the second, to the percent of population on relief; and
the third, to average relief benefits per family case. 39 The figures
upon which the charts are based are presented, together with figures
for additional months, in appendix tables 8, 9, and 10.
In the development of State and local consolidated series, some technical problems arise which are not a source of difficulty in the construction of a national series. For example, wage assistance extended by
the Civilian Conservation Corps cannot be measured locally. Employees on this program are commonly assigned to camps which are
not located in their place of residence, and statistics are not compiled
according to residence. To a lesser degree, this same problem arises
in connection with other wage assistance programs: employees on
projects do not necessarily work in the locality in which they reside.
A similar problem is presented by transient relief which probably
should be excluded from any local series.
38 Fig. 20, pp. 81-86.
As a preliminary to constructing the charts the data for
both cases and obligations incurred were plotted on a semilogarithmic or ratio
background. Through each curve a horizontal base line was drawn representing
the average month in the second half of 1933. The obligation and case curves
for each area were then paired by superimposing the base lines. Rates of changes
in cases and in obligations from this base period can therefore be readily compared.
89 In each chart individual E,tates are represented by numbered circles.
The
States are arrayed in each month according to the size of the rate or average.
The arrow in each column points to the median, while the shaded area marks off
the interquartile range. Approximately one-half of the States fall within this
area, one-fourth above, and one-fourth below the median value. States falling
either above or below the shaded area may be considered to represent extreme
situations.
21612°-37-7
C'
<
JLLI 1E A Jr V "ITV
80 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 191 0-1935
EXTENSION OF THE PROPOSED INTEGRATED SERIES BEYOND 1935
The pattern which has been developed here for an integrated r lief
and wage assi tance series i considered experimental rather than
definitive. It has been set up as much with a view to stimulating
discussion as for the purpose of establishing a complete measure of the
volume and trend of public as istan e in the la t 3 years of the 2G-y ar
period covered by tLi report. Although the series has not been
extended beyond 1935 it lays a foundation for a national series to be
currently po ted. Ext n ion of the series into 193G would, of course,
show radical changes in emphasis on the three component types of
as istance. E>.1Jenditure for wage assi tance expanded markedly
with the further development of the Works Program, and emergency
relief expenditures contracted with the return of direct relief to the
States and localitie .
ategorical relief has increased under the stimulu of new legi lation and the grants-in-aid provided by the ocial
Secmity Act.
Monthly data on categorical relief, which were estimated for 1933,
1934, and 1935, have been collected cw-r ntly by the ocial ecurity
Board since the beginning of 1936. Becau e of the decentralization of
general relief administration in 1936, which resulted from the withdrawal of the Federal Government from the support of emergency
relief, monthly data reported for general outdoor (emergency) relief in
1936 are not fully comparable for all States with those for earlier years.
This would necessarily result in some weakening of a national integrated series. In many States, however, the comparabili ty of the
data has not been impaired. This fact emphasizes the desirability of
State and local series to upplement any national series.
Dig1ti;:ed v
I~'
RNI
AKI 11\tE
Or
11
r JLUl~E A
I rv
n
V' ,c1n
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933- 193 5 • 81
C.W.A. in
Works Program
C.W.A. in
Works Program
op er ation
in operat ion
operation
in opera tion
'
UNITED STATES
SOUTH ATLANTI C
~
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL
'
"-
NEW E
"
MIDDLE
NTI
"
EAST NORTH
~
~
• Sem 1logorithmic scale
1933
1934
1935
1933
1934
1935
=
Obl igations
FIG. 20-TRENDS OF RELIEF CASES AND OF OBLIGATIONS INCURRED
FOR RELIEF EXTENDED TO CASES
- - Cases
General Relief Program , as Reported to the FE. R. A.
July 1933 - December 1935
Note: The horizontal line runn ing through each pair of curves
represents the overage month, July to December 1933,
for both coses and obligations.
AF - 1171, W PA
Source: Division of Research, Statistics, and Rec~s, Works Progress Adm inistration
C
, )Lll 1E P Jr V ,clTV
82 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Works Program
In ope rot ion
CWA In
operat ion
1933
1934
CWA
1935
1933
- - Coses
Works Pr09rom
In aperot,on
In
operollon
=
1934
1935
Obligations
FIG. 2O-TRENDS OF RELIEF CASES AND OF OBLIGATIONS INCURRED
FOR RELIEF EXTENDED TO CASES
General Relief Program, as Reported to the FE. R.A .
July 1933 - December 1935
. - Continued Note . The horizonlol hne running through eoch poir of curves
represents lhe overage month, July to December 1933,
for both coses and obligations.
AF-1171,W.P.A.
Source : Division of Reseorch, Statistics, and Records, Works Progress Administration.
qltl C j
I~'
~~
A." 11\tE
r JLL, 1E t n v
c
r
PUBUC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 • 83
C.W. A. ·in
. operat ion
Works Program
C.W.A. in
in operation
operat ion
Works Program
in operation
'
South Dakota
M
N
1933
1934
193 5
1933
--.-Coses
-
1934
1935
.Obl igations
FIG. 2O-TRENDS OF RELIEF CASES AND OF OBLIGATIONS INCURRED
FOR RELIEF EXTENDED TO CASES
General Relief Program, as Reported to the F. E. R.A.
July 1933 - December 1935
- ContinuedNote: The hori zontal line running th rough each pair of curves
represe nts the overage month, Ju ly to Decem ber 1933.
for both coses and obligations.
Source : Division of Research, Statistics, and Records, Works Progre ss Admini slro lion.
AF-I I1I, W.P.A.
Cr
<
I
r
JLLI 1E /> Jr V ,c1p
84 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
CWA ,n
operation
1933
Works Proorom
In operot1on
1934
1935
CV/ A ,n
Works Pro9rom
operation
,n ~perot,on
1934
1933
1935
=
Obhgot1ons
FIG. 2O-TRENDS OF RELIEF CASES AND OF OBLIGATIONS INCURRED
FOR RELIEF EXTENDED TO CASES
-coses
General Relief Progrom , os Reported to the FE. R.A.
July 1933 - December 1935
- Continued -
Note. The horizontal line running through each pair of curves
represents the overage month, July to December 1933,
for bolh coses and obligations .
AF-1171, W.P.A.
Source . Division of Research, Statistics, and Records, Works Progress Administration.
q1ti
I~'
~~
cj
-./
A." 11\tE
I
JLL1 1E
I-
Jr J
CI
PUBLIC ASSISTA NC E, 1933- 19 35 •
C.WA
Works Program
in operation
C.W.A in
op erat ion
worKS t-,'Ogrom
in operation
in
operation
"'
85
Alob
Texo~
:--::
Monton
~
Idaho
~
Wyoming
1933
1934
1933
1935
1934
'935
Obligations
=
OBUGATIONS INCURRED
OF
FIG. 2O-TRENDS OF RELIEF CASES AND
FOR RELIEF EXTENDED TO CASES
-
cases
General Relief Program, as Reported to the FE. R.A.
July 1933 - December 1935
- ContinuedNote . The horizontal line running throuQh each pair of curves
represents the overage month, July to December 1933,
for both coses and obligations.
AF-1171, w.PA
SourU: 01vis1on of Research, Statistics, and Records, Works Progress Administration
I l
,I
✓
CIT
86 • TRENDS IN RELI EF EXPENDITU RES, 1910-1935
CWA In
Works Proorom
CWA In
operation
In operation
operation
1934
1933
1935
-
1933
Coses
=
1934
Works Proorom
in operation
1935
Obligations
FIG. 2O-TRENDS OF RELIEF CASES AND OF OBLIGATIONS INCURRED
FOR RELIEF EXTENDED TO CASES
General Relief Program, as Reported to the F. E. R.A.
July 1933 - December 1935
- Continued Note: The horizontal line running th rough each pair of curves
'represents the overage month, July to December 1933,
for both coses and obligations.
Source : Division of Research, Stol istics, and Records, Works Progress Administration.
q1t e j
11
-1'
A." 11\tE
AF-1171, W PA.
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 • 87
FIG.21- OBLIGATIONS INCURRED PER INHABITANT FOR RELIEF
EXTENDED TO CASES, BY STATES.GENERAL
RELIEF PROGRAM, F. E.R.A.
HALF-YEARLY INTERVALS, JULY 1933-JULY 1935
2.5 0 . - - - - - - -,, - - - - - - --,,--- -- -- , r - - - - -~ r - - - - - ~2.50
EXPLANATORY NOTE :
Approx1matety one•holf the Slates
foll within the shoded oreo.
The arrow indicates the median.
2251--- - - - - - - l l - - - - - -- H - -- -----fl--- - - - - - - l l--- - - ----l225
NEW ENGLA ND
MIOOLE
SOUTH ATlANTtC
ATLANTIC
{D Molne
(!)New Yof"lit
@New Hompsl'llrt @New Jeri,ey
@Vermont
G)Mossoct11.11e"•
@Rhode lllond
@ConnKI ICl,II
@Pennsylvonlo
SOUTH
CENTRAi.
EAST NORTH
CENTRA L
@Oelowore
@Kentudly
@Maryland
@ Tennessee
@Oislrlt1 of Cotumbto @Alabama
@onio
@VirQ1nio
@M,u1ss1ppl
@MICIIIQOn
@west Vm;i1n10
@Arkan sas
@Wisconsi n
@)North Corolino
@)Lou1slono
@Oldonomo
@Te,os
@ South Corol1no
@Geor9Jo
@1nd1ono
@llhnois
WEST NORTH
CENTR AL
@)Ml,.,.so,o
@lowo
@Mlssourl
@North Oolloto
MOUNTAJN
®-@ldohO
@Wyornl"'l
PACIFlC
@)WosN"9bl
@0re90'1
@eo,1om1o
@Colotodo
@Soulh OokolO
@NebroskO
@New Medco
@Kansas
@u1oh
E,Ar1iono
@Ne,oclo
@Fk>t,do
Sourt.e: Orvlslon of Reseon:h, Sta1\st1cs, and Records, Works ProQress Admin1slrohon
AF-1017,
, '
ll'✓ E
r
, JLLI 1E A Jr V >CITY
wPA.
88 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
FIG.22- PERCENT OF POPULATION RECEIVING RELIEF, BY
ST ATES, GENERAL RELIEF PROGRAM,
F.E.R.A.
HALF-YEARLY INTERVALS. JULY 1933 - JULY 193~
50,,----- - ~ r - - - - - ~ . - - - - - - ~ r - - - - - ~ r - - - - - - , 5 Q
EXPLANATORY NOTE
ApPrOXJmo1ely one•holf the Stoles
foll wllhln the shoded oreo
The arrow 1nd1cote1 the median
45>-- - - - - - < 1 - - - - - - - < r - - - - - - ~ r - - - - - - - - t ~ - - - - - - ;45
CWA
tn cpe rotlon
0
July 1933
January 1934
SOUTH
CENTRAL
EAST NORTH
WEST NORT><
CENTRAL
CENTRAL
(D~evw'1'0fk
@Ne"' Jersey
@Kenlucky
@Maryland
@TeMtssee
@Pennsylvon,o
@O.stncl of ~mb,o @Alobomo
@oh,o
@lndiono
@lllinoos
@M1cr11gon
SOUTH ATLANTIC
MIDDLE
ATLANTIC
@New Hom~1re
@vermonl
@Mos~chuutls
Jonuory 1935
@Ot1owore
NEW ENGLAND
0Ma,ne
July 1934
@Rhode Island
@Connechcut
@vir91n10
@M1ssi~s,ppi
@west v,rg1n,o
@North Corohno
@Arkonsos
3LoutStana
@South Corol,no
@Oklohomo
@Georg,o
@Ftot1do
@Te10s
@M1nnesoto
@1owo
@M1ssoul'f
@NorthOokoto
@$ou1h Ookolo
@Wis.consen
@Nebraska
@)Kansas
qi
-1~·
I
PACIFIC
@Mon1ono
@ldoho
@Jw.,,..,_
@o,_,
~WyOrTUrw;I
Colo,odo
EjCo'10ffil!)
€}Nevw Me:uco
0Anzono
@UIOh
AF- 101$, WPA
Cj
r, " 11\tE
MOUH'rA IN
0
@Nevodo
Source : 01V1s1on of Research, S1011shcs, end Records, v-Jorl(s Progress Adm1n1strot10n
I~'
July 1935
r
J LI 1E P J
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, 1933-1935 •
89
FIG. 23-AVERAGE MONTHLY RELIEF BENEFIT PER FAMILY CASE,
BY STATES. GENERAL RELIEF PROGRAM ,
F.E.R.A.
HALF-YEARLY INTERVALS, JULY 1933 - JULY 1935
0
July 1933
NEW ENGLANO
MIDDLE
January 1934
SOUTH ATLANTIC
ATLANTIC
@Moine
@New York
@New Hampshire @New Jersey
@Vermont
@Pennsy!vamo
@M'ossochusettl
@Rhode Island
@ Connectlcut
Source
July 1934
Jonuory
SOUTH
EAST NORTH
CENTRAL
CENTRAL
@Oelowore
@)Kenlueky
@Moryfond
@01s1nc1 of Columbia
@)Vlrginto
@Wes! V1rginlo
@NorthCorohno
@)Soulh Cor011no
@Georgia
@Florido
@Tennessee
@Atobomo
@Mississippi
@ArkOnSC$
@Lou1siono
1935
WEST NORTH
CENTRAL
July 1935
MOUNTAIN
0
PACI FIC
@)Oh•O
@M1nneso10
@>Montana
@Wosh1n9ton
@)1nd1ono
@1owo
~M1ssour1
@Mlctugon
® Norlh Ookoto
@ldoho
{§)Wyomln9
@O,egon
@llhnOiS
@Wiscon51n
@Soulh ()okoto
@Nebraska
@Oklohomo
@Konsos
@Te,;as
@Cohfomlo
@ColOl"odo
@New Mexico
8.Anzooo
@Uloh
@Nevada
Division of Research, Slolistics, and Records, Works Progress Admm1slrot10n
AF- !019, W PA.
C'
1
I'
)Lll 1E A Jr V 'CITY
Appendix A
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Table 1.- Yea r of O rigi nal Ena ctment of State Legislation for Categorica l Relief and for
Em erge ncy Une mploy ment Relief, a s of December 31, 19 35
Categorical relief
State and geographic division
New England :
Maine..... . ................. ..................... .
New Hampshire .. ................... ............. .
Verm on t. ................................... ...... .
Massachusetts .................................... .
Rhode Island ...... ........................... .. .. .
Connecticut ...............•....... .................
Middle Atlantic:
New York .... . ................................... .
New Jersey ........... ...................•... . . ....
Pennsylvania .. ................................... .
East North Central:
Ohio........ ...................................... .
Indiana ....... .................................... .
Illinois......... . . ................................. .
~ l~~~~fn.·.:::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
We.st North Central:
Minnesota ........... . . . . ............ ..... ........ .
Iowa ......... ... . .... ....................... ••·••··
Missouri_ _________________________________________ _
North Dakota..................................... .
South Dakota..... . .... .. ..... . . ..........•........
Nebraska ......................................... .
Kansas .... ........................................ .
South Atlantic:
Delaware.. .. ................•.....................
Maryland ......... .... .. . ......................... .
District of Columbia . ................. ............ .
Virginia•. ......... ...........•......•..............
We.st Virginia..................................... .
North Carolina ...... ............................. .
South Carolina ... ... . .............•......•.........
Georgia .......................... ................. .
Florida ............... . ............................ .
East South Central:
Kentucky ...................•......................
Tennessee... ...................................... .
~~f~~pi~::: :: :::: :::::::::: :: ::::::::: ::::::::::
Aid to the
aged•
Aid to the
blind •
1933
1931
1935
1930
1935
1935
1915
1915
1935
' 1920
Aid to de•
pendent
children•
Emergency
unemployment re•
lier•
1935
1931
'1921
1917
1913
1917
1913
1923
1919
1930
1931
1933
1922
1931
1933
1915
1913
1913
1931
1931
1931
1933
1933
1935
1933
1925
1898
1935
1903
1913
1919
1911
1913
1913
1931
1931
1932
1933
1932
1929
1934
1935
1933
1913
1915
1923
1933
1917
1911
1913
1913
81917
1915
1913
1913
1915
1931
1934
1933
1933
1933
1933
1933
1917
1916
1926
1918
1915
1923
1932
1931
1907
1931
1927
1935
1929
1935
1931
1931
1931
1931
1931
1935
1935
1919
1935
1926
1924
1928
1915
1935
1934
1935
1928
1933
1933
1932
1935
1 Data
from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Parker, Florence E ., "Experience Under State Old •Age Pension
Acts in 1934," Monthlv Labor Review, August 1935, pp. 303-305. Information on laws enacted during
remainder of 1935 supplied by Bureau .
•Data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Public Pensions for the Blind in 1935," Monthlv Labor Review,
August 1936, pp . 305-307.
'Data from U. S. Children's Bureau, Chart No. 3, "A Tabular Summary of State Laws Relating to
Public Aid to Children in Their Own Home.s in Effect January 1, 1934."
• The date.s given are for the first State legislation financing emergency unemployment relief. Acts creat•
ing emergency relief administrative bodies or authorizing investigations are omitted unless involving finan•
cial aid. Data from Lowe, Robert C ., FERA Digest of State Legislation for the Fi11a11ci11g of Emergencv
Relief, Ja11uarv 1, 1931-June SO, 1935, Municipal Finance Section, Federal Emergency Relief Adminis•
tration, August 1, 1935; and Lowe, Robert C. and Staff, Supplement for Period Jutv 1, 1935-Februarv 19,
1936, Division of Social Re.search, Works Progress Administration, 1936.
• Year in which blind pension provision was added to act.
• In 19 11 a State law was enacted au thorizing aid to dependent children in Jackson and St. Louis Counties.
91
Lr
1
)Lll 1E /. Jr V ,c1-rv
92 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Table 7.-Year of Original Enactme nt of State Legislation for Categorical Re lief and for
Emergency Unemployment Relief, as of Dece mber 31, 1935-Continu ed
ategorlcnl relier
State and geographic division
Aid to Ibo
aged
West South Central
Arkansas ____ ,___ ------------------------------Loulslaoa •.
Oklahoma
Texas ____ _
Mountain:
Montana
I daho .•
Wyomiog
olorado
New
Mexico ________________________ •••••••••••
Arizona ______ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
tab __ _
evndn ••
Pacltlc:
Wasbingtoo
Oregoo. ___ _ _
California.
Aid to dependent
cblidrcn
Aid to the
blind
1035
EmPr,ency
unemploymeet rP·
lier
1031
1928
1035
1017
1920
1915
1917
1035
1034
1931
11133
1031
1929
1927
1917
1035
1925
1933
1929
19ZI
1915
1913
IP16
1913
1031
1914
1931
1925
1013
1913
1033
1035
1033
1933
1035
1033
1933
1033
1033
1033
1929
1033
1035
1929
1913
1913
1913
1033
1933
11131
um
!OZ!
l
'Declared unoonstitutloanl ; next act passed 1917.
• Repealed aame year; next act pas:,od 1925.
Source: om piled from mlsrellaoeous sourc listed in footnotes .
Table 2.-Expenditu res fo r Rel ief to Fam ilies i n The ir Homes and to Homeless Men in 308
Cities, by States, First Ouarters of 1929 and of 1931, W ith Percent From Governmental
a nd Pr ivate Funds and Pe rce nt of Change Between 1929 and 1931
Percent
State and geographic
division
Number or
cities
reportIng
Total expenditures
first quarter
Governmental
Private
First
quarter
First
quarter
Pe r cent o r change
rrom first quarter or
1929 to first quarter
o f 1931
1929
1931
1929
1931
1929
1931
Total
Governmental
Private
-- -- -- --- - - - TotaL ___________
308 $16,621,341 $56,669, 124
65.0
New England. ___
44
3,099,842
7, 584,543
I. 7
Maine .. _______________
New Hampshire. ______
Vermont' ------ ------Massachusetts.
________
2
2
85,150
38,814
107,667
71,797
95. 5
94. 2
-29
2,504,217
5,469, 708
87. 1
Rhode Island•--------Connecticut _______ _____
3
8
118,457
353,204
343,502
I, 591,869
66. 2
Middle Atlantic__
New York _____________
New Jersey _________ ___
P ennsylvania __________
64
5,611,877
21,250,354
67. 7
22
22
20
3,835, 797
553,096
I, 222,984
15, 131,933
1,775,322
4,343,099
71. 2
80.8
50.6
81
3,877, 753
17,934,510
66. 0
ZI
13
20
15
I, 187,575
244,976
I, 012, 381
I, 035, 036
397, 785
3,433, 126
1,338, 451
4, 135,889
7,289,698
I, 737,346
45. 8
51. 5
64. 1
88. 0
82.8
East
th Cent ralNor
____________
Ohio _______ ____________
Indmna. _______________
Illinois _________________
Michigan ______________
Wisconsin _________ _____
10
43. 6
60.4
35. 0
39. 6
240. 9
216.6
286. 1
91. 9
88. 7
4. 5
5. 8
8.1
11.3
26. 4
85.0
21. 7
74. I
127. 4
262. 7
oo:a
12. 9
9. 4
-. 4
53. 4
79. 7
33. 8
56. 4
46.6
20. 3
11
190. 0
350. 7
127. 2
133. 8
7ZI. 3
59. 4
300.
62.
46. 2
32. 3
53.8
278. 7
158.6
529. 9
69.6
18.8
19.2
49. 4
30.4
81. 2
221. 0
255. 1
176. 5
31. 8
408. 1
483. 7
---- ------ - -86.6 I . 3 13.4
144. 7 159. 5
78.6
-- -- -- --- - ---
--- ---51.-3 -28.8- -48.-7 -294.
5 184. 4 566.9
68.3
34. 0
31. 7
362. 5
378. 7
331. 0
36. 2
71. 3
35. 1
96.6
89.9
54. 2
48. 5
35. 9
12. 0
17. 2
63. 8
28. 7
64.9
3. 4
10. 1
189. I
446.4
308. 5
604.3
336.8
128. 7
657. 3
! Zl. 7
672. 5
374. 0
638. 0
------ --- - ---
1
N o incorporated areas of over 30,000 in this State
• No reDOrt from P aw tucket.
I
)
~ E ,.
J
240. 1
222. 7
I OI. 7
156. 9
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES •
93
Table 2.-Expenditures fo r Relief to Fam ilies in Their Homes and to Home less Men in 308
Cities, by States, First Quarters of 1929 and 1931 , With Percen t From Governmental
and Private Funds and Percent of Change Between 1929 and 1931-Continued
Percent
State and geograph ic
division
Numberof
cities
reporting
T ota l expenditures
first quarter
Governmental
Pri vate
First
quarter
First
quarter
1929
1931
21
$1, 142,443
$2, 219, 126
49. 5
3
7
5
435,000
180,019
365, 764
728,472
326,610
919,875
58. 5
66. 2
24. 6
1
2
3
14,887
77, 317
69,456
12,914
115,628
ll5, 627
94:0
51. 4
69. 5
27. 2
1929
1931
1929
193 1
-- -- -- West No rth Ceutral. ___ ________
Minnesota. _______ __ __ _
Iowa ____ ______________ _
Missouri. _____ ______ __ _
North Dakota' - ------South Dakota _____ ___ __
Nebraska ______ __ ______
Kansas _____ _______ ____ .
---
-
-
South Atlanti c __ _
34
587,031
1, 406,687
Delaware ________ ____ ___
Maryland ______ ________
District of Columbia ___
Virginia __ ________ _____ _
West Virginia ________ __
North Carolina ______ ___
South Carolina _________
Georgia. _____ _________ _
Florida ___ ___ ____ _______
1
3
l
6
3
8
2
5
5
13, 71 I
135,196
89,894
92,985
46, 577
72, 409
20, 716
44,036
71 , 507
198,618
378, 394
188,873
140,755
113, 730
145, 956
28,250
118,660
93, 451
East South Gen tral. ___ __ ____ __
13
213,666
695,418
18. 6
Kentucky __ ___ ____ _____
Tennessee __ __ __________
Alabama ____ _________ __
Mississippi __ _____ _____ _
4
4
3
2
78,571
90,651
39,897
4,547
272, 192
238,893
171, ,132
13,001
19. 9
26. 5
2.5
West South Central. ___ ___ _____
12~
39. 9
14. 1
50. 4
26. 7
24. 2
8. 2
58. 4
21
280, 539
866, 156
Arkansas ___ ______ ____ __
Louisiana ________ ____ __
Oklahoma ___ __ ____ _____
Texas.- ---------- - - ---Mountain __ ___ __ _
2
3
3
13
22,991
33, 704
80,624
143,220
104, 790
60,381
359, 713
341,272
8
269,111
447,477
71.8
Montana ____ ______ ___ __
Idaho'---- ------- ----- Wyoming'
----- -- ---- Colorado
__________
_____
New Mexico' ------- -- Arizona __ ___ ______ ___ __
Utah ___________ _____ ___
Nevada' ---- -- --------Pacific ___ __ _____ _
1
33, 427
-3
54,492
93. 9
155,081
Washington _________ ___
Oregon _________________
California'--- ------- - --
30. 9
1.8
55. 2
25. 7
201,815
70. 6
2
2
48,013
56,287
143,157
74. 4
22
1,539,079
4,264,853
56. 5
5
1
16
267,504
91 , 981
1, 179,594
521 , 569
399,052
3,344,232
49. 0
44 . 1
59. 1
-
-
-
-
49. 6
50. 5
50.4
57. 7
56. 8
39. 0
41. 5
33. 8
75. 4
42. 3
43. 2
61. 0
-----
-
-
93. 6
45. 8
61. 4
6. 0
48. 6
30. 5
6. 4
54. 2
38. 6
25.8
72. 8
74. 2
42. 8
-
Total
Govern-
menta!
Private
- -- - - - 94. 2
9-1 . 7
93. 8
67. 5
81.4
151. 5
65. 2
55. 5
299. 4
70. 7
132. 8
103. 3
- -- - -- - -
-13:a -13.6
49. 6
33. 4
66. 5
47. 1
139. 6
128.1
-8:0
66. 7
110.6
143.9
- - - - - - - --- - -5.0 100. 0 95. 0 l, 348. 6
1,276.1
32. 6
21. 1
16. 7
32. 3
29. 0
27. 6
22. 0
57. 7
87. 3
60. 1
85. 9
49. 6
73. 3
75. 8
91.8
41. 6
67. 4
78. 9
83. 3
67. 7
71. 0
72. 4
78. 0
42. 3
39. 4
616. 4
179. 9
110. 1
51. 4
144. 2
101. 6
36. 4
169. 5
30. 7
11.1
78. 9
56. 5
119. 0
55. 7
625. 8
29. 2
116. 2
175.9
46. 9
233. 3
95. 2
30. 2
129.0
32. 8
142.4
81.4
60. 6
225. 5
589.1
53. 2 80. 1
22. 4 73 . 5
43. 6 100. 0
6. 0 97. 5
46. 8
77. 6
56. 4
94. 0
246. 4
163. 5
329. 4
185. 9
826. 8. 102. 3
122. 8 178. 2
- 142. 2
582. 5 175. 7
45. 3
54. 7
208. 7
352. 4
144. 5
355. 8 1,113.7
79. 2
47. 0
346. 2 352. 2
138.3 258. 0
154. 8
79. 7
338. 7
96. 9
- - - - - - --- - - - - -
69.1
-21.-0 -55.-8 -79.-0 -44.- 2
24,316
-
Per c ent of change
from first quarter of
1929 to firs t quarter
ofl931
]. 5
55. 9
38. 6
98. 2
44. 8
74. 3
98. 5
44. 1
61.4
67. 8
28. 2
32. 2
- - - --- - -
66. 3
57. 2
89. 4
- - - --- - -76.-6.1- -23.6
4
63. 0
33.1 520. 8
-- -- ---74. 1
-
37. 8
65.8
29. 4
-
57. 2
25. 6
25. 9
-
62. 2
34. 2
30.1
-
97. 5
154. 3
36. 6
14. 6
74. 3
124. 9
114. 7
239. 8
652. 3
261. 1
82.1
66.9
-
-
259.6
70.0
- - - - - - --- --- - 53. 9 51. 0 46. 1
95. 0 114. 3
76. 4
-
-
-
73. 3
43. 5
26. 7
177.1
76. 6
75. 9
55. 9
40. 9
23. 4
24. 1
333. 8
183. 5
No incorporated areas of over 30,000 in this State.
'No report from Santa Ana.
1
Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, special report, Relief Erpenditurea bv
Governmental and Private Organizations, /9t9 and 1981, 1932.
illMP Tr
94 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Table 3 .-Expend itures per Inhabitant for Relief to Fam ilies in Their H omes and to
H ome less M en in 308 Cities, by States, Fi rst Ouarters of 1929 and of 1931
Tot.al
Number
First quarter
or cities
reporting 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _
State and geographic division
Governmental
Private
First quarter
Fl t quarter
i-- - - - -- -i- - - ~ - --
- - - - - - - - - - - · I - - - - __i_m
____1_93_1_ _ _
1m
_ _ _ _1_93_1_~ __1_m
__
1
l
11Y.11
'rota'- ------308
$0.34
$1.17
$0.22
$0.71
$0. 12
$0.40
= I.&
" ' =. 01= -1.60
==
==
New England __________ _ = - - =
.76
. 14
• 26
Maino _____ - --------·--·-·
ew Dampshlre. ---------·-·-
- - -2 ---1----~----1----------). 02
. 77
. 94
. 1
• 04
. 08
~.'Rhode
.r8=ch\i'
.seits - -:::::::::::::
Island
1
_
. 00
.34
.59
. 02
.07
90
.78
1. 78
. 63
I. 66
.12
. is
2
. 36
29
3
.
. 34
. 46
1.
10
21
3
7
. 36
. 34
.52
. 38
1.59
.07
. 87
. 70
. 30
17
.30
. 25
1.43
.33
5
. 26
. 66
. 06
.40
. 13
. 26
• 20
I
2
3
. 4.5
. 27
. 23
. 39
. 40
. 39
. 42
.36
. 03
oo
99
. 23
. 11
. 46
Connecticut___ __ _ _
2 00
• 20
• 26
. 43
Middle Atlantic
--··-·
64
. 36
I. 37
. 24
• 03
. 12
.H
ewYork _____
_ __22_ _____4_2 ~
- -.-30 - -_-5- - -- .-12_1_ _ ___80_
NewJersey
---· ____
22
. 26
. !13
. 21
.5
05
.25
Pennsylvania_____________
20
.29
1. 03
.15
.19
. 14
.84
East North ContraL ___
81
.31
1.43
20
.9
. II
.45
Ohio____________________
23
.36 ~ - -.-1_6 _____38_ ---.-20----.66lndiana ___________________ ___ _
13
. 20
I 10
. 10
. i9
. JO
. 31
fllinois ________________________ _
20
• 23
. 94
. 15
. 33
08
. 61
Mlcblgen _ ---·- _______
15
. 41
2 0
.36
2.76
.05
. JO
Wisconsin ____ ------------·
WestNortbCentraJ ____ _
Minnesota ___________________
Iowa ________________ _______
Missouri. _____________________
t ebraska_
u~: lJ:tg~_'.:::::::::::::::
____________________
0
Kansas_______ _________________
South Atlantic__________ _
34
. 16
Delaware _____________________ - - - 1 - -_-13Maryland_ ____________________
3
. 15
District or olumbia __________
I
.I
Virginia___ __________________
O
. 19
·west Virginia_________________
3
.24
North CarolUJa _______________
. 18
South Carolina______________
2
.18
Georgia_______ _______________
5
.00
Florida _______________________
5
.17
East South Central__ __
13
.14
- -.17
Kentucky _____________________ - - 4
Tennessee_____________________
4
. 14
Alabama_ ______________________
3
. 10
Mississippi____ __________ ___ ___
2
.06
West South CentrnL_ ___
21
. II
Ark:ansas_ -- ----------------- --
- --
Louisiana ______________________
Oklahoma .____________________
Texas_________ _____ __ __________
Mountain_______ _________
Montana______________ _________
Idaho'--------------- ________ -Wyoming'----------- ------ ---_
______________________
Colorado
New
Mexico'--------·-------Arizona _______________
__ ____ __ _
Utah __________________________ _
Nevada'-------------·--------Pacific __------------- ---Washington ___________________ _
Oregon ________________________ _
CaliCornia •------------- _______ _
. 14
.16
.60
. 06
. 13
. 24
. 07
. 39
. 04
. 10
. 12
~ - - - - -.-00- - - -_-13. 43
. 02
. 14
. 13
. 39
. 07
. 08
. II
.28
.03
.05
.16
. 58
.12
.19
. 12
. 35
. 05
.10
. 13
.26
.04
.07
. 14
.23
. 01
.05
.08
.23
.JO
.13
.07
.45
. 60
. 38
. 43
.16
. 35
. 93
. 18
.03
. 18
.03
.04
.32
.08
. 19
.01
.16
. 52
(')
(1)
.03
.04
. 16
17
34
- -, - - .37
22
. II
. 14
. 10
.10
. 06
. 08
. 30
. 40
. 03
. 22
.15
. 29
--iT7
. 29
. 31
.23
. 39
. 26
.I
I
. JO
. 27
. 28
. 30
. 24
.15
. 19
. 20
.06
. II
. 22
.10
. 40
. 84
1. 00
. 24
. 67
1. 38
3
.42
.54
.30
.40
.12
.14
2
.30
.31
.60
. 79
. 13
. 23
• 23
.52
.17
. 37
.08
• 27
.33
. 41
.30
.32
.91
.80
I. 32
.90
. 19
. 20
.67
. 43
1.01
. 14
. 21
. 17
.13
. 24
. 37
. 31
2
3
3
13
2
22
5
I
16
(')
.12
.03
. 56
.00
. 29
. 79
. 16
.06
. JO
.07
. II
. 05
. 41
. II
. 44
. 15
. 22
. 45
- -- - -I. 06 - - - - --. 32
.13
.19
.68
. 22
1 No incorporated areas or over 30,000 in this State.
• No report from Pawtucket.
I Less than $0.005.
• No report from Santa Ana.
Source: U. S. Department or Commerce, Bureau or the Census, special report, Relit/ Expffldilttru iv
00(),rnmffllal and Pricate Organization,, /9t9 and /931, 1932.
1~1
g"'
i~·
A.\' 11\tE
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 95
Table 4.-Cities Represented in Urban Relief Series, U. S. Ch ildre n's Burea u
State and city
Massachusetts:
Boston
Brockton
Cambridge
Fall River
Lawrence
Lowell
Alabama:
Birmingham
Mobile
California:
Berkeley
Los Angeles
Oakland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Colorado:
Denver
Connecticut:
Bridgeport
Hartford
New Britain
New Haven
Delaware:
Wilmington
District of Columbia:
Washington
Florida:
Jacksonville
Miami
Georgia:
Atlanta
Illinois:
Chicago
Springfield
Indiana:
Evansville
For t Wayne
Indianapolis
South Bend
Terre Hau te
Iowa:
Des Moines
Sioux City
Kansas:
Kansas City
Topeka
Wichita
Kentucky:
Louisville
Louisiana:
New Orleans
Shreveport
Maine:
Portland
Maryland:
Baltimore
Ohio-Continued
Springfield
Toledo
Youngstown
Oklahoma:
Tulsa
Oregon:
Portland
Pennsylvania:
Allentown
Altoona
Bethlehem
Chester
Erie
Harrisburg
Johnstown
Lancaster
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Reading
Scranton
Sharon
Wilkes-Barre
Rhode Island:
Providence
South Carolina:
Charleston
Tennessee:
Knoxville
Memphis
Nashville
Texas:
Dallas
El Paso
Fort Worth
Houston
San Antonio
Utah:
Salt Lake City
Virginia:
Norfolk
Richmond
Roanoke
Washington:
Seattle
Tacoma
West Virginia:
Huntington
Wisconsin:
Kenosha
Madison
Milwaukee
Racine
Lynn
Malden
New Bedford
Newton
Springfield
Worcester
Michigan:
Detroit
Flint
Grand Rapids
Pontiac
Saginaw
Minnesota:
Duluth
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Missouri:
Kansas City
St. Louis
Nebraska:
Omaha
New Jersey:
Jersey City
Newl)J"k
Trenton
New York:
Albany
Buffalo
New Rochelle
New York
Niagara Falls
Rochester
Syracuse
Utica
Yonkers
North Carolina:
Asheville
Charlotte
Greensboro
Winston-Salem
Ohio:
Akron
Canton
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
Source : Winslow, Emma A., Trends in Different Tvpes of Public and Private Relief in urban Areas, 19$1>-35,
Publication No. 237, U . S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau, 1937.
21s12°-a1--s
C,
l'.E
1
r
)LLI 1E /> Jr V >CITY
96 •
TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Tobie 5.-Monthly Expenditures for Reli e f From Publ ic and Private Funds in 120 Urban
Area s, Expressed a s Re lative Numbe rs, January 1929-Dece mber 193 5
1
!A verage mooth 103 1- l !Y.l.3 - JOO •J
Y car a nd m ootb
T otal public a nd
private
Public
Total
OPneral
Ap<-clal
allowaocc•
1',,t al
private
- - - -- -- - -- - - ------1-----1---- - - --1·-- - -I
1919
Jan ua ry _-·· · -···-···--·-·-· _·····- _-·····-·
Februa ry __ --···· .
• •••••••••.•••••••••.
March....... • •.. -·· •. ·-· -·- •.••••••••
Ap ril .•••••••. _._ •.••••••.••••••.•••• _. ___ .•.•.. _
M ay .•.•... - -••.•. -······ •••.•.•••••.•.• __ ••••••
June .••. _.• · · ···-··
J ul y. ·-··· ·· --······························ ·
AUJ!USt . -·····························-····· · ·
Septem ber ... -······ . •••••••••••••..••••••••
Octobe r •. . -· . -· -·-·· -·················--···-··ovember _. _. ____ . ____ -· •.. _..••••••• _·- •••••• ·D ecember _. ___ ._____
___ ___ -·-- -·- -·-···
14. 9
14 9
16. 0
14. 0
13 6
12. 8
12. 7
12. 8
12.6
13. 5
14. 7
17. 9
13. 0
13. I
13. 2
12 6
12 2
11. 7
II. 6
Jl 6
11. 6
12 3
13. 3
16. 6
7 I
7. 3
7. 3
6. 6
6. 0
6. 6
6. 4
~- 4
6. 3
6. 1
7. 2
9. 8
20. 0
20. 4
2 1.9
21. 2
19. 2
I .I
18. 1
J .6
JO
23. 0
28. 3
47. 9
l .0
12. 4
13. I
14. 7
13.
II. 4
JO. I
JO. I
Jl.0
12. 4
16. I
20. 5
32. 6
50. 3
50. 6
65. 6
68. 6
G-1. 7
65.5
61. 2
47. 7
46.
43. 1
45. 5
50. 4
61.0
88. 7
42. 5
43. 5
47. 3
43. 3
«. 4
43. 9
44. 6
40. 6
42.
46. 2
62. l
66. 9
37. 2
38. 0
41. 5
36. 4
37. 2
72. 7
75. 0
80. 2
93.8
102. ()
113. 8
00.1
9 1.0
91. 2
83. 5
00. 9
92. 2
Ill. 8
131. 3
70. 2
83. 2
00. 7
.I
89. 2
00. 8
82. 4
91.5
93. 3
100. 2
115. 9
134. 9
135. l
145. 3
167. 9
154. 9
153. I
148.4
135. 6
140. 4
134. 3
145. 6
153. 9
123. 5
141.0
152. 7
179. 7
168.6
169. 2
164. 6
150. 6
156. J
149. 5
163. 3
173. 3
136. 9
46. 6
45. 8
46. 0
40. 7
47. 3
46. 9
46.
47. 3
47. 0
47. 7
47. 6
48. 7
26. 3
26. 0
26. 6
22 9
21 4
19. 8
19 8
JO. 6
19. 4
20. 9
23. ()
31. 3
/ 9.'il/
J a nuary ___ -·- - -·-- ____
___ - -· -- ___ _-- --·- __ -·
February··-------·- _ _____ ---·-·--·----·--Marc h_. ___ -·-- --········-·- -··- ·-·---· · --·-- ··-
~:r-_:::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :::::: ::: ::.
J une ___ ._._ •••• _._ •.••••••••• __ ._._ •• __ • ___ • ___ ·J ul Y- --· - · - · · · · -- - · •.•.... ..•..•......•.•.....
AUJ!USt ... . •.•. ·-. _..•. ··-- ·- ·- ----·· ..••. -· ..
eplember . . · · ···-······-·-·-····-·· · ·-·-·-···
ctober •••.• -···-······-·-··· .••...•.....•
Novem ber ··--·······················-··-·······
Dcoem ber . -·•·· -·-·-· · -· ---······ ·· ·-··-···· ·
I .7
20 2
10. 6
17. 6
16. 5
16. 7
17. 5
I .7
22. 0
26.
36.5
62. l
62 0
62. 7
63. 2
64. 5
M. 5
65.)
65.
66. 4
68. 6
31.8
30. 9
31. 5
31.0
29. 2
27. 3
26. 4
26. 6
26. 3
28. 9
42 6
115. 2
1931
J aooory .• . •.•.. . .. ...
· -- ·· - · --· · ·--·· ······F ebrua ry ............ . ··············-· - ·-····
M a rc h . ... ··-··...... • ..•.....•.. ... ..........•
April. ._ .-······-···-·.·--··--·_···-·· .....•.....
M a Y· -· ··- - ···· ·-··········-·-· -·-·-· · ····· ·· ····
June ..•.. •····· · ······· · ········•··········-· -·-·
Jul y·- · . .... . . . .•. . ·· · -· · .•.•.•••.•.••.•• ... •...•
August ............ _..•.••.. _..•.. .. _..... __. •...
Septe mber . ... ..•...••.. ·· ···- · · ·-· ···· · · ···--·.
October ... ·-··-·-·· __. ·· · · · · -· ··· . . . . .•.•.•..•..
ovember · · · ···-········ ··· ········ · ·-···· . . ..•.
Decem ber . ..•... •·· ·· ··· ·· ·· -· · ······· ··· ····· ··
193!
J aouary _.•• ••• • . . . .... -· .... . .. . .. ... ...•.. . .. ..
February . . ... .. . . .. . . ... . . . ... . . ..•. .. ..••.. •..
M a rch ..· · ········ ·· ·· ···· ···· -·-· ··· · -· ·- · -· -···
ApriL · --····•··-···· · · · · · ·· · ··· · ··· · · · · · ··· ·····
M ny .. ••··· ·-········· ·· ···· · · ··· ··· · ··· -· · ···· · ·
June .... -· . . . . _....... •. .. . ..•• • . ..• .• • .... . . •.•.
July ····· · -········ •···· ····· · ·· · ········ · ··· · ·· ·
August . .... . ... . ......... .. ............. . . . . ... .
e plember ........ .............. . ... . . . .. . ..... .
October .. ... .. . .... . .. ... .. . .. .. . . . . .. · · ·-· ·· · . .
November . ... ...... . ....... . ....... . ..... ...... .
December . . ... . . . . .... .... . ... . . . ... . •.•.... . ...
00. l
37. 6
85. 9
.3
00. 6
91.6
93. 2
95. 5
00. 7
102. 3
132.9
147.8
167. 8
127. 8
91.6
70. 0
59. 9
67. 8
61. 7
75. 3
113. 6
218.0
64. 4
86.1
88. 0
78. 2
88. 8
00. 8
98. 7
116. 9
138. 9
103. 5
105. 4
107. 6
107. 5
106.9
106. 8
106.0
106. 9
107. 5
108. 5
1IO. 3
Ill. 9
233. 4
212. 9
214. 9
143. 3
98. 7
93. 6
00. 4
87. 6
85. 3
71. 8
87. 3
109.8
146. 2
100. 6
192. 4
179. 7
180. 4
175. 3
159.0
165. 5
157. 8
174. I
185. 7
142. 6
111. 6
107. 4
107. 6
105. 5
105. 0
103. 4
102. 3
102. 4
101.8
IOI. 6
102. 7
104. 3
100. 3
101. 5
98.1
73. 7
58. 0
52. 4
47. 3
47. 4
311.1
36. 5
31. 7
34. ()
«. 2
79. 3
94. 9
84. 7
82.
Vl.5
JG33
J aouarY-· -· ·· · .... . . . . .. ... .. ..... · ·· ····- · ·· · · ·
February ...... . . .... . ....... . ..... . .. . ...... . .. .
March. ..... .. .... .. .............. .. .. . . . . .... .. .
April ......... _..... . ...... . ...... . . ..... .. .. • ••.
May ... . .... . .............. . ......... . ..... . .. . .
June. .. .... •-· ···· ······· · ········· · ······ ······ ·
July .... -· . . ..... ...... ... . ..••.. . . . . .•. . ....• ••·
Auiwst .... .. ............... . ....... . ........... .
September . .. . .. . . . . ......... . .. . ... ....... ... .. .
October
...___
.. .____
· ·• ·····
· ··· ·-········
······
·····_
r ovember
_________________
_____
____··_____
December . ......... . .. . . . ................ .. .... .
• For absolute amounts see original source of data.
«. 4
40. 5
39. 2
44. 2
• Base values are as follows: Total public and private, $25,829,314; total public, $22,096,018; geoeral public,
$18,805,842; public special allowances, $3,290,176; and total private, $3,733,296.
qi
I~
~t
Cj
A" 11\tE
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES •
97
Table 5.-Monthly Expenditu res for Rel ief From Public and Priva te Funds in 120 Urban
Areas, Expressed as Relative Numbe rs, January 1929-December 1935-Cont' d
[Average month 1931-1933=100]
Year nnd month
P ublic
Total pub• ,-- -- - - -- - -- - , Total
lie and
private
private
Special
Total
allowances
1934
1anuar y . . ....... ........... . .. ................. .
Februa!y ....................................... .
March ................ . ......................... .
April ..... . . . ................................... .
May .......... ... ... ........................... .
1une ............................................ .
1uly . .......... .•......•••.....••.... . • •••. .... ••
August. ....... ........................... . ..... .
September ..................................... .
October ........................................ .
November ... ................................... .
December ............ ............. ..... ........ .
ll8.3
123. 7
146. 7
217. 0
233. 7
221. 5
229. 9
246. 4
231. 0
253. 3
272.1
289. 2
131. 4
138. 6
165. 1
247. 7
267. 3
253. 7
263. 8
283.1
265. 2
291. 3
313.1
332. 4
136. 1
144. 8
175. 5
272. 8
295. 5
279. 3
290. 9
313. 3
292. 2
322. 2
347. 6
367. 4
104.6
103. 5
105. 5
104. 4
105. 5
107. 7
108. 8
110. 6
111.1
114. 2
116.4
132. 5
40. 8
35. 3
38. 0
35. 3
35. 3
30. 8
29.4
28.8
28.3
28. 9
29. 2
33. l
332. 8
304. 8
311.1
308.1
304. 4
284. 0
298.0
277. 2
236. 7
238. 5
198. 5
161. 5
383. 7
351. 4
358. 8
355. 4
351. 3
328. 0
344. 4
320.1
272. 9
274.8
426.9
388. 7
396. 9
392. 4
387. 2
359. 3
378. 1
349. 2
293.8
295. 5
240. 2
187. 6
136. 7
138. 4
141. 5
144. 1
146. l
149. 0
151. 8
153. 4
153. 7
156. 2
159. 0
162. 3
31.4
29.0
28.8
27. 8
26. 5
23. 4
23.1
23. 2
22. 2
23. 7
23. 7
29. 3
1935
January . ..••.•. ····-·-·-·-·-··•- ·· ..••..........
February ... . .............. .. . . ..... . ... ....... . .
March .................................. ........ .
April ................. ..... .. .•.. .....•. . ......••
May··· · -···········-···········-···-·-·-·-···-·
J une.•········-· -···-·····-·····-·····-·-·-·-·-·
J uly.-·· ............... ... ... . ........ ......... . .
August ... __ ....... ................ .. ....... . ... .
September ...................................... .
October ... ·-··-·--· ................. ·--·-··· ... .
November .............••.......•.. ... ... ...... ..
December .. . ........ . .. . ... . . .. . . .. . ........... .
228.1
183. 8
Source: Derived from absolute amounts published by Winslow, Emma A., Trends in Different Tvp,, of
Public and Privott Relief in Urban Areas, J9t9-36, P u blication No. 237, U. S. Department of Labor,
Children's Bureau, 1937.
Cr
r JLL 1 1E /> Jr V ,clTV
98 •
TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Table 6.-l nd ices of Monthly Expe nditures for Outdo or Relief in Rural .Town Areas, 1
Urban Area s, 2 and Total Unit ed States, January 1932-December 1935
[Average month 1935 = 100)
Year
Year
Rural•
town
rban
50. 0
47. I
50. 3
73. 7
82. 2
85. 7
92. 4
103. 3
100. 6
105. 2
II .0
125. 5
43. 6
45. 6
64 . 0
80.0
86. 2
81. 6
84. 8
90.8
85. 2
93. 4
100. 3
106. 6
139. 2
130. 6
128. 0
122. 9
119. 1
101. 2
90.3
89. 0
73. 3
76. 9
68. I
55. 1
122. 7
I 12 4
114. 8
ll3. 6
112. 2
104. 7
100. 9
102. 2
7. 2
87. 9
73. I
59. 5
Total
~~t:~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ·11----------1--- - - - - - 19$£
January.................
February.......... . .....
March ... .........•.....
April.. ..... . ...••.....
May ....................
June.....................
July ...... . .....•.....•
August .................
September. ..............
October . . . . . . . • . . . . .. . .
November...............
Dc~m ber. .... .• . . . • . . . .
18. 3
19. 3
/934
W. 7
I .0
17. 6
17.8
17. I
19. 3
2.1. 4
31. 5
35. 0
35. 4
33 4
33. 6
30.
33. 5
34. 0
35. 4
41. 2
33. 1
36. 7
31. 8
29. 6
29. 7
27. 6
29. 5
30. 3
32 4
3 .8
4 .4
45. 3
Jaot.lllrY .•.•...•... . ....
February .....•.•........
March •.....•.•••........
April. ...•........•.•....
May ..•.........•...•....
June ..............•.•.••.
July .....•....•• . ........
August. ......••..•.•...•
Septcm bcr. . .. ..•••...•..
October................ .
ovember ..... . •.•...•..
D cem ber. ....•••....•••
42.
49. 0
47. 9
50. 9
68, I
64. 7
53. 9
51. 4
50. l
52. 3
49. 5
64. 7
68. 3
46. 5
January .•..••...• ... ....
February ......••••......
March ..•.•.•.•.....•..
April. .......•..........
May .....•.........•.....
June .......••.•..... . . . ..
July .........•••........
August. ....••......•.•..
September .............•.
October ............ ..... .
November. .......•......
D ecember. ............•.
ro. 6
34. 6
37. 6
42. 0
30. 6
areas 1 areas•
JR33
45. 3
45. 9
64. 6
7 .4
85. 2
82.6
86. 6
93. 8
88.9
96.3
104. 7
Ill. 2
/036
J anuary .... ..........•.
F ebruary ................
March ...................
April .•........ .,........
May ......... ............
June ....•...............
July .....................
August ..................
S ptemb r.. ..••.•.•.•..
October ..................
November...............
December. ..............
43. 6
47. 4
47. 0
46. 6
42. I
61. I
64 . 4
60. O
68. 3
63. 7
50. 3
6.1. 4
01. 7
56.9
50. 2
64. 5
49. 8
51. 6
49. 3
53. 5
50. 6
45. 3
120. 7
116. 9
118. 0
115. 9
I 13. 9
103. 8
106. 6
98. 9
83.8
85. 2
71. 9
58. 3
t Represents counties containing no city or 25,000 or over, and Massachusetts and Connecticut townships
or less than 5,000.
• Represents counties containing cities or 25,000 or over, and Massachusetts and Connecticut townships ot
6,000 and over.
Source: npublished data Crom tbe Division or Socia! Research, Rural Section, Works P rogress Adminis.
t ration . Indices based on data Crom Rural•Town Relier Series and Urban Relief Series.
Digitized by
INTERNET ARCHIVE
Or
II
I
r01
r JLUME A J~ V' ,c1p
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 99
Table 7.-Summary of Expenditures for Public Outdoor Relief in Selected A reas,
1910--1935
Finan-
MountStatising
tics of Bill for
Year Cities Relief
U.S. Burlin
Census
36
16
Cities 1
Cities
cial
Cost of
Relief
in 16
Cities
ClappUSCB
16
Cities
'Financial
Trends
in Organized
Social
Work
in New
Haven
York
w.
City
King K .Hunt-
Trends
in PhiIantbropy
in New
Iey
New
York
State
Department
of
Social
Wei-
WPA
Indiana
State
Board
of Charities
fare
Special U.S.
Chi!·
Report dren's
u. s. Bureau
0ensus
120
308
Cities Urban
Areas
WPA
Division of Division
of Social
Social Research
ReRuralsearch
Urban
385
U.S.
Rural·
(estiTown mated)
Areas
Amount in thousands
1910 ...
1911- ..
1912 .. .
1913 ...
1914 ...
1915 ...
1916 ...
1917 ...
1918 ...
1919 ...
1920. - 1921- ..
1922 ...
1923 ...
1924 ...
1925. _.
1926 ...
1927 ...
1928 ...
1929 ...
1930. -1931- ..
1932 . . .
1933 . ..
1934 ...
1935 ...
-
$1,559
1,700
<'l
1!)')
3,488
3,980
6, 183
<'l
i:>
11 ,640
12,818
14, 709
14,814
17,059
20,014
18,989
28,004
64,142
(')
<'(' l
(')
--
-
$1,685
1,904
2,071
2,386
2,957
5,343
4,742
3,877
4,553
5,301
--
-
$4, 6il
-
7, 636
-
$16
17
18
16
15
14
16
15
17
28
51
79
92
97
111
112
-
$229
$885
241
921
248
945
253
956
223
1,084
256
1, 277
646
1,158
1,472
2,107
2,087
3,094
2,391
3,653
2,981
4,351
4,140
5,703
7,252
4,932
4,984
7,278
5,316
7,799
5,662
8,548
5,909
8,966
6,301 10,036
11,
789
7,293
7,750 13,083
9,271 17, 786
31,665 41,277
57,870 88,203
• 101,211 '156,376
4 169,316 '215,601
(')
(')
--
----------
$266
271
306
302
3C3
435
391
427
426
388
417
610
741
524
619
84 1
(')
1, 104
(')
1,446 '$10,802 $33,449
54, 754
2,506
4,681 '34,201 123,320
$446,846
(')
- 251,104 $10,223
- '421,032 11 22,688 • 802,423
(')
- '652,467 39,664 • 1,287, 139
(')
- '829,224 '45,608 • 1,595,694
(')
--
-
-
---
---
-
1 Figures interpolated ; selected agencies in these cities.
• Figures are for the first quarter of year.
• Figures not available or not available in comparable form.
• Excludes CW A expenditures.
• Excludes Works Program expenditures.
Source: Compiled from sources indicated in table beading. Full source references given in Part I, p. 5 ff.
, '
<
r
JLLI 1E /> Jr V "ITV
100 •
TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
I for Reli ef Exte nded lo Coses, General
Relief Program, FERA , by Stotes,2 Ouorte rly Interval s, July 1933- 0ctober 193 5
Tobie 8.-0bligotion s Incurred per Inhabitant
Jul y
1033
State and geogra phic di v ision
Octo• Jaou• April
ary
bcr
1934
1934
1033
--U nited St at.es t otal.. ... $0. 45
New England :
Main e .•••••••••...... . ...
N ew Ilampsb lre ..••...•.
Verm ont •••••••••.•.. ....
M assachusetts ••.....•..•
Rhode Isla nd ••.••••....•
on ncctlcut. ••••.........
Midd le Atla ntic:
New York •••••..••.•...•
N ew J ersey .••.•• . .......
P enns y lvania ..•..•..•.••
East No rth eotra l:
Oh io ...•........•....••••
Ind iana .•.•••.••••.••••••
Illinois ••.•••.•...........
M ich igan •••.••...•••.•••
Wisconsi n ••. • •••.••.•..•.
West ortb Centra l:
Minnesota ..••••.•....•••
Iowa ......•••............
M issouri. ••••••••••••••••
N orth D akota .••........•
South D a kota ..••••••••••
N ebras ka ••......••••••••
Kansas ..•......••.... . ...
South A t lantic:
D ela ware ..•....••..•....
Mary la nd ........•.....••
D istrict ol Colum b ia .....
Virginia ......••..........
W est Virgi n ia •...•.••••..
N orth a roli oa ..••......
South Ca rolina ..
Georgia ..••...•.. ::::::::
Florida ...................
East Sou t h Cen t ral :
K entucky....•...........
Tennessee .•...... . . . . . ...
A la bama •..........•.....
---
West1°J~~f ~PJ~iitral: · ··· · ····
t~~s~:ia::::::::::::::::
Oklahoma ................
Texas ....• .. •.. . .••••....
Mounta in :
M ontana ..... •... . .......
I dabo . . . . . .. . . .. . ........
Wyoming .. . .......•.••..
Colorado .... . ........ . ...
New Mexfoo . ............
Arizona . . . ... ......• . ....
Utah .. ...... .... .... . . ...
Nevada . ... ... . .. ... . . .. .
P acific:
Washington .. . . . .. . . . .. . .
Oregon .... . .. . .. .........
California ... .. . . .. . .. . . ..
-
$0. 48
-
. 40
. 20
. 23
. 70
. 49
. 42
. 36
• 26
. 16
. 03
. 41
. 38
. 85
. 91
. 47
. 67
. 46
. 70
. 53
. 31
. 66
. 67
. 51
. 50
. :lo!
. 20
. 22
. 16
. 21
. 07
. 'l:l
. 28
.H
. 41
.4 2
. 04
.62
. 16
.31
. 10
. 35
. 'l:l
. 12
. 16
. 14
.1
. 44
. 22
. 22
.53
. 'l:l
. 09
. 36
. 75
. 75
. 48
. 22
. 21
.33
. 67
. 15
. 'l:l
.59
.56
.59
. 05
.68
. 15
.51
. 32
. 80
. 20
. 13
. 37
.18
. 'l:l
. 52
.30
. 16
. 50
. 13
. 09
. 35
. 06
. 62
. 42
. 32
. 29
. 08
. 62
. 46
. 60
. 32
. 53
. 39
. 22
. 40
. 33
July
1934
Octo• J a ou•
ary
ber
1934
1036
April
1935
July
1035
Oc~
ber
1935
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -30 $0. 70 $0. 77 $0. 00 $1.16 $1. 04 $0. 93
$0. 74
,$0._
--- - --- - - - - - -. 84
. 53
. 31
. 62
. 21
. 26
1. JI
. 70
• 79
. 64
.37
. 32
I. 21
.69
.66
. 67
1.61
1. 21
1.09
1.61
.89
.80
). 72
J. 21
I 02
l. 96
. 68
.81
.59
1.02
2
1.04
. 95
. 86
1.07
I. 22
1.35
1.01
I. 23
I. 44
I 38
I. 37
. 84
I, II
I. 49
.39
. 40
. 95
1. 03
. 35
. 51
. 43
.59
. 63
. 33
. 32
. II
. 48
. 67
. 28
. 21
. 54
. 46
. 37
. 'l:l
. II
. 17
. 71
. 44
. 77
. 68
. 71
. 66
. 23
. 33
I. 72
1.00
: 18
. 10
. 42
. 30
. 69
. 61
. 33
. 94
1. 10
. 06
. 40
. 15
. 13
. 18
. 00
. 28
. 34
.I
. 38
. 28
. 35
. 72
. 94
. 15
. 64
. 22
. 37
. 31
2. 43
. 65
. 72
1.84
2. 34
. 96
1.17
. 38
. 75
1.16
. 17
. 75
. 21
. 42
. 90
1.17
. Z4
. 06
. 32
. 37
h 63
. 53
. 39
. 38
1.86
1.12
I. 73
1.86
1.03
1.64
1.19
. 94
1. 41
I. 11
. 92
1.26
1.02
l.18
l.Z4
.62
1.06
. 94
. 99
. 30
1.01
. 00
. 81
1.25
. 53
. 69
1. 84
1. 91
.89
1.01
.92
. 31
. 58
. 94
. 71
. 69
.69
. 76
.33
. 62
. 84
.55
.58
. 31
. 79
1.04
. 32
. 76
.36
. 61
. 26
.56
. 66
. 28
. 23
. 93
1. 35
1.03
. 89
1.42
. 90
1.29
. 90
1.38
1.03
. 74
. 74
1.13
. 82
l.16
1.00
1.07
. 61
.68
. 82
. 51
. 72
. 92
. 79
.80
1. 59
. 76
. 62
1. 55
. 37
. 30
. 57
1. 22
. 40
. 76
I. 26
I. 41
I. 09
I. 03
. 38
. 32
. 63
. 74
I. 72
1.69
1.14
1.63
I. 91
.88
1.09
1. 67
1.50
. 72
.68
. 33
. 17
. 25
. 30
1.86
I. 35
. 92
1.22
. 44
. 49
.19
• 63
. 23
. 62
1.38
0
1.03
40
I.
. 93
1.13
1. 47
1.45
. 47
. 20
. 07
. 15
. 23
. 46
. 43
. 19
. 29
. 39
. 33
. 57
. 32
. 62
. 25
. 23
. 30
. 34
. 45
. 65
. 29
. 51
. 51
l
.85
. 82
. 39
. 64
. 37
. 52
. 07
. 50
. 24
I. 23
I. 75
.99
. 89
1.07
.50
. 58
. 30
.3
. 74
. JO
. 12
.50
.83
. 18
l. 48
I. 77
. 49
. 51
. 52
. 49
. 44
. 42
. 42
. 38
. 91
. 79
. 30
. 78
. 67
. 79
. 48
I. 69
. 80
. 03
. 65
. 36
. 33
. 77
l. ◄2
. 80
. 42
. 43
. 37
. 32
. 26
. Z4
. 62
I. 85
I. II
I. 11
. 68
.84
. 15
. 14
. 33
. 55
. 42
.36
. 37
. 47
1.00
. 32
. 25
. 31
. 87
. 56
. 37
. 41
. 45
• 11
. 09
. 78
. 'l:l
. 41
. 29
. 33
.33
.20
.10
. 21
.ao
.15
. 41
.36
. 23
.68
. 57
. 33
.88
. 54
. 81
.91
. 47
. 57
. 37
1. 44
• Based on population estimates or the Bureau of the Census.
' Includes the District of Columbia.
Source: Compiled lrom offi cial data oo obligations incurred as reported to the Division ol R esearch,
Statistics, aod Finance ol the Federal Emergency Relief Administration.
No te: This table was based on latest revised fig ures available at the date ol analysis, November 1936.
r,jgftiZe!
V
INT ,NE A,\C HIVE
)I
vLUW A
~
v 1 ,c r
SUPPLEM ENTARY TABLES •
101
Table 9.-Percent of Populati on 1 Rece iv ing Re lief, G eneral Re lief Pro gra m, FERA , by
States,2 Quarterly In terval s, July 1933-0ctober 1935
State and geographic div;sion
July
1933
I
October
1933
Janu•
ary
1934
April
1934
Octo·
ber
1934
July
1934
Janu•
ary
1935
April
1935
July
1935
Octo•
ber
1935
---------------8. 7
13. 2
13. 5
14. 2
14. 8
15. 8
12. 7
10. 5
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
--- United States total ...••
New England:
Maine .................. .
New Hampshire .........
Vermont .................
Massachusetts ......... . .
Rhode Island •......•....
Connecticut .............
Middle Atlantic:
New York . .....•.... . ...
New Jersey . ......... . . . .
Pennsylvania ... .........
East Nor th Central:
Ohio .••.•............•.. .
I ndiana ..................
Illinois ..... .. ............
Michigan ................
Wisconsin ...............
West Nor th Central:
Minnesota ............. . .
~~owT::::::::::::::::
Nor th Dakota . . .........
South Dakota............
Neb raska.-······- · ··-·-·
Kansas.·-·· · ---··-·· · · · ·
South Atlantic:
Dela ware._ ..... .........
Maryland ................
District of Columbia ... __
Virginia .... ....... . ......
West Virginia ............
North Carolina ....•.....
South Carolina ..•. .......
Georgia ..................
Florida .. ·······-···-·-··
East South Central:
Kentucky ................
Tennessee ..........••....
Alabama ... ..............
Mississippi. . ........ ....
West South Central:
Arkansas.·-····-····-·-·
Louisiana . ...............
Oklahoma . ..............
Texas ....••• .• ....... . . ..
Mountain:
Montana.·-· · ·-·-·-· -- · ·
I daho .... . .•..•.... . .. . ..
Wyoming •• •• •• ••........
Colorado ....... . .•.......
New Mexico ••. . .. . ......
Ar izona ...•.•............
Utah ...••.••.•...........
Nevada ••. .. .. . . . ......•.
Pacific:
Washington .... _........ _
Oregon ...................
California ...... . .........
12. 2
- -
10.8
6. 5
7. 8
4. 9
9.1
8.9
8. 5
5. 7
6. 5
3. 1
8. 5
7. 3
6. 7
4. 8
6. 0
3. 2
7. 2
4. 5
5.8
JO. 9
8. 4
6. 3
13. 0
10. 1
12. 5
7. 5
5. 3
5. 4
13. 6
10.3
8. 9
8.8
6. 6
5. 6
14. 7
11.1
10. 3
10. I
7. 4
8. 7
16. 4
11.4
11. 5
10. 8
11. 2
9.0
16. 7
11. 6
11. 1
12. I
9. 6
8.6
16. 3
10. 9
10.0
9. 2
7. 9
4. 3
14. 2
10. 1
8.6
11.6
10.2
18. 8
10. 4
8.9
15. 4
7. 6
8. 1
14. 6
16. 2
16.4
15. 7
15. 4
12. 5
15. 3
15. 3
13. 8
15. 4
16. 8
15.0
17. 9
16. 3
14. 3
18. 5
15. 0
12. 7
17. 4
10. 5
11. 2
16. 4
14. 2
9. 3
12. 8
12. 5
10. 7
12. 0
10. 1
11.0
13. 9
9.1
8. 8
6. 3
8. 8
11.8
6.9
14.8
11. 4
13. 0
13. 2
12. 1
14. 1
10. 7
13. 7
12. 3
12. 7
16. 2
12. 5
13. 6
16. 0
13. 8
18.1
14. 4
14. 7
17. 1
15. 9
16. 7
13. 5
14. 3
14. 1
14. 3
15. 8
11. 5
12. 2
12. 8
11.4
12. 6
7. 3
12. 1
11.8
10.8
6. 4
6. 9
6.6
5. 5
6. 1
4. 3
11. 2
5. 8
5.8
5. 6
9.2
16. 2
5. 4
9. 4
5. 2
3. 3
5.0
19. 6
16. 7
4. 9
3.8
16. 3
7. 1
9.8
32.0
30. 8
8. 6
10. 9
16.4
8. 9
11. 7
21. 2
35. 4
7. 7
11.4
16.8
8. 6
14. 7
28.3
35. 9
11. 6
14. 6
18. 5
10. 8
16. 5
29. 7
40. 1
15. 3
17. 4
16. 3
9.8
15. 2
30. 5
36. 7
13. 1
17. 5
11. 4
6. 5
11. 5
20. 0
12. 0
9. 2
12.1
9. 6
5. 6
11.8
16. 1
9. 0
7. 8
11.8
14. 2
8. 2
7. 5
2.8
30. 5
9. 8
21. 0
6. 6
23. 7
9.1
8.0
9. 4
2. 6
23. 6
7. 8
22.8
9. 7
26.8
10. 2
10. 3
5. I
3.3
14. 0
9.6
8. 7
6. 2
6. 2
11. 8
15. 0
12. 6
4. 9
14. 4
9.5
15. 8
8. 7
21. 4
6. 4
10. 4
11.4
6. 3
18. 9
9. 8
15. 4
10.0
23. 3
6. 6
9. 8
11. 9
6. 8
20. 3
7.8
18.0
12.0
22.6
7. 2
11.4
12. 0
8. 2
22. 4
10.0
14. 7
10. 4
18. 5
6. 2
10. 9
10.6
9. 0
20. 9
9. 7
10. 7
9. 7
12. 9
6. 0
7. 9
8. 5
8. 2
20. 0
8.0
8. 1
7. 3
12. 5
4. 2
7. 6
5.6
6. 1
17. 4
6. 3
5. 0
4. 2
10. 4
20.0
9. 5
14. 6
14. 0
13. 1
7. 2
17. 5
10. 0
13. 8
4. 3
13. 1
14. 7
11.5
10. 1
16. 9
12.8
16. 3
13. I
14. 3
14. 9
15. 8
10. 0
12. I
11.8
17. 5
11. 2
8. 5
13. 7
18. 0
12. 0
8.6
9. 4
16. 6
10. 5
9. 4
7.9
15. 3
8. 1
6. 7
7. 3
11. 2
13. 5
20.1
13. 6
12. I
14. 9
19. 0
7.8
16. 2
18. 6
8.0
7. 0
5. 8
10. 3
17. 0
13. 0
JO. 2
9. 2
18. 5
15. 0
13. 0
9.0
23. 2
16. 0
17.8
8. 4
26. 5
18. 9
12. 2
9. 0
22. 6
15. 3
11. 4
9. 6
17. 1
9. 7
4. 6
8. 7
15. 3
7. 0
15. 2
8.5
2. 7
13. 2
6. 1
23. 1
19. 8
6. 1
12. 5
4. 2
2.5
10. 7
6. 0
18. 6
13. 8
5.5
11.0
5. 7
2.3
9.5
9.8
12. 1
11.9
3. 5
17. 9
12. 2
9. 1
18. 7
14. 2
23. 5
20. 7
5.4
17. 9
10. 7
12.8
19. 5
28.1
26. 9
21.0
7. 5
17. 5
13. 6
11. 2
19.8
25.3
23. 6
21.2
9.9
20. 3
22.0
15. 4
22.8
33. 7
23. 5
24. 0
13. 1
20.1
20.0
16. 0
21. 2
26. 7
22.6
24. 2
JO. 2
15. 5
12. 7
7. 9
15. 7
28. 9
20. 9
18.6
7. 4
10.4
10.0
5.1
12. 6
21. 2
15. 3
16.5
4. 9
14. 4
8.0
9.9
8. 5
5. 7
8.8
7. 9
7. 3
5. 4
12. 2
10. 0
9. 3
11.0
10. 4
10. 3
10. 3
9. 6
II. 1
13.1
13. 6
14. 4
12.9
12. 3
13. 8
12. 4
8. 2
12. 2
8. 5
5. 5
10. 4
1 Based on estimates of the Bureau or the Census.
• Includes the District or Columbia.
Source: Compiled• from official data on case loads as r eported to the Division of Research, Statistics, and
Finance of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration .
Note: This table was based on latest revised figures available at the date of analysis, November 1936.
r
<
)Lll 1E P Jr V
>CITV
102 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Table 10.-Average Monthly Relief Benefit per Family Case, 1 General Relief Program,
FERA, by States, 2 Ouarterly Intervals, July 1933-0ctober 1935
State and geographic di vision
~:f:J
July
1934
Octo- Janu•
I~
October
1g35
April
f9?;
11135
- - - - - - - ----1- -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - UnltedStates totaL ••• $15.51 $19. 08 $17. 15 ~2212
New England :
Maine .••••••• .• ••......
New Ilam ps blro •••••••••
Ve rmont ••.•..••••••.....
Massachusetts ••.•• • •••..
Rhode Island •.•••••...
Connecticut. .... • •..••
Middle Atla ntic:
N ew York .•• . •.... • ..•..
N ew 1er y •• •••• • •• ••••
Pennsylvania .•. •••• ••...
East No rth Central :
Ohio •.••••••••• • ...• •. . ••
Indiana •..••• . .•.•.•....•
Illinois ••••••••••••••••••
MlchiRan .••.. •.•.......
Wisconsin ........•. •.•...
West orth Central :
J\I lnnesota ••••••••••.•.•
I owa ••..•..•..• . . ••.....
:Missouri ..••••••• . •.••••.
North Dakota . . .... •.....
Sou th Dakota •••.•• . ....
Nebraska •• •• • ... . ......
$27. 8(
35. 9"
26. 20
22 49
34 32
31 21
27 49
39. 97
35. 04
29. 44
40. 07
30. 7
35. 64
38 26
28. 58
32. 20
47. 84
43. 05
43. 38
24. 62
31. 62
24 60
44 60
32. 13
45. 44
26. 47
32. 70
20. 53
46. 02
36. 62
43. 48
30. 69
19. 86
17.81
41. 64
30. 00
32. 79
46. 92
35. 77
29. 63
47. 91
33. 30
42. 50
49. 06
31.96
37. 80
36. 62
15. 70
12. 58
20. 77
19. 80
21. 7
19. 23
16. 15
22 34
2160
20. 43
24 24
28. 69
28. 41
31.
38. 16
30. 60
28. 65
35. 00
32 73
36. 94
31. 15
21. 73
29. 42
29 68
36. 63
22. 05
15. 22
27. 26
30. 64
30. 72
29. 26
21. 01
16. 12
27. 63
27. 93
23. 49
19 72
34. 82
25. 36
20. 20
2908
25. 04
26. 69
26. 95
26. 21
10. 00
20. 94
32. 27
23. 64
21.30
27. 36
15. 73
21. 52
31 22
26. 79
24. 70
29. 00
19 64
16. 36
29 35
JO 60
1 . 61
20. 78
12 73
12 22
17 15
10 07
14 7
8. 9"
Kansas.....•••••...•. •.•.
South Atlantic:
Delawa re .•• • •• •••.•.•...
Maryland •••.••• . •.•••..
Dis trict or Columbia •...
Vir Rinla ...•...•••.•....•
W t Vir~i nia ••..•.••...
North Carolina •••......•
outh Carolina .•..•.••.•.
Oeo~ia .••. ...• •• •. • . ....
Florida •.....•••• •••• •• . .•
East South C entral:
K entucky •••... . . •• •. . ...
Tennessee ... • . ••. •.. • . ...
Alabama ...•.•..••.•. •.•.
26.04
25. 56
20. 64
7. 93
12. 01
6. 95
6. 13
I I. 95
6. 64
17. 33
13. 38
13. 33
25 51
13. 73
20. 92
13. 67
22 78
I .37
14. 00
21. 00
23. 17
19. 03
18. 45
26. 71
27. 82
30. 00
29. 49
35.63
30 2
25. 28
17. 24
25. 22
24. 27
28. 03
21.88
13. JI
26. 61
22. 78
30. 95
1
16. 64
15. 07
14..44
44
6. 69
JO. 71
. 65
JO. 52
13. 19
19. 14
. <ll
20. 07
10. 26
12. 33
22. 54
7.35
11.07
t~T~:SS::::::::::::::::
Oklahoma •.••.. . .•.... .••
13. 31
JI. 91
JI. 93
10. 56
4. 37
JO. 20
9. 85
13. 64
15. 96
14.. 19
I . 77
17. 90
14.. 34
19. 62
16. 96
13. 66
17.93
43. 39
32 2
35. 71
west1s~uft:P~~iitrai:·········
Texas .• ....••.•.. ..•.....
Mountain :
Montana ..••• •.•. • .•••.. .
I daho . ....... .. ···-·· .. . .
Wyoming ....•.•........ .
Colorado ... ..• . . ... •••. ..
New Mexico ....•••.... ..
Arizona .... .....• ........
tab ... .... ........•... . .
Nevada ..••..•..•.•..•...
P acific:
Washington . •.••••.•.....
Oregon . ... .. ....••.. .... .
California ..••• ........ ...
24. 34 $26. 43 i:J0. 45 $28. 00 $29.64
11.00
16. 75
17. 34
13. 10
10. 13
11.60
17. 70
12. 96
9. 93
9. 46
16. 13
14. 30
13. 42
27 GS
7. 50
14. 61
16. 35
26. 17
. 79
13. 92
13. 06
1 .30
10.38
11.19
25. 30
13 84
22. 80
17. 08
12. 55
15. 65
17. 28
17. 30
25. 72
15. 50
23. 15
26. 63
22.10
16. 26
21.45
33. 24
32. 26
24. 94
37. 80
29. 02
16. 31
19. 36
30. 33
39. 61
36.62
25. 03
24 . 53
30. 69
22. 12
19. 58
29.84
48.84
26. 89
20. 84
22. 35
26. 52
14. 77
23. 55
26. 93
44. 00
27. 38
23. 91
34.. 24
28. 38
12. 40
24. 99
24. 58
46. 27
26. 77
22. 56
26. 08
27. 84
10. 73
23. 97
23. 73
30.43
18. 18
17. 84
19. 97
21. 10
24. 31
29. 95
19. 54
26. 64
32.09
25. 18
30. 33
40. 00
23. 43
24. 38
41.39
23. 21
26. 80
45. 38
25.58
24. 77
48.34
1 Based on a net unduplicated count or relier cases; some cases received both direct and work relier during
a given month, either successively or concurrently.
• Includes the District or Columbia.
Source: Compiled Crom official data on obligations incurred and case loads as reported to the Division or
Research, Statistics, and Finance ol the Federal Emergency R elier Administration.
' ote: This table was based on latest revised figures available at the date ol analysis, Xovember 1936.
q1tr C j
It'
~~
A." 11\tE
<
JLLI 'E P J
,
'I
FIG. 24 - DISTRIBUTION OF 385 SAMPLE COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS
REPRESENTED IN THE RURAL- TOWN RELIEF SERIES
)>
'O
'O
~
::J
..
a...
X
OJ
~
• • • •
-
&
Note : Connecticut and Massachusetts
sampled by townships.
0
w
•&.•
AF•2411, W.P.A
r git,
IN
<N.
e
ARl IIV-
0 J
NIVFP
T
Appendix C
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UN I TS PARTICIPATING IN THE WOR KS PROG RAM,
DECEMBER 31, 1935 1
Legislative Establishments:
Library of Congress
Executive Departments:
Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Agricultural Engineering
Bureau of Animal Industry
Bureau of Biological Survey
Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine
Bureau of Chemistry and Soils
Bureau of Dairy Industry
Bureau of Plant Industry
Bureau of Public Roads
Extension Service
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
Weather Bureau
Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census
Bureau of Fisheries
Bureau of Lighthouses
National Bureau of Standards
1 This list was compiled from the following sources: The Report of the President
of the United States to the Congress of the Operations under the Emergency Relief
Appropriation Act of 1935, January 9, 1936; Report on the Works Program, l\Iarch
16, 1936; and United States Government l\lanual, 1936.
1 OS
C
r )ll' 1E /> Jr V 'CITY
106 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1935
Ex rutive Departments- ontinued.
Depnrtmen t of th In tcrior
Ala ka Road ommi ion
All-American anal
Bur au of R clamation
Bituminous oal omm1ss10n
eologi al urv y
ational Park rvice
Office of Education
Puerto Rico R construction Admini tration
t. Elizab th Ilo pital
T mporary overnm nt of the irgin I slands
D partment of Ju tice
D partment of Labor
Bureau of Immigration and aturnlization
Bureau of Lab r tati tic
nited tate Employment ervice
D partment of th
avy
Bureau of Yard and Do ks
Department of the Tr a ury
Bureau of Int rnal R ev nue
Bureau of Public Health rvice
on t Guard
Procurement Divi ion
Department of War
Office of the hief of Engineers
Office of the Quart rma ter General
Independent E tabli hment :
Advisory Committee on Allotments
Alley Dwelling Authority
Civil ._,ervice Commi ion
Emergency Con ervation Work
Employees' Compensation Commission
Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works (PWA) ,
Non-Federal Division
Housing D ivi ion
Federal Emergency Relief Administration
General Accounting Office
National Emergency Council
National R esources Committee
Prison Industries R eorganization Administration
R esettlement Administration
R ural Electrification Administration
Veterans' Administration
Works Progress Administration
EP
~
v
Appendix D
METHODOLOGICAL
NOT E ON
TH E
ESTIMATES OF EXPENDI TURES FOR
CA TE G OR IC AL RELIEF IN T H'E
UN I TED S TA TES, 19 3 3-19 3 5
EsnMATES OF the amounts expended in the United States during
1933, 1934, and 1935 for aid to the aged, aid to the blind, and aid to
dependent children are based on State data available from various
sources. State expenditures for old-age relief in 1933 and 1934 and
partial data for 1935 were obtained from surveys made by the United
States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data on State expenditures for
blind relief for 1933 were obtained largely from the American Foundation for the Blind, and for 1934 and 1935 from annual surveys made
by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Comprehensive
data on aid to dependent children were available only for the years
1931 and 1934 from surveys made by the United States Children's
Bureau. Information from the above sources was supplemented by
data collected or published by State Departments of Welfare or in State
Treasurers' reports. In some instances it was necessary to adjust
data from a fiscal to a calendar year basis and to include some estimated figures to build up annual State totals for each category of
relief.
For those years for which expenditure data were not available-i. e.,
aid to dependent children in 1933 and 1935-annual totals were
estimated by using existing annual figures and applying the percentage
change indicated by the Children's Bureau Urban Relief Series for
that category of relief .1
1 See Part I, p. 29, for a description of this series, and table 14 for relative
numbers indicating trends in categorical relief since January 1929.
107
108 • TRENDS IN RELIEF EXPENDITURES, 1910-1 935
Aft r the nnnual totals for th
nited tat s were obtain d by
combining the State data for ach category, monthly timat s were
derived by spreading the expenditur s over the months in accordance
with tr nds e tabli bed for the 120 arens included in the rban Relief
eries. Becau e of di£ferences in data available for the thr e types of
relief, the procedure followed in adju ting monthly xpenditures
varied somewhat,2 but in every case the urban reli f trends were used
to ch k the a uracy of the timat .
e of thi trend a an adjustm nt fa tor was believed to be ju tifi d by the fact that a very substantial bare of the total volume of relief to special lasses during
these years was extended in the 120 urban areas r pr ented in the
series. Tb adj u ted figures are undoubtedly more accurate thnn could
be secured by pr ading annual expenditures evenly over the months.
The re ulting timate are n c arily rough, but they are believed
to give a fairly ad quate mea ure of the tr nd and volume of categorical a i tance in the nited tates a a whole during the 3-year
period. It is apparent from the tr nds shown in Part I that expenditures for aid to the aged, to the blind, and to dependent children are
remarkably stable except a they are affected by new tate legislation.
Ali t of r cent law providing for old-age relief and aid to dependent
children in an additional number of tates i given in Part I. The
effect of the e laws is reflected in the monthly timate .
Estimates of expenditures in individual States are not presented
here since they are nece arily imperfect, and in some cases they
undoubtedly repre ent serious understatement or overstatement of
expenditures. It is believed, however, that these errors tend to
cancel each other in the estimates for total United States.
Source materials used in constructing the estimates are listed
below:
Aid to the Aged:
1. P arker, Florence E., "Experience Under State Old-Age P ension
Act of 1934," Monthly Labor Review, August 1935. Also reprint of
same article, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Serial No. R 270.
2. Unpublished data supplied by Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Summary of Operations Under Old-Age P ension Acts, 1935 .
3. Economic Security Act, H earings before the Committee on Ways
and Means, H. R ., 1935, T able 14, " Operation of Old-Age P ension
Laws of the United States, 1934," p . 77 .
Aid to the Blind:
1. Unpublished data supplied by the American F oundation for the
Blind, I nc., New York City.
s For example, monthly estimates for old-age relief expenditures during 1933
and 1934 were adjusted according to case-load data fo r old-age relief during those
years.
[
i'JT
'
NE
Pr
v
METHODOLOGICAL NOTE • 109
2. Public Provision for Pensions for the Blind in 1934, Serial No.
R 257, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
3. Public Pensions for the Blind, Serial No. R 422, U. S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
4. State of Illinois, Biennial Report of the Treasurer, 1934.
5. State of Wisconsin, Blind Pensions in Wisconsin, 1907-1934.
Aid to Dependent Children :
l. Mothers' Aid, 1931, Publication No. 220, U. S. Children's
Bureau.
2. Economic Security Act, Hearings before the Committee on Ways
and Means, H. R., 1935, Table 18, "Estimated Number of Families
and Children Receiving Mothers' Aid and Estimated Expenditures
for this Purpose," p. 80. (Based on :figures of November 1934 from
U. S. Children's Bureau.)
,,
1
)Ll 1 1E />
1
V ,c1-rv
Index
111
21612°-37-9
"
INDEX
Aaronson, Franklin. See Woofter, T . J., Jr.
Paue
Act of February 15, 1934_ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __
33n
Acts relating to relief disbursements_____ _______ ________ _____________
33
Act of February 15, 1934_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _
33n
Economic Security Act_ _____________ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ 108, 109
Emergency Appropriation Act, Fiscal Year 1935___________________
33n
Emergency R elief Act of 1936_ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __
7 4n
Emergency R elief and Construction Act ________________________ __ 32-33
Emergency R elief Appropriation Act of 1935 _____ _____ ___ ______ 33n, 74n
Federal Emergency R elief Act of 1933 _________________________ ___
33n
First D efici ency Appropriation Act, Fiscal Year 1937 _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __
72n
National Industrial R ecovery Act _______ _____ ___________________ 33n, 70
Socia l Security Act_ ___________________________________________
4
Administrative shifts in relief programs, effect oL _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _
76
Aid to aged, to blind, and to dependent children. S ee Categorical relief.
xi
Aid, t ypes of, included in study______ ______________________________ _
American Association of Community Organization. See Clapp, R aymon d .
America n Foundation for the Blind __ ____ ____ __ ________________ ___ ___
108
American Red Cross, The Distribution of Government-Owned Wh eat and
Cotton__ _______ _____________ _______________________________ _____
62n
Case, defined_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ 54, 5 7n
Case-load data, comparability of ____ ____ ____________________________ 54-59
Ca,es receiving r elief:
Average monthly amount received by ___________________________ 89, 102
Obligations compared to ___ __ ___ ________________________________ 81- 86
Number of, by t y pe of relief_ ___________________________ _____ ___ 56- 57
Ci>,tegorical relief:
Administration of_ ___ __ _____ ___________________ ____ . ___________ 74-75
Defined ________________________________ __ _______ ______ _______ 2n, 29
Expenditures _____ ___________ ______ _____________ _ 7, 10, 23, 35-37, 42, 45
Emergency and wage assistance, compared with ____ ________ 61 , 75-78
Private and public relief, compared with _____ ____ __ ________ 30-32, 41
Social Security Act, effect on ___ ___________________________ 4, 37, 75
F ederal participation in __ __ _____________________________ 4-5, 37, 74-75
Legislation for ________ __ ______ ______________________ ______ 3- 4, 91-92
Source material_____ ____________________________ ______ ______ 107-109
Civil Works Administration ____ __ __ _________________ _______ ______ 21 , 72-73
Civilian Conservation C orps_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ 51 n, 72
Clapp, Raymon d, "Relief in 19 Cities" _________________________ 15-16, 46, 99
Colcord, Joanna; Koplovitz, William C.; and Kurtz, Russell H .:
Emergency Work Relief __________________________________________ _ 37n
College student aid program ____ ______________________________ _____ _
69
Comparison of relief trends, selected areas ___ ________ ___ ___________ __ _ 45-47
113
114 • INDEX
Page
Cone pts of r lief_ _____ _
_ _________________________ _
47, 51
Conclusions concerning trends in relief c.xp nditurcs __ _______________ _ xiii-xiv
Cost of living, r •lation of, to relief expenditures___ _______ _ _______ _
l 3 14
Current Statistics of Relief in Rural and Town Areas _____ ______ ____ __ _
On
Depression, tr ct of, on relief_ _____
__________________ _
2, 25
Direct relief (see also Emergency r lief; Work relief)___ __ _________ _
07
Duplication on relief rolls _______ ______
________________ _
55, 58
Economic, curity Act ____________________________________ _ l 08, 109
Em rgcncy Appropriation Act, Fiscal Year 193.5 ________________ _
33n
Emergency education program __
69
Emergency relief (see also Dir ct relief; Private relief; Public relief;
'p cial program relief; Work relief)
_ _ _ _ ___
G2 70
ascs, numb r of, r cciving _____ ·----------------56-57
] cfi ned _ _ _ ___ ______ _
,52n, 62
Exp nditur ________ _
64 67
atcgorical and, compar d with mcrgcncy, categorical, and
wage assistance __
76
Wage a sistancc and categorical compared with _____ 6 65, 75, 77-78
Wage assistance tr nds compared with _______________________ 76- 78
Obligations incurred for__ __ ___ ___
_ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _
06
tate legislation for ___ ___ __ ___ _ ___ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ ___ __ __ __ _ ___
91- 92
Em rgcncy R elief Act of 1936____ _
---------------------------74n
Emcri;cncy Rcli f and Construction Act ___________________________ 32-33
Emergency R cli f Appropriation Act of 1935______________________
33n, 74n
Exp nditur scri s, limitations of_ ______ ---------------------------- 59-60
Expenditures, defined________________ _______ ____ ___________________
GOn
FERA Form lOA General Instructions_ ______________________________
38n
FERA Rul sand Regulations No. 3____ _____________________________
37n
Famili sin their homes, relief to ____ ____ ___ _______________ ____ _ 26-28, 92-94
Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933____ __________________ _______ __ _ 33n
Federal Emergency Relief Administration. See Emergency relief.
Federal participation in r elief_ __________ ________ ___________ 2, 4-5, 52, 60-78
Aclministrati ve shifts____ _____ __________ ________________________
76
Categorical ____ ______________________ _________________________ 74-75
Emergency ____ ___________ ________ ________________ __ __________ 62-70
Direct_ ___________________________________________________
67
Special program_ ___________ ____ ___________________________ 68-70
Work _______________ _____________________________________ 67-68
Wage assistance .. ________________ ______ ______ _________________ 70-74
Civilian Conservation Corps__________________________ _____ _
72
Civil Works Administration _________________________________ 72-73
Works Program _____________ __ __ ___ ______ ___ ________ ______ 73- 74
Federal Government units participating in Works Program ________ 51, 105-106
Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation, Report * * * 1985______
62n
Financial Statistics of Cities * * *. See United States Bureau of the
Census.
First Deficiency Appropriation Bill for 1936___________________________
55n
First Deficiency Appropriation Act, Fiscal Year 1937 _ _ _ _ ________ _____ _ 72n
Geographic variations _________________ ___ ____________ ___ ___________ 26-28
Governmental-cost payments ________ _________ ____ __________________ 10-12
INDEX • 115
Holcombe, John L. See Lowe, Robert C.
Page
Homeless men, relief to ________ _____ _________ __ ___ ______ ______ 26-28, 92-94
Hopkins, Harry L., statements of, on appropriation bill________________
55n
Huntley, Kate, Financial Trends in Organized Social Work in New York
City ___________ ___ ____ __________ __ _____________ ___________ 18-21, 46, 99
Hurlin, Ralph G., "The Mounting Bill for R elief" __________ ___ __ 12-15, 46, 99
Indiana State Board of Charities ______________________________ 23- 25, 46, 99
I ndices, monthly r elief expenditures__________________________________
98
King, Willford I., Trends in Philanthropy ________________________ 16-18, 46, 99
Koplovitz, William C. See Colcord, Joanna.
Kurtz, Russell H. See Colcord, Joanna.
Legislative trends__________________________________________ _____ ___
Local administration of relief________________________________________
Lowe, Robert C.:
Analysis of Current State and Local Funds Specifically Assigned to
Various Welfare Activities_____________________________________
Data on veteran r elief legislation compiled by_____________________
Digest of State L egislation for the Financing of Emergency Relief, J anuary 1, 1931- J une 30, 1935 ____ _______________ _____ __ ________ __
FERA Di gest of State L egislation for the Financing of Emergency R elief,
January 1, 1931- J une 30, 1935 __ ________ _______ __________ ____ _
- - - and Associates, Digest of Poor R elief Laws of the Several States and
Territories as of JY!ay 1, 1936 ______________ ________________ ___ _____
- - - and Holcombe, John L., L egislative T rends in State and Local Responsibility for P ublic Assistance___________________________________
- - - and Staff:
Supplement to Digest of State L egislation * * *----------------Supplement to FERA Digest of State L egislation * * * _ _________
2-5
2-4
37n
3n
5n
91n
2n
4n
5n
91n
Mangus, A. R., S ee Woofter, T. J., Jr.
Measurement of r elief burden __ _________________ _________________ xi, 51-53
Methodology ______ __ ________________ ______________________________ 51-53
Categorical r elief expenditure estimates _________________________ 107-109
Monthly benefits, per family case ___ __ _________________ _____________ 89,102
Monthly combined r elief expenditures________________________________
76
Mothers' Aid, 1931_ __ ________ ___ __ __________ ________ ____ _________ __
109
National aspects of relief______ _______________ ______________________
xi
Nati onal Industrial Recovery Act___________________________________
33n
New Haven. See King, Willford I.
New York City. See Huntley, Kate.
New York State D epartment of Social Welfare __________________ 21-23, 46, 99
Obligations incurred ____ ___________________________________________ 66-67
Defined _ ______ ___ ____________________________________________
60n
Per inhabitant _____ _____ _____________________________________ 87, 100
Trends of, compared to cases ____ _______________________________ _ 81-86
Outdoor relief, defined__ _ __ ________________ __________ ___________ ___
xi
Parker, Florence E., "Experience Under State Old Age Pension Acts in
1934'' -- ---- --------------------------------- - ---------------- 91n, 108
116 • INDEX
Population:
Poqe
I ncr ase in, relation of, to reli f cor;t rise ____ _
10-13
______________ _ 88, 101
P rcent of, rec iving relief_
President's Organization on ncmploymcut Relief_ ___ _
_ 26, 29n
Private relief :
Agencies, types of, giving ____ . ___ _
30 31
Public compar d with
_ 14 15, 1 21, 30- 35, 40 -4 1, 47, 92 93, 94, 96 97
Public a ssistance burd n, omponent parts of ___
GO 75
Public assistance, combin cl tr nd of_ ___
_____________________ 75 7
Public P ensions for the Blind
______________ _____ ____ __ _
109
"Public P nsions for the Blind in 193,5" ___
___________________
91n
Public Provision/or P en.~ions for the Blind in 193J, _____
________
109
Public r elief (see alio Privater lief) , typ s of agencies giving __________
31
Purpose of study__ ________________ ___ __ ________________ _ . __ _
xi
orporation _____________________________ _
Reconstruction Finance
32-33
Relief, defined . ___ _
xi
R eport of the Pre&ident of the nited Stales to the ongre~s of the Operations
under the Emergency R elief Appropriation Act of 1935, January 9,
1986 , The____
_ _______________ _
105n
Report on Progress of the Works Program ___ ___ ·--------------- ___ _
72n
R eport on the lVorks Program, March 16 , 1986 _ ________ _
105n
Ro s, Emerson, and Whiting, T . E., "Changes in the umb r of Relief
__ _ _ __ _ _ _
54n
Recipients, 1933- 1936" ____ __ ___ ___ __ __
Rural rehabilitation program _____________________________ _ _
6 n, 69-70
Rural-Town Reli f cries _____ _ _ __ ___ ___ ____________ __ _ 40 42, 43, 46, 99
ample countie, distribution of_ ______ -----------------------103
Rural, urban, and total nited tates trends_____ _
__________ _ 43-44
Ru ll age Foundation (see also Burlin, Ralph G., "The Mounting Bill
for Relief") ________________________________________________ ln , 26n, 29n
Series, r elief, included in study:
Clapp, Raymond, "Relief in 19 Cities"_ __ ___ ___________ ____
15--16
Huntley , Kate, Financial Trends in Organized Social Work in New
York City ___________________________________________________ 18--21
Burlin, Ralph G., "The Mounting Bill for Relief" _________ ________ 12-15
Indiana State Board of Charities. ______________ ___ ___ ___ ________ 23-25
King, Willford I., Trends in Philanthropy _________________________ 16--18
New York State D epartment of Social Welfare __ __________________ 21- 23
Rural-Town R elief Series. _____ ____ ______________________ ____ ___ 40-42
United States Bureau of the Census, Financial Statistics of Cities
Having a Populatie,n of Over 100,000, 1911- 1931____ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ 6--12
United States Bureau of the Census, Relief Expenditures by Governmental and Private Organizations, 1929 and 1981 _________________ 2,'>--28
Urban and Rural-Town R elief Series___________ ______ __________ __ 42-45
Winslow, Emma A., T rends in Different Typ es of Public and Private
R elief in Urban Areas, 1929-85 ________________________________ 29-40
Trends of, compared ____ _______________________________________ 45--47
80
Series, relief, compiled_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ __ __________ _______ ___________ __
Social Security Act_ _____ ______ __________________ ______ ______ ______ 4, 75
Social Sec urity Board _______ __ __ ___________ _____ ___________ ___ 5n, 29n, 52n
Sources of data ________________ _______ ______ ________ xii, 1, 5--6, 52, 107-109
Special allowances. See Categorical relief.
Special classes. See Categorical r elief.
Special program relief.__ __________ _____ ____________________________ 68--70
State of Illinois, Biennial Report of the Treasurer, 1934_ _ _ __ _ ___________
109
INDEX •
117
Page
State of Indiana, Governor's Commission on Unemployment R elief, Year
Book * * * 1934, 1935 ______________________________________ _ 24n
State of Wisconsin, Blind Pensions in Wisconsin, 1907-1934 ____ _______ _
109
State trends, variability in ____________________ __ ___________________ _ 78- 79
Statutory forms of assistance, variation in terms for ___________________ _
2n
Surplus commodities, value of, in relief distribution ___________________ _
62
Terms used, defined (see also specific terms) ____ ____ ___ _______ ________ _
Transient program ____________________ _______________ __.___________ _
xi
69
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics _______________________ 13n, 20n, 52n
United States Bureau of the Census:
Financial Statistics of Cities Having a Population of Over 100,000,
1911-1931 __________________________________________ 5n, 6--12, 46, 99
Relief Expenditures by Governmental and Private Organizations, 1929
and 1931- _________________________________ 5n, 25-28, 46, 93n, 94n, 99
State population estimates ____________ ________ _____ ___________ 23n, 25n
United States Children's Bureau:
Changes in Different Types of Public and Private Relief in Urban Areas__
34n
Chart No. 3, "A Tabular Summary of State Laws Relating to Public
Aid to Children * * *" ___________________________________ 91n
Urban Relief Series (see also Winslow, Emma) _____ ___ _ 15, 29-40, 41, 46, 99
United States Government Manual, 1936__ __________ _________ _____ ___ __ 105n
Urban and Rural-Town Relief Series _____________ ___ ________ ___ 42- 45, 46, 99
Urban, rural, and total United States trends _________ _________________
43
Veteran relief_ __ _________ ________ _______ ___ _____________________ 3, 10, 41
Wage assistance __________ ______ _______ _______ __ ________________ XI, 70--7 4
Cases, number of, receiving _____________________________________ 56--57
Defined ____ ________ __ ______ _________ _________________________ XI, 70
Expenditures ____ _________ ___________ _____________ 60--62, 64--65, 71- 72
Emergency and categorical, compared with ____ ___ 60--62, 64--65, 77-78
Relation of, to total relief burden ____________________________ 60- 62
Trend of monthly______________ _____________________ ______
75
Welfare Council of New York City. See Huntley, Kate.
Whiting, T. E. S ee Ross, Emerson.
Winslow, Emma A., Trends in Different Types of Public and Private
Relief in Urban Areas, 1929-35 ________ 5n, 30n, 32n, 34n, 36n, 39n, 95n, 97n
Woofter, T. J ., Jr.; Aaronson, Franklin; and Mangus, A. R.: Relief in
Urban and Rural-Town Areas, 1932-1936 (see also Urban and RuralTown Relief Series) ____ ___________________ _____ _____ __ __________ 6n, 43n
Work programs, agencies sponsoring_________________ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _
70
Work relief (see also Emergency relief) ___ __ __ __________________ 40, 47, 67-68
Compared with direct ____________________________________ 22- 23, 37-39
Works Program ________________________ ____ ___ __________ _________ _ 73- 74
Employment requirements oL ____________ ___ _______________ __ __ 73- 74
Federal Government units participating in ___________________ 70, 105-106
0
),._
I
CI"
@FedFRASER