FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION - FRASER · 2018. 11. 7. · federal emergency relief...

FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION

HARRY L. HOPKINS Federal Lmmrgmncy R«li«f Administrator

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS OCTOBER 1933

REPORT NUMBER ONE

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION

HARRY L HOPKINS Federal Emergency Relief AdminUtrttor

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS

OCTOBER 1933

UNITED STATES SUMMARY

SHOWING BY GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS. BY STATES. AND BY

CITIES DETAILED DATA CONCERNING COLOR AND

SIZE OF RELIEF FAMILIES, AND THE AGE,

COLOR. AND SEX OF PERSONS IN

RELIEF FAMILIES

MSB

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1934


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., May IS, 1984.

SIR: I transmit herewith the final report covering the Unemploy-ment Relief Census secured in the Nation-wide survey of all families and persons receiving relief from public funds during October 1933,

The information contained in this report gives, for the first time, reliable facts relating to the families receiving relief and should prove of great value in determining relief policies.

The field work of this census was carried on throughout the country under the direction and supervision of the State emergency relief administrations. It gives me pleasure to inform jrou that tlie State and local relief officials realized the importance of this census and gave us their hearty cooperation throughout. The survey was conducted under the general supervision of Howard B. Myers, Assistant Director, Division of Research and Statistics. Charles F. Beach directed the field-work as well as the tabulating of the basic material. Dorothy Swaine Thomas prepared the final draft of the report. Emerson Ross served in an advisory capacity. The services of others who assisted in various capacities but who are not specifically mentioned are acknowl-edged with appreciation.

Respectfully, CORRINGTON GlLL,

Director Research and Statistics. Hon. HARRY L. HOPKINS,

Federal Emergency Relief Administrator. ni


TABLE OF CONTENTS

* SUBJECT Page

Introduction ._ l Summary 2 Location of relief families . r_ 3 Color or race of persons in relief families 7 Size of relief families... 9 Age of persons in relief families 12 Sex of persons in relief families 16 Limitations of the data and of the comparisons. 17 Method of collecting data _ _ , . 19 States included in the various geographic divisions 20 Alphabetical locator of cities _ 21 Schedule of Unemployment Relief Census _ _ 22

LIST OP CHARTS Chart 1 Total number of families receiving public unemployment relief, October

1933, by States 4 2 Percent of total persons in relief families, October 1933, to total persons

in each State, 1930 census. _ 5 3 Comparative size of families of two or more persons, United States—

shown by percent of total families of two or more persons in each class for families receiving relief, October 1933, and all families, 1930 census 12

LIST OF TABLES Table A. Comparison of persons in relief families, October 1933, with all persons,

Population Census, 1930 for cities having a population of 100,000 or more in 1930 6

B. Comparison of persons in Negro relief families with persons in white relief families, October 1933, as shown by percentages of total Negro population and total white population, respectively, in the Popula-tion Census, 1930 for States having more than 100,000 Negroes in 1930 I 7

C. Comparison of persons in Negro relief families with persons in white relief families, October 1933, as shown by percentages of total Negro population and total white population, respectively, in the Popula-tion Census, 1930 for cities having more than 50,000 Negroes in 1930. 8

•U. Comparison of persons in relief familes of other races (excluding whites and Negroes) with persons in white relief families, October 1933, as shown by percentages of total population of other races and total white population, respectively, in the Population Census, 1930 for States having more than 50,000 persons of other races in 1930 - 9

&> One-person relief families as percentage of total relief families, October 1933, by geographic divisions, and color or race -- 10

*• Comparison of relief families of two or more persons, October 1933, with all families of two or more persons in the Population Census, 1930, as shown in percentages - II

v*. Comparison of persons in relief families, October 1933, by age groups, with all persons in the Population Census, 1930, as shown by per-centages, for geographic divisions, States, and total for principal cities _ - --- 13

«• United States summary—Ratio of number of relief persons, October 1933, in specified age groups to all persons in these age groups, 1930 Population Census, by color or race. -- 14

Y


VI CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES—Continued Table Page I. Comparison of Negroes over 65 years of age and whites over 65 years

of age on relief, October 1933, as shown in percentages of their respective age and racial groups in the Population Census, 1930, for States having more than 100,000 total Negro population in 1930 15

J. Comparison of sex ratio (males per 100 females) of persons in relief families, October 1933, with all persons, Population Census, 1930, by geographic divisions and by totals of principal cities . 16

1£. United States Summary Sex Ratio (males per 100 females) by color or race 17

L. Comparison of sex ratio, (males per 100 females) of persons in relief families, October 1933, with all persons, Population Census 1930, by age groups and color or race 17

UNITED STATES SUMMARY AND MAIN GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS

1. Number of relief families, October 1933, by color or race 23 2. Number of relief families, October 1933, by size and color or race 24 3. Number of persons in relief families, October 1933, by age, color or race,

and sex * 26 4. Comparison of persons in relief families, October 1933, by age, color or

race, and sex, with all persons enumerated in the Census of Popula-tion, 1930, as shown in percentages 30

STATES

5» Number of relief families, October 1933, by color or race 34 6. Number of relief families, October 1933, by size and color or race 36 7. Number of persons in relief families, October 1933, by age, color or

race, and sex 42 8. Comparison of persons in relief families, October 1933. by age, color

or race, and sex, with all persons enumerated in the Census of Popu-lation, 1930, as shown in percentages 58

PRINCIPAL CITIES (100,000 OR MORE POPULATION)

9-A. Number of relief families, October 1933, by color or race, by cities of 1,000,000 or more _ _ 78

9-B. Number of relief families, October 1933. by color or race, by cities of 1,000,000 to 250,000... _ _____ 78

9-C. Number of relief families, October 1933, by color or race, by cities of 250,000 to 100,000 ___ ___ 79

10-A. Number of relief families, October 1933, by size and color or race, by cities of 1,000,000 or more 80

10-B. Number of relief families, October 1933, by size and color or race, by cities of 1,000,000 to 250,000 _ 80

10-C. Number of relief families, October 1933, by size and color or race, by cities of 250,000 to 100.000 84

11-A. Number of persons in relief families, October 1933, by age, color or race, and sex, by cities of 1,000,000 or more 90

11-B. Number of persons in relief families, October 1933, bv age, color or race, and sex, by cities of 1,000,000 to 250,000.—" __ 94

11-C. Number of persons in relief families, October 1933, by age, color or race, and sex, by cities of 250,000 to 100,000 _- 104

12-A. Comparison of persons in relief families, October 1933, by age, color or race, and sex, with all persons enumerated in the Census of Population, 1930, as shown in percentages, by cities of 1,000,000 or more 122

12-B. Comparison of persons in relief families, October 1933, by age, color or race, and sex, with all persons enumerated in the Census of Popu-lation, 1930, as shown in percentages, bv cities of 1,000,000 to 250,000 I 126

12-C. Comparison of persons in relief families, October 1933, by age and sex, with all persons enumerated in the Census of Population, 1930, as shown in percentages, by cities of 250,000 to 100,000.-^ 138


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS, OCTOBER 1933 INTRODUCTION

Grants of Federal funds to the States to provide relief for needy-unemployed persons have been so widespread and of such magnitude as to require more than a financial accounting. The Federal Emer-gency Belief Administration has received each month, since April 1933, a statement from each State, showing the number of families receiving public unemployment relief and the amount expended from Federal, State and local funds in each county or other local political subdivi-sion. Expenditures were broken down so as to show separately the cost of rehef for resident families, and for transients, as well as admin-istrative costs. Beginning with July, information concerning the number of persons in the families receiving relief and the amounts expended for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, household necessi-ties, etc., has been given in detail in the regular monthly reports. These monthly reports are submitted to the Federal Emergency Relief Administration by State relief administrations, which in turn obtain the information from local relief agencies. If, however, relief is to be administered and legislation is to oe enacted with a thorough under-standing of the many problems involved, more information must be at hand than is provided by the regular monthly reports.

Accordingly, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration has undertaken a number of surveys to secure specific information about the people receiving unemployment relief. The first step was the collection of relief census data throughout the United States to learn the basic characteristics of the resident relief population in each State and its smaller political subdivision. At the same time supplementary studies were planned to provide in greater detail more intensive analyses of local conditions which may be interpreted both in terms of rural and agricultural conditions and in terms of urban and indus-trial conditions. Another series of local studies was outlined to sur-vey transients and the problems of transiency.

The Unemployment Relief Census covered the resident families receiving public unemployment relief during the month of October 1933. The present report shows the chief interrelationships in the data obtained in the relief census for the United States, for the main geographical divisions, for separate States, and for the principal cities. A more detailed geographical break-down and an analysis in terms of urban and rural aggregates will be made available at a later date.

The Unemployment Relief Census yielded data on the number of resident families receiving relief, the color or race of the heads of relief households, the size of their families, and the age and sex of the indi-viduals who compose these families. Family was defined in the relief census as "a group of related or unrelated persons living together at

l


2 UNEMPLOYMENT BELIEF CENSUS

one address, who are receiving relief, and who are considered as one 'case' by the agency giving the relief." A one-person family was "any individual receiving relief, not included in a family or household as defined above." A family was considered resident if its head had been living in the State for at least a year. Transients (i.e., relief families whose head had lived in the State for less than a year), were not included in the relief census. In tables 1 to 12, inclusive, the data are presented for the United States as a whole, for the nine geographical divisions of the country, for the 48 States and the Dis-trict of Columbia, and for each of the 93 cities having a population of 100,000 or more in 1930.

These 12 tables are arranged in three groups, representing the larger geographic divisions, the separate States, and the principal cities, respectively. Within each of these groups there are three tables of basic data on the relief families and the persons in these families, and one table showing comparisons between the relief data and general population data, from the census of 1930.

SUMMARY

The outstanding facts of the Federal unemployment relief situa-tion in the United States brought out by the Unemployment Relief Census of October 1933 are the regional concentration of relief per-sons both absloute and relative to the population in 1930, the marked differences in the proportions of the white, Negro, and other races on relief, the excess of large families among relief cases, and the dispropor-tionately large number of children,, as contrasted with an under-representation of the older age groups.

The regional concentration is indicated by the fact that in 3 States about a quarter of the whole population was on relief, whereas the United States average was about 10 percent, and 7 States had 5 per-cent or less on relief. The principal cities averaged higher than the United States as a whole, and, for the most part, were above the average of the States in which they are located.

Negroes were on relief in almost twice as great a proportion to their numbers in the population as were whites, but in a few States with large Negro population, the proportion of whites on relief exceeded that of Negroes. In all cities with appreciable Negro population, the proportion of Negroes on relief greatly exceeded that of whites.

Small families (2 to 4 persons) were found less frequently and large families (5 or more persons) more frequently among relief cases than in the general population. Among Negroes, however, small families were represented to about the same extent in both the relief group and the general population. One-person families formed an appreciable proportion (13 percent) of all relief families and represented more than 3 percent of all relief persons. The average proportion of one-person families in large cities was somewhat greater than the United States average.

Children formed a disproportionately large part of the relief group as compared with the general population. This was particularly true of the age group 6 to 13, although each age group up to 18 years showed an excess of relief persons. Persons over 65 years of age were under-represented in the relief group, but here again the Negroes showed a contrasting tendency, the proportion of persons over 65 of this race being greater than their average percentage for all ages.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS 3

LOCATION OF RELIEF FAMILIES

More than half the families on unemployment relief were in 8 States, and more than a third in 4 States—Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, and Ohio. Chart 1 shows in detail the distribution of the relief families in the 48 States and the District of Columbia.

Pennsylvania, with the largest number of families on relief, had more than 200 times as many as Wyoming, the State with the smallest num-ber. Chart 2, however, indicates that this difference was partly due to the relative population of the two States. In this chart, the number of persons in relief families is expressed as a percentage of the total population in each State in 1930. Although 3 of the 4 States which had the highest number of families on relief also had percentages of relief persons higher than the United States average, they were ex-ceeded by a group of States showing much higher proportions. In Florida, South Carolina, and West Virginia about a quarter of the population was on unemployment relief, and in Arizona and Kentucky, nearly one fifth. At the other extreme, seven States had one twentieth or less of the total population on unemployment relief. Of these, ,the lowest proportions were found in Wyoming, Virginia, and Vermont.

When the larger geographic divisions are considered, the highest average proportion of persons on relief was found in the East South Central division, and the lowest average proportion in New England and the West North Central divisions. Three of the four States in the East South Central division were above the United States average, but the fourth State, Tennessee had only 7 percent on reliel. The New England States were consistently low, and only 1 of the 7 States in the West North Central division—South Dakota— was above t ic United States average. Although 3 of the States in the South Atlantic division had the 3 highest proportions of all States in the Union, the other 6 States in this division were well below the United States average.

Most of the larger cities were somewhat above average in the pro-portion of their population on relief. The five cities with a million or more population, however, had an average relief percent close to that for the country as a whole. This was due to New York's 10

fercent and Los Angeles' 9 percent. The other three cities—Chicago, hiladelphia, and Detroit—were slightly higher than the United States average.

The 32 cities with populations between 1,000,000 and 250,000 aver-aged 12 percent on relief. Three cities—Toledo, Pittsburgh, and New Orleans—had more than one sixth of the population on relief. Louisville, Ky., ranked lowest, with only 1 person in 20 on relief and jvas also the only city in this group with an average relief percentage below that of the State in which it is located. Five other cities (excluding Washington, D.C.) had percentages approximately equal to those of their respective States, and in 25 the city relief percentages were higher than the corresponding States percentages. Since the State average is based on all relief persons in the State and includes the cities, this result is all the more significant.

The 56 cities next in size (population between 250,000 and 100,000) had about the same average percent on relief as the preceding group. The variation among these cities was, however, somewhat greater. In Jacksonville, Fla., nearlv a third of the population was on relief; u* Tampa, a fourth; and in San Antonio, a fifth. At the other extreme,


4 UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS

CHART 1. TOTAL NUMBER OF FAMILIES RECEIVING PUBLIC UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, OCTOBER 1933, BY STATES

Bank

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

State

Pennsylvania New York Illinois Ohio Michigan California Oklahoma Texas Florida Kentucky Alabama Massachusetts South Carolina 7/est Virginia New Jersey Louisiana Indiana Georgia Wisconsin Missouri North Carolina Mississippi Arkansas Kansas Minnesota Tennessee Washington Iowa Maryland Connecticut Colorado South Dakota Arizona Montana Oregon Utah Virginia Nebraska Diet, of Col. Rhode Island North Dakota Maine New Mexico Delaware Idaho New Hampshire Nevada Vermont Wyoming

Number of Families

324,461 311,983 234,727 202,865 152,679 118,264 107,237 105,045 102,432 98,883 98,648 89,848 69,326 86,342 84,452 76,751 76,649 69,588 67,352 57,165 56,041 54,559 48,331 46,221 45,358 39,312 37,877 35,051 31,817 23,961 22,815 22,382 20,427 18,882 16,666 16,354 14,983 13,844 12,228 10,684 10,020 8,884 6,587 5,862 5,433 5,030 2,946 2,817 1,482

Thousands of Families 100 200 300 4D0

Mtr*f S/»erje»cy #et-tf A^i*urt'str^ttif


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS 5 2. PERCENT OP TOTAL PERSONS IN RELIEF FAMILIES, OCTOBER 1933,

TO TOTAL PERSONS IN EACH STATE, 1930 CENSUS

State Percent Florida South Carolina West Virginia Arizona Kentucky-Oklahoma Alabama Louisiana PennsylTanla South Dakota Utah Michigan Montana Ohio Mississippi Illinois

U. S. Total

New York. Arkansas Georgia Kansas Delaware Indiana Wisconsin New Jersey Maryland Washington North Carolina Colorado Diat. of Col. Massachusetts Nerada Tennessee Texas North Dakota Rhode Island California New Mexico Minnesota Connecticut Iowa Missouri Oregon Maine New Hampshire Idaho Nebraska Vermont Virginia Wyoming

25.2 23.2 22.3 18.9 18.1 17.9 17.2 15.5 14.3 14.3 12.8 12.6 12.3 11.4 11.3 10.7

10.3

9.8 9.7 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.2 8.7 8.5 8.3 8.2 8.0 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.4 7.3 7.1 6.9 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.3 5*9 5.6 5.5 5.0 4.5 4*4 4.0 3.4 2.7 2.3

fedeft tmei-fcncy Rcktf Mm>*,*fr*fiwn


UNEMPLOYMENT BELIEF CENSUS

in New Bedford, Mass.; Nashville, Tenn.; and Bridgeport, Conn.; fewer than one twentieth of the population was on relief. In this group, too, most of the cities (30 out of 56) had percentages higher than those of the States in which they are located, 12 approximately the same, and 14 less than their State's percentage. The following table gives the basic population and relief data, and the percentage on relief for each city with a population above 100,000 in 1930.

TABLE A.—COMPARISON OP PERSONS IN RELIEF FAMILIES, OCTOBER 1933, WITH ALL PERSONS, POPULATION CENSUS, 1930 FOR CITIES * HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 OR MORE IN 1930

U.S. total. 122,775,046

CITIES OF 1,000,000 OR MORE

Total.

1. New York, N.Y 6,030,446 2. Chicago,111 ?,376,433 3. Philadelphia, Pa. — 1,960,961 4. Detroit, Mich 1,568,662 5. Los Angeles, Calif—|l. 238,048

CITIES o r 1,000,000 TO 250,000

Total.. 6. Cleveland, Ohio 7. St. Louis, Mo 8. Baltimore, Md 9. Boston, Mass

10. Pittsburgh, Pa 11. San Francisco, Calif. 12. Milwaukee, Wis 13. Buffalo, N.Y 14. Washington, D.C. . . 15. Minneapolis, Minn.. 16. New Orleans, La 17. Cincinnati, Ohio 18. Newark, N.J 19. Kansas City, Mo.... 20. Seattle, Wash 21. Indianapolis, Ind..,. 22. Rochester, N.Y 23. Jersey City, N.J 24. Louisivlle, Ky 25. Portland, Oreg 23. Houston, Tex 27. Toledo, Ohio 23. Columbus, Ohio 29. Denver, Colo 30. Oakland, Calif 31. St. Paul, Minn 32. Atlanta, Ga 33. Dallas, Tex 34. Birmingham, Ala.... 35. Akron, Ohio 36. Memphis, Tenn 37. Providence, K.I

CITIES OF 250,000 TO 100,000

Total 38. San Antonio, Tex...J 39. Omaha, Nebr

15,064,555

13,720,215 900,429 821,960 804,874 781,188 669,817 634,394 578,249 573,076 486,869 461,356 458,762 451.160 442,337 399,746 365,533 364.161 323,132 316,715 307,745 301,815 292,352 290,718 290,561 287,861 234,063 271,603 270,368 260,475 259,678 255,010 253,143 252,931

7,540,966 231,542 214,006

8°

12,635,664

1,599,967

687,475 401,592 217,164 180,311 113,425

1,660,803 134,037 84,463 102,830 99,758 120,327 51,909 67,422 86,453 37,463 46,103 80,812 66,191 57,442 23,343 30.159 44,427 41,493 31,300 15,543 28,588 36,503 53,480 37,698 34,453 19,335 36,997 36,797 36,078 43,787 29,414 18,183 22,998

884,425 48,625 18,238

13

10.6

9.9 11.9 11.1 11.5 9.2

12.1

14.9 10.3 12.8 12.8 13.0 8.2 11.7 15.1 7.7 9.9 17.6 14.7 13.0 7.1 8.2 12.2 12.6 9.0 5.1 9.5 12.5 18.4 13.0 12.0 6.8 13.6 13.6 13.9 16.9 11.5 7.2 9.1

21.0 8.5

CITIES OF 250,000 TO 100,000—continued

40. Syracuse, N.Y. 41. Dayton, Ohio 42. Worcester, Mass , 43. Oklahoma City, Okla. 44. Richmond, Va 45. Youngstown, Ohio.. 46. Grand Rapids, Mich. 47. Hartford, Conn 48. Fort Worth, Tex. . . . 49. New Haven, Conn.. 50. Flint, Micb_ 51. Nashville, Tenn 52. Springfield, Mass.... 53. San Diego, Calif. 54. Bridgeport, Conn.. 55. Scranton, Pa 56. Des Moines, Iowa.. 57. Long Beach, Calif... 58. Tulsa, Okla , 59. Salt Lake City, Utah. 60. Paterson, N.J_. 61. Yonkers, N.Y 62. Norfolk, Va 63. Jacksonville, Fla . . . 64. Albany, N.Y 65. Trenton, N.J 66. Kansas City, Kans.J 67. Chattanooga, TennJ 68. Camden, N.J 69. Erie, Pa 70. Spokane, Wash 71. Fall River, Mass 72. Fort Wayne, Ind 73. Elizabeth, N.J 74. Cambridge, Mass.. 75. New Bedford, Mass 76. Reading, Pa 77. Wichita, Kans 78. Miami, Fla 79. Tacoma, Wash 80. Wilmington, Del ; 81. Knoxville, Tenn 82. Peoria, 111 83. Canton, Ohio 84. South Bend, Ind.... 85. Somerville, Mass.— 86. El Paso, Tex 87. Lynn, Mass S3. Evansville, Ind 89. Utica.N.Y I 90. Duluth, Minn 91. Tampa, Fla.. 92. Gary, Ind 93. Lowell, Mass

& 3

200,982 195,311 185,389 182,929 170,002 168.592 164,072 163,447 162,655 156,492 153,866 149,900 147,995 146,716 143,433 142,559 142,032 141,258 140,267 138,513 134,646 129,710 129,549 127,412 123,356 121,857 119,798 118,700 115,967 115,514 115,274 114,916 114,589 113,643 112,597 111,171 111, 110 110,637 105,817 106,597 105,802 104,969 104,906 104,193 103,908 102,421 102,320 102,249 101,740 101,463 101,161 100,426 100,234

961 065 257 518 849 f.90 769 319 767 210 480 839 434 394 890 650

18.9 14.1 15.3 9.9 7.5 9.1 10.3 6.1 13.4 10. C 14.2 8.7 13.2 24.1 8.9 6.6

i See p. 21 for alphabetic.il locator of cities. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

http://alphabetic.il

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS

COLOR OR RACE OF PERSONS IN RELIEF FAMILIES

la more than 2,500,000 of the relief families, the head of the family was white, in nearly 600,000, Negro, and in only 56,000 was the head of any other race than the white or Negro. When classified in terms of the color or race of the head of the family, the number of whites on relief in 1933 represented 8L3 percent of the total relief group, Negroes 16.7 percent, and other races 2 percent, as compared with 88.6 percent whites, 9.7 percent Negroes, and 1.7 percent other races in the total population in 1930. Both Negroes and other races on relief were highly concentrated in certain sections of the country. Twenty-four States (including the District of Columbia), which in 1930 had 97 percent of all the Negro population in the country, con-tributed, in October 1933, 96 percent of the Negro relief persons; similarly, 6 States having 85 percent of all the population of "other races" in 1930 contributed 88 percent of the relief persons of "other races" in October 1933.

Almost 18 percent of the Negroes in the country were on relief in October 1933, compared with 9.5 percent of whites on relief. In the 24 States (including District of Columbia) with large Negro popula-tions, the range of percents of Negroes on relief was from 4 percent in Virginia to 38 percent in Ohio. The following table shows these States, ranked in order of their Negro population in 1930, and indi-cates, comparatively, the proportion of Negroes and of whites f on relief, each as a percent of the corresponding 1930 population.̂ \\

TABLE B.—COMPARISON OF PERSONS IN NEGRO RELIEF FAMILIES WITH PERSONS IN WHITE RELIEF FAMILIES, OCTOBER 1933, AS SHOWN BY PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL NEGRO POPULATION AND TOTAL WHITE POPULATION, RESPECTIVELY, FOR STATES HAVING MORE THAN 100,000 NEGROES IN 1930

AREA

United States total.. „

Oeorgia Mississippi Alabama North Carolina Texas South Carolina Louisiana Virginia I " "" Arkansas. Tennessee Florida Pennsylvania New York Illinois. . . Ohio : : : ; " ; Maryland Kentucky Missouri ftew Jersey Oklahoma; \ Michigan District of Columbia West Virginia M " " . Indiana. : . .

—

NEGROES

All per-sons, 1930

11,891,143

1,071,125 1,009,718

044,834 918,647 854,964 793,6S1 776,326 650,165 478, 463 477,646 431,828 431,257 412,814 328,972 309,304 276,379 226,040 223,840 208,828 172,198 169,453 132,068 114,893

1 111,982

Relief persons,

1933

2,117,644

117,281 91,375

179,727 104,124 75,535

218,806 134,849 27,756 42,378 34,694

157,890 151,726 104,396 115.803 117,498 45,805 32,170 45,427 58,571 46,784 48,547 28,850 20,620 33,018

Katio of relief

persons to all

persons

17.8

10.9 9.0

19.0 11.3 8.8

27.6 17.4 4.3 8.9 7.3

36.6 35.2 25.3 35.2 38.0 16.6 14.2 20.3 28.0 27.2 28.6 21.8 17.9 29.5

WHITES

All per-sons, 1930

108,864,207

1,836,974 996,856

1,700, 775 2,234,948 4,283,491

944,040 1,318,160 1,770,405 1,374,906 2,138,619 1,035,205 9,192,602

12,150,293 7,266,361 6,331,136 1,354,170 2,388,364 3,398,887 3,829,209 2,123,424

, 4,650,171 353,914

1,613,934 3,116,136

Relief persons,

1933

10,309,844 :

159,6S6 136,339 275,049 147,435 232,954 184,421 190,140 38,127

137,053 155,181 212,401

1,221,792 1,128,079

696,728 640,695 88,829

440,017 157,195 286,334 371,540 555,754

8,591 365,503 263,084

Ratio of relief

persons to all

persons

9.5

8.7 13.7 16.2 6.6 5.4

19.5 14.4 2.2

10.0 7.3

20.5 13.3 9.3 9.6

10.1 6.6

18.4 4.6

1 7.5 17.5 12.0

! 2.4 I 22.6 1 8.4



Although, as pointed out, there was almost twice as high a pro-portion of Negroes as of whites on relief for the United States as a whole, there were four States—Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia—where the proportion of whites on relief was greater than the comparable proportion of Negroes and one State—Ten-nessee—where the two races received relief in equal proportions. The District of Columbia showed the greatest disproportion between the two races on relief (the percentage of Negroes being almost 10 times that for whites), with Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsyl-vania, New York, and Indiana also ranking high. In four States— Ohio, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania—more than 35 percent of the Negroes were on relief. Of these, only Florida had more than 10 percent whites on relief.

There were 15 cities where the total Negro population was 50,000 or more in 1930. In all of these cities, the proportion of Negroes on relief was several times that of whites on relief, as the following table indicates.

TABLE C,—COMPABISON OF PERSONS IN NEGRO RELIEF FAMILIES WITH PERSONS IN WHITE RELIEF FAMILIES, OCTOBER 1933, AS SHOWN BY PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL NEGRO POPULATION AND TOTAL WHITE POPULATION, RESPECTIVELY, I N THE POPULATION CENSUS 1930, FOR CITIES HAVING MORE THAN 50,000 NEGROES I N 1930

All per-sons, 1930

Relief per-sons, 1933

Ratio of relief per sons to all per-

sons

All per-sons, 1930


Ratio of relief per-sons to all per-

sons

New York, N .Y. . Chicago, III -Philadelphia, Pa.. Baltimore, Md_... Washington, D O . New Orleans. La.. Detroit, Mich.—. Birmingham, Ala. Memphis, Tenn... St. Louis, Mo Atlanta, Oa Cleveland, Ohio.. Houston, Tex Pittsburgh, Pa.—. Richmond, Va—.

327,706

219,599 142,106 132,068 129,632 120,066 99,077 96,550

78,262 80,542 75,458 40,923 28,850 49,103 33,140

90,075 71,899 63,337 54,983 52,988

10,672 32,110 20,454 30,939 13,122 23,871 5,660

23.9 34.4 34.4 28.8 21.8 37.9 27.6 26.5 11.1 34.3 22.7 43.0 20.7 43.4 10.7

6,587,225 3,117,731 1,728,457 662,124 353,914 327,729

1,440,141 160,551 156,528 726,879 180,247 827,090 214,687 614,317 129,871

607,762 316,014 141,512 61,872 8,591 31,452 146,063 17,567 7,511 52,132 16,343 102,950 19,186 96,345 4,751

9.2 10.1 8.2 9.3 2.4 9.6 10.1 10.9 4.8 7.2 9.1 12.4 8.9 15.7 3.7

Pittsburgh and Cleveland, with 43 percent Negroes on relief, showed the highest proportion; Richmond and Memphis, with 11 percent, the lowest, and Washington, D.C., as indicated above, showed the greatest disproportion between the two racial groups.

The relief situation regarding other races was somewhat similar to that for Negroes. The percentage of other races on relief was greater, for the whole United States, than the percentage of whites on relief, but the difference was less extreme than between the whites and Negroes; about 13 percent other races were on relief compared with 9.5 percent whites.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS 9 In the following table, the percentages of other races on relief and

of whiteson relief are compared for the six States where most of the other-racial group was concentrated in 1930.

TABLE D.—COMPARISON OF PERSONS IN RELIEF FAMILIES OF OTHER RACES, EXCLUDING WHITES AND NEGROES, WITH PERSONS IN WHITE RELIEF FAMI-LIES OCTOBER 1933 AS SHOWN BY PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL POPULATION OF OTHER RACES AND TOTAL WHITE POPULATION, RESPECTIVELY, CENSUS 1930, FOR STATES HAVING MORE THAN 50,000 PERSONS OF OTHER RACES IN 1930

AREA

United States total

Texas . . . California Arizona^«. f c«M M_ . Oklahoma m New Mexico— . . Colorado-__

OTHER BACES (EXCLUDING WHITES AND NEGROES)

All per-sons, 1930

2,019,696

686,260 613,609 160,380 100,418 88,712 62,846


258,176

107,685 52,705 42,022 10,681 2,085

11,614

Ratio or relief

persons to all

persons

12.8

15.7 8.6

26.2 10.6 3.4

18.5

WHITES

All per-sons, 1930

108,864,207

4,283,491 5,040,247

264,378 2,123,424

331,755 961,117


10,309,844

232,954 305,824 37,037

371,540 24,619 66,500

Ratio of relief

persons to all

persons

9.5

5.4 6.1

14.0 17.6 7.4 6.9

The other races were on relief in 2 to 3 times as great proportion as the whites in Texas, Colorado, and Arizona, in but slightly; greater proportion in California, and less compared with the whites in Okla-homa and New Mexico. In all the States except Oklahoma, Mexicans predominated in this other-racial group; in Oklahoma, it was com-posed almost entirely of Indians.

SIZE OF RELIEF FAMILIES

The family, or household, was the relief unit in administering unem-ployment relief. It was, therefore, possible to classify all relief per-sons in terms of the size of the relief unit. These data are presented in detail in tables 2, 6, and 10-A, 10-B, and 10-C.

A sizeable proportion of these relief families comprised one person only. The United States average was 13.1 percent. For racial groups, the whites had a slightly smaller proportion of such families (12.7 percent), the Negroes a somewhat greater proportion (14.8 percent), and other races decidedly less (10.9 percent) than the average.

There was considerable variation in the proportion in the different geographic areas. In the Pacific and Mountain divisions more than a fifth of the families consisted of one person, and in New England the proportion was almost as great. In the East South Central division, however, the proportion was scarcely one seventeenth (6 percent). The following table shows the percentage relationship between these one-person relief families and all relief families.

It may be pointed out, in connection with this comparison that, although these one-person families represented such a large proportion of all relief families, they obviously represented a much smaller pro-portion of the total persons on relief. Only 3.3 percent of the total persons on unemployment relief were in one-person families, and the range of percents for areas was from 7 percent in the Pacific division to scarcely more than 1 percent in the East South Central division.



TABLE E . — O N E - P E R S O N RELIEF FAMILIES AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RELIEF FAMILIES. 1933, BY GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS, AND COLOR OR RACE

AREA AND COLOR OR RACE Total relief families One-person

relief families

Ratio of one person re-

lief families to total relief

families

United States total.. 3,178,089 415,514 13.1 White Negro Other races.

2,542,820 579,123 56,146

323,754 85,621 6,139

12.7 14.8 10.9

NEW ENGLAND White Negro Other races

MIDDLE ATLANTIC-White Negro Other races

GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS

EAST NORTH CENTRAL. White Negro Other races

WEST NORTH CENTRAL.. White Negro Other races

SOUTH ATLANTIC White Negro -. Other races

EAST SOUTH CENTRAL.. White Negro Other races

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL. White _ Negro Other races—

MOUNTAIN White Negro Other races -

PACIFIC White Negro Other races

141,224 136,084

5,0SO 60

714,165 624,081 89,060

1,024 727,541 625,744 98,331 3,466

230,041 203,653 25,092

1,296 468,619 278,266 190,123

230 291,402 210,587 80,765

50 337,364 230,433 81,635 25,296

94,926 79,778 2,249 12,899

172,807 154,194 6,788 11,825

26,792 25,619 1,162

11

74,969 62,839 11,969

161

113,095 95,228 17,305

562

33,491 27,703 5,628

160

54,225 26,265 27,923

37

17,584 9,279 8,299

6

37,406 24,297 11,156 1,953

20,152 17,783

687 1,682

37,800 34,741 1,492 1,567

19.0 18.8 22.9

10.5 10.1 13.4 15.7

15.5 15.2 17.6 16.2

14.6 13.6 22.4 12.3

11.6 0.4 14.7 16.1

6.0 4.4 10.3

11.1 10.5 13.7 7.7

21.2 22.3 30.6 13.0

21.9 22.5 22.0 13.3

It is, unfortunately, not possible to make a reliable detailed com-parison of relief families, by size, with all families in the population census of 1930,—largely because of differences in the * definition of family, as explained in a later section. Certain comparisons are, however, possible, if they are limited to families comprising two or more persons. Chart 3 (p. 12) shows the percentage of families of each unit of size except one, to the total number of families comprising two or more persons, both for the relief group in 1933 and for all families in 1930. The larger families tended to predominate in the relief group as compared with the population census group. This tendency was found in each size unit from 5 persons to 12 or more. The two-person families showed the greatest absolute difference in percentages, the proportion being 25.3 percent for the population group and 20.1 per-cent for the relief group. The following table condenses these data into two groups, families of 2, 3, or 4 persons, and families of 5 or more persons, both for the relief census and the population census, and shows the variation in the main geographic divisions and by race or color.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS 11 TABLE F.—COMPARISON OF RELIEF FAMILIES OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS, OC-

TOBER 1933, WITH ALL FAMILIES OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS IN THE POPULATION CENSUS. 1930, AS SHOWN IN PERCENTAGES

AREA

United States total

White Negro . Other races

GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS

NEW ENGLAND White Negro

MIDDLE ATLANTIC White

Other races EAST NORTH CENTRAL

White Negro Other races

WEST NORTH CENTRAL White Negro Other races

SOUTH ATLANTIC White Negro Other races

EAST SOUTH CENTRAL White Negro Other races.-...

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL White Negro Other races

MOUNTAIN White Negro Other races:...

PACIFIC White Negro Other races * ..

FAMILIES OF 2 OR MORE PERSONS

Percent of all fan> ilies of 2 or more persons

100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Percent of relief families of 2 or more

persons

100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

FAMILIES OF 2 , 3 , AND 4 PERSONS

Percent of all fam-ilies of 2 or more persons

66.9

67.5 65.1 49.2

67.1 66.8 68.5 62.0 67.7 67.4 72.3 67.9 70.1 70.0 73.3 56.9 68.5 68.4 76.3 48.8 59.4 59.7 58.8 44.9 61.0 59.3 65.4 57.3 63.6 63.9 66.5 47.7 65.5 67.0 79.9 48.8 77.7 79.3 79.3 49.8


persons

59.0

57.7 66.5 46.9

56.9 56.5 66.4

57.8 56.3 69.6 62.1 62.1 60.6 73.6 50.3 60.7 59.2 75.8 42.3 57.0 52.9 63.1

51.3 48.8 58.9

60.0 59.0 66.8 46.9 58.6 60.4 74.2 45.1 71.3 73.2 79.3 47.0

FAMILIES OF 5 OR MORE PERSONS

Percent of all fam-ilies of 2 or more persons

83.1

32.5 34.9 50.8

32.9 33.2 31.5 38.0 32.3 32.6 27.7 32.1 29.9 30.0 26.7 43.1 31.5 31.6 23.7 51.2 40.6 40.3 41.2 55.1 39.0 40.7 34.6 42.7 36.4 36.1 33.5 52.3 34.5 33.0 20.1 51.2 22.3 20.7 20.7 50.2


persons

41. a

42.3 33.5 53.1

43.1 43.5 33.6*

42.2 43.7 30.4 37.9 37.9 39.4 26.4 49.7 39.3 40.8 24.2 57.7 43.0 47.1 36.9

48.7 51.2 41.1

40.0 41.0 33.2 53.1 41.4 39.6 25.8 54.9 28.7 26.8 20.7 53.0

There is a sharp contrast between the Negroes and the whites in this comparison. The smaller families among the whites accounted for two thirds of the families of two or more members in the general population, but for scarcely 58 percent of the relief families and con-versely, there were proportionately more large families in the white relief group than among the white families in the popiilation. The Negroes, on the other hand, showed no comparable disproportion; small families predominated in the population and the relief group and to about the same extent (65 and 67 percent respectively). There was a very slight tendency for the larger families among the other races to be disproportionately represented in the relief group.

51371—34-



The smaller families in the 1930 population census comprised 78 percent of all families of two or more persons in the Pacific division, as contrasted with less than 60 percent in the South Atlantic division. The corresponding relief percentages are closely similar to these popu-lation percentages. Throughout those regions where there were ap-preciable numbers of Negroes and other racial groups the greatest relative proportion of large families in the population was found among the other races, the next greatest proportion among the whites, with the Negroes consistently ranking lowest. The greatest relative pro-portion of large relief families was likewise consistently found among the other races, but, as stated before, the whites showed the greatest difference between the proportion of large relief families and the pro-portion of large families in the population census.

In large cities, one-person families represented a somewhat greater proportion than for the United States as a whole. The average per-cent of one-person families for the 93 cities of 100,000 or more popula-tion was 16.3, or 4.2 percent of all persons on relief in these cities. CHART 3. COMPARATIVE SIZE OP FAMILIES OF TWO OR M O R E PERSONS, UNITED

STATES, SHOWN BY PERCENT OP TOTAL FAMILIES OP TWO OR MORE PERSONS . I N EACH CLASS FOR FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF, OCTOBER 1933, AND ALL

FAMILIES, 1930 CENSUS

PERCENT

RCUEF FAMILIES OCT 1933

ALL FAMILIES,1930

z PERSONS

AGE OF PERSONS IN RELIEF FAMILIES One of the outstanding facts revealed by the Unemployment Relief

Census is the large proportion of children in families receiving relief. Forty-two percent of the relief persons were children under 16; whereas this age group amounted to only 31 percent in the general population.

Tables 4, 8, and 12 j£ve the detailed comparisons by geographic divisions, States, and cities, further broken down by age and sex. In these tables the percentage of each relief age group to the total relief persons is shown in adjacent columns to the percentage of each age group in the general population to the total population. The follow-ing table condenses and summarizes the more detailed comparisons found in tables 4, 8, and in 12A, 12B, 12C.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS 13 TABLE G.—COMPARISON OF PERSONS IN RELIEF FAMILIES, OCTOBER 1933, BY

AGE GROUPS WITH ALL PERSONS IN THE POPULATION CENSUS, 1930, AS SHOWN BY PERCENTAGES, FOR GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS, STATES, AND TOTAL FOR PRINCIPAL CITIES

N E W ENGLAND Maine . . . . . New Hampshire Vermont - -Massachusetts . . . . Rhocc Island Connecticut

MIDDLE ATLANTIC Now York N e w Jersey . . . . . . . . Pennsylvania. . . .

EAST N O R T H C E N T R A L Ohio Indiana Illinois Michigan Wisconsin

Minnesota Iowa Missouri North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas

SOUTH ATLANTIC Delaware. Maryland. . . . .

Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida

Kentucky . . . . Tennessee.— . . . . . Alabama . . . . . Mississippi 1

W E S T SOUTH CENTRAL Arkansas. . . . Louisiana Oklahoma Texas

MOUNTAIN Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado I New Mexico 1 Arizona Utah Nevada

PACIFIC Washington Oreson California

5 cities 1,000,000 population or

32 cities 1,000,000 to 250,000 _ Population 56 cities 250,000 to 100.000 pop-

ulation

. 1

UNDER 16

Per-cent all

per-sons

31.3

29.0 30.4 28.5 30.0 23.3 29.7 29.6 29.0 2G.8 28.9

| 31.9 29.3 28.2 20.5 27.8 30.8 30. S

30.6 30.9 30.1 28.5 36.6 34.5 31.5 30.7 36.2 28.7 30.0 22.1 35.9 37.9 40.2 4a 9 37.0 31.6

36.7 35.9 35.2 38.1 37.6 35.2 37.0 35.6 35.7 31.3 33.7 31.7 34.8 32.1 30.7 38.7 31.8 37.7 25.7

25.0 26.8 26.2 24.2

25.9

25.6 I

27.8

Per-cent relief

1 per-sons

1 41.6 | 43.3

49.3 47.7 48.5 41.7 45.7 43.9 41.9 41.1 42.4 42.3 39.8

! 39.3 40.6 38.3

i 41.0 ' 42.2 ; 41.2

40.2 42.7 40.2 46.9 42.7 43.7 39.1 42.9 39.6 44.3 39.1 45.0 43.9 48.6 42.3 41.8 38.7

44.8 46.0 45.7 44.1 43.4 42.1 40.4 42.2 42.4 42.5 41.6 39.9 41.6 1 44.6 39. S 4S.6 41.7 43.0 2S.S 34.6 35.9 36.0 33.9

40.2

3S.9

39.5

16 TO 24

Per-cent all

per-sons

J 16.4 1 15.0

14.5 14.2 14.7 15.0 15.6 15.6 16.0 15.9 15.9 16.1

15.6 15.5 15.2 16.0 15.4

[ 15.6 \ 16.0

15.8 15.4 15.9 17.9 16.7 16.5 16.1 17.9 15.6 16.2 16.1 17.5 17.1 18.7 19.3 19.2 16.9

18.0 16.5 18.1 18.7 18.8 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.4

16.2 15.5 16.4 16.2 15.8 17.1 16.7 17.4 1 14.0 | 14.7 15.4 15.2 14.5

16.5

16.4

16.4

Per-cent relief per-sons

15.6

| 13.9 13.4 12.1 13.1 13.8 13.3 14.9 15.0 14.3 14.3 15.8

| 14.8 15.2 14.3 14.3

I 15.6 I 14.5

15.0 14.5 15.1 13.3 16.3 16.4 14.2 16.3 17.6 14.1 14.3 13.8 15.6 17.7 15.1 20.1 18.4 17.9

17.1 17.4 16.6 17.5 15.8 16.1 15.8 16.1 17 .3 | 14.9 ; 15.3 15.3 16.0 12.7 14.0 13.2 16.7 16.6 12.5 14.2 14.4 12.3 14.4

13.8 1

14.4

15.0 1

25 TO 44

Per-cent all

per-sons

29.4

[ 2 9 . 3 16.0 27.0 26.1 30.1 29.4 30.3 31.6 33.4 32.0 29.0 30.9 30.3 28.6 32.4 31.8 29.2 28.5 29.2 28.0 29.5 25.7 27.6 28.6 27.9

26.6 29.5 30.0 35.7 26.0 26.3 24.6 23.6 25.6 30.1

25.8 25.9 26.4 25.2 25.6

23.0 25.6 28.2 27.6 28.9 28.4 29.1 ! 26.7! 31.8 ! 28.8 ' 26.4 1 30.1 1 26.0 33.3 ] 32.7 j 30.5 1 30.4 1 33.8

36.0

34.2

32.7

! Per-, cent

relief 1 Per-

sons

24.9

24.9 21.2 22.2 21.9 26.0 24.1 23.9 26.9 29.0 26.4 25.3 25.7 25.8 23.3 26.9 25.2 25.6 24.5 25.1 24.0 26.3 21.3 24.0 21.3 23.5 23.0 28.1 26.9 33.3 23.1 21.3 20.2 20.5 24.2 26.2

21.8 21.2 22.7 22.1 21.7 23.9 22.5 26.3 22.6 23.8 22.7 22.9 20.4 2 2 0 23.5 20.6 23. S 21.8 22.9

28.0 25.2 25.5 j 29.3 1

29.6

28.4

26.8

45 TO 64

Per-cent all

Per-sons

| 17.5

I 20.0 20.4 21.4 20.5 20.2

i 19.5 18.7

1 18.2 18.6 18.2 17.7 18.2 18.8 19.5 18.3

• 16.7 17.9 18.3 17.7 19.1 19.4 15.3 15.9 17.2 18.4 15.0 19.2 18.1 20.5 15.8 14.5 12.9 12.9 14.3 16.5

15.1 16.3 15.7 14.2 14.1 14.6 15.1 14.4 14.5 14.4 16.9 18.7 17.1 16.0 18.7 13.8 14.8 14.4 21.7

21.0 20.8 21.1 21.0

17.5

18.8

18.1

Per-cent

j relief per-

1 sons

14,1

13.9 11.5 12.4 13.1 14.2 13.9 13.8 13.5 13.3 14.0 13.6 15.4 15.6 15.6 16.1 14.5 13.9 15.0 15.5 14.8 15.7 12.0 13.7 13.6 16.0

12.9 14.8 12.0 12.5 12.8 13.1 11.4 12.9 12.7 14.3

12.5 11.6 12.3 12.9 13.5

13.8 14.7 13.1 13.8 14.1 15.0 16.6 16.2 15.4 16.1 11.5 14.3 13.3 23.5 19.0 19.6 18.2 18.9

14.0

15.2

15.3

65 AND OVER

Per-cent all

per-sons

5,4

6.7 8.7 8.9 8.7 6.4 5.9 5.8

5.2 5.3 5.0 5.3 6.0 6.2 7.2 5.5 5.3 6.5 6.6 6.4 7.4 6.7 4.5 5.3 6.2 6.9 4.3 7.0 5.7 5.6 4.8 4.2 3.6 3.3 3.9 4.9

4.4 5.4 4.6 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 3.6 4.0 4.0 4.8 5.0 5.0 3.9 6,0 4.0 3.6 4.5 5.3 6.6 6.5 7.1 6.5

4.1

5.0

5.0 1

Per-cent relief per-sons

3.8

4.0 4.6 5.6 3.4 4.3 3.0 3.5 2.7 2.3 2.9 3 .0 4.3 4 1 6.2 4 4 3.7 3.8 4.3 4.7 3.4 4.5 3.5 3.2 4.2 5.1 3.6 3.4 2.5 1.3 3.5 4.0 4.7 4.2 2.9 2.9 3.8 3.8 2.7 3.4 5.6 4.1 6.6 2.3 3.9 4.7 5.4 5.3 5.8 5.3 6.6 6.1 3.5 5.3

12.3 4.2 4.9 8.0 3.5

2.4

3.1

3.4


14 U N E M P L O Y M E N T RELIEF CENSUS

The disproportion of children on relief was found for all the geo-graphic divisions, every State, and for the totals of principal cities. New England and the Middle Atlantic showed the greatest dispro-portion of any geographic divisions .(29 percent under 16 years of age in the general population, 43 and 42 percent under 16 years of age for relief persons) and the South Atlantic and West North Central the least disproportion, with 36 and 35 percent of the general population and 42 and 43 percent relief persons under 16 years of age. The principal cities, on the whole, showed as great a disproportion in this age group as was found for any geographic division or State, 26 to 28 percent of the general population against 39 to 40 percent of relief persons. Nevada, with one of the lowest percent of children under 16 in the general population (25 percent), also had the lowest percent (29 percent) of children on relief of any State, division, or city group.

The young adult age groups were slightly under-represented in the relief cases as compared with the general population, and the older age groups (45 and over) more strikingly under-represented. Nevada and the District of Columbia stand out in respect to the oldest age groups, the former with a very high, the latter a very low proportion of relief persons over 65, although both of them were close to the United States average in the proportion of this age group in the general population.

These points may be clarified somewhat by a more detailed age-group analysis of tne United States totals, when the data are broken down by races.

The following table indicates the relief cases in each age group as a percentage of the corresponding age group in the whole population, and separately for the three mam racial groups. TABLE H . — U N I T E D STATES SUMMARY—RATIO.OF NUMBER OF BELIEF PERSONS,

OCTOBER 1933, IN SPECIFIED AGE GROUPS TO ALL PERSONS IN THESE AGE GROUPS, 1930 POPULATION CENSUS, BY COLOR or RACE

All persons Relief persons

Ratio of relief

persons to all

persons

All whites Relief whites

Ratio of relief

whites to all

whites

All ages» , Under 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 13 years— - -14 to 15 years 16 to 17 years 18 to 24 years,*-- -25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 years and over.

122,775,046 2,190,791

11,758,849 19,724,851 4,678,084 4,663,137

15,463,657 18,954,029 17,198,840 13,018,083 8,396,898 6,633.805

12,685,664 236,880

1,612,891 2,817,401

596,338 547,919

1,428,772 1,610,982 1,538,105 1,143,593

647,430 477,230

10.3 10.8 13.7 14.3 12,7 11.8 9.2 8.5 8.9 8.8 7.7 7.2

[108,864,207 1,896,730

10,201,822 17,239,775 4,110,385 4,086,139

13,472,710 16,683,462 15,382,127 11,732,045 7,770,100 6.211.583

10,309,844 103,122

1,308,494

491,971 453,105

1,154,685 1,276,307 1,248,410

934,189 539,398

9.5 10.2 12.8 13.3 12.0 11.1 &6 7.7 8.1 8.0 6.9 6.3

AGES

All ages* Under 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 13 years 14 to 15 years 16 to 17 years 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years.-. . 65 years and over.

All Negroes

11,891,143 232,378

1,271,560 2,092,731

493,897 502,710

1,710,572 1,936,301 1,578,323 1,134,655

551,566 372,719

Relief Negroes

2,117,644 37,343

263,136 459,324 92,856 85,278

244,962 B00,233 263,443 191,545 98,754 76.321

Ratio Of relief

Negroes to all

Negroes

17.8 16.1 20.7 21.9 18.8 17.0 14.3 15.5 16.7 16.9 17.0 20.5

All "Other Races0

2,019,696 61,683

285,467 392,345 73,802 74,288

280,375 334,266 238,390 151,383 75,232 49.503

Relief "Other Races"

258,176

6,415 41,261 65,238 11,611 9,536 29,125 34,442 26,252 17,859 9,278 7,070

Ratio of relief

"Other Races" to all

"Other Races"

12.8 10.4 14.5 16.6 15.6 12.8 10.4 10.3 11.0 11.8 12.3 14.3

i Including those of unknown ages. Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


For the whole population, each age group up to 18 years showed a proportion of relief cases greater than the average for all ages, and •each age group from 18 upward showed a proportion less than the average for all ages. The 6 to 13 age group had the greatest propor-tion of relief, the 65 and over the least. The situation was somewhat 'different for Negroes and other races; in both of these groups there were proportionately fewer children under 1 year than for all ages, and the highest proportion was found for the 6 to 13 age group, but the two oldest age groups (55 to 64, and 65 and over) were equal to or higher than the average for all ages.

The large proportion of older Negroes on relief is particularly marked. The following table indicates the State-by-State differences in the proportion of Negroes over 65 and whites over 65 in the 24 States (including the District of Columbia) with total Negro popu-lation of 100,000 or more. T A B L E I .—COMPARISON OP NEGROES OVER 65 YEARS OP AGE AND WHITES OVER

65 YEARS OP AGE ON RELIEF, OCTOBER 1933, AS SHOWN IN PERCENTAGES OP THEIR RESPECTIVE AGE AND RACIAL GROUPS IN THE POPULATION CENSUS 1930, FOR STATES HAVING MORE THAN 100,000 TOTAL NEGRO POPULATION IN 1930

AREA

United States total

•Georgia Mississippi . Alabama North Cai-n]fn*_M.t . pt Texas South Carolina Louisiana „„ "Virginia. Arkansas "TMuiessee Florida

£ e w York Illinois •owo :::::::::::::::::::: Maryland Kentucky. Missouri New Jersey igklahoma Michigan District of Columbia ;west Virginia..™...:::::::::::::: Indiana

NEGROES OVER 05 TEARS OF AGE

All persons, 1930

372,719

35,239 33,100 31,337 25,991 26,124 22,283 51,628 25,545 14,653 18,240 10,819 0,359 7,141 8,074 8,741

10,085 12,673 9,237 5,183 5,339 2,715 4.291. 2,459 4,138

Relief persons,

| 1933

76,321

3,812 6,761 7,045 5,573 4,621 9,893 3,139 1,135 3,438 1,100 4,055 3,006 1,464 3,603 2,951

854 1,909 1,558 1,452 1,847 1,020

303 788

1,601

Ratio of relief

persons to all

persons

20.5

10.8 20.4 22.5 21.4 17.7 44.4 6.1 4.4

23.5 6.0

37.5 32.1 20.5 44.6 33.8 8.5

15.1 16.9 28.0 34.6 37.6 7.1

32.0 38.7

WHITES OVER 65 YEARS OF AGE

All persons,

6,211,583

78,020 44,248 67,891 89,177

190,064 34,843 24,018 91,073 60,922

100,788 60,341

498,812 659,633 412,745 406,005 82,867

129,446 235,195 195,802 88,750

251,626 22.940 70,578

228,583

Relief persons,

1933

393,839

4,229 5,920 8,234 6,283

11,824 6,892 4,353 1,187 8,401 4,046 6,816

38,245 •26,748 32,144 28,518 2,529

15,904 7,624 8,684

14,710 21,138

161 14,751 16,850

Ratio of relief

persons to all

persons

7.2

5.4 13.4 12.1 7.0 6.2

19.8 18.1 1.3

13.8 4.0

11.3 7.7 4.1 7.8 7.0 3.1

12.3 3.2 4.4

16.6 8.4 .7

20.9 7.4

-

Louisiana is the only State where the proportion of older Negroes on relief was less than the comparable proportion for whites. Each of the four States which showed greater proportions of whites of -all ages on relief than of Negroes of all ages nere showed greater pro-portions -of Negroes in the oldest age-group. The greatest relative •differences between the two races were found in the District of Colum-bia and New Jersey, The proportions for the four States which had :more than 35 percent of Negroes of all ages on relief ranged from 32 to 45 percent of this age-group. Three other States had more than 35 percent of this age-group of Negroes on relief, the proportion in South Carolina exceeding 44 percent.



SEX OF PERSONS IN RELIEF FAMILIES

When the population was enumerated in the census of 1930* there were more males than females in the United States. Expressed as an average, the sex ratio for the country as a whole was 102.5 males for every 100 females. In the Unemployment Relief Census of October 1933, the excess of males over females was slightly greater than that found in the population census, i. e., 103.4 males for every 100 females The following table shows the sex ratio for the total population and for relief persons, by geographic divisions, and for the three groups of large cities.

TABLE J.—COMPARISON OF SEX RATIO (MALE PER 100 FEMALES) OF PERSONS IN RELIEF FAMILIES, OCTOBER 1933, WITH ALL PERSONS, POPULATION CENSUS, 1930, BY GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS AND BT TOTALS OF PRINCIPAL CITIES

AREA

United States total .

East North Central

South At lant ic . . . . . . . _ . . . East South Central

If ALBS PER 100 WHALES

All per-sons, 1030

102.6

97.2 100.9 104.1 104.2 09.0

100.2 103.3

Relief persons,

1933

103.4

101.2 103.9 105.6 105.1 ; 100.3 101.2 100.8

AREA

Mountain T .„ ,- .„ . , „ , ; „ .-,

5 cities, 1,000,000 population or

32 cities, 1,000,000 to 250,000 pop-

56 cities, 250,000 to 100,000 popu-lation.... _ _ _ _ „_. .

MALES PEA 100 FEMALES

All per* sons, 1930

111.3 108.7

101.4

97.7

97.2

Relief persons,

1933

105.6 110.3

99.8

101.4

100.5

In general, those areas showing an excess of males in the general

Sopulation showed similar proportions in the relief groups. In the [ountain and Pacific divisions there were 111 and 109 males, respec-tively, for every 100 females in the general population, and the corre-sponding ratios for persons on relief were 106 and 110. In New England, however, there was an excess of females in the general popu-lation, as indicated in the sex ratio of 97 males to 100 females as con-trasted with a slight excess of males in the relief group in this area.

In the principal cities, the sex ratio in the general population was less than that for the country as a whole. Similarly, the sex ratio of persons on relief in these cities was less than that for relief persons in the country as a whole. Excluding the five largest cities, the city relief groups showed an excess of males contrasted with an excess of females in the population. In the five largest cities, however, there were slightly more males than females in the population and a balance of the sexes in the relief cases. In New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and particularly Detroit, the proportion of males on relief was less than the proportion found in the 1930 census population. In Los Angeles, however, the reverse was markedly the case. The sex ratio of the total population was 97.3, whereas the sex ratio of persons on relief was 110.9.

The slightly greater proportion of males among relief persons than among the population in general in 1930 was due entirely to a dis-proportion of males to females among the white relief persons, since both the Negro and other racial relief groups had proportionately


UNEMPLOYMENT BELIEF CENSUS 17

fewer males than were found in their racial groups in the general population. The low ratio of males to females in the other-racial relief group is particularly striking in comparison with the sex ratio of their total population group.

TABLE K.—UNITED STATES SUMMARY SEX RATIO (MALES PER 100 FEMALES) BY COLOR OR RACE

United States total . . «..

White. Negro. . . . .

All per-sons, 1930

102.5

102.7 97.0

123.9

Relief per-sons, Octo-

ber 1933

103.4

105.7 92.7

103.5

When the sex ratio of persons on relief is compared to all persons in 1930, in terms of age groups, a further differential with respect to race is revealed*

< TABLE IJ.—COMPARISON OF SEX RATIO (MALES PER 100 FEMALES) OF PER-

SONS IN RELIEF FAMILIES, OCTOBER 1933, WITH ALL PERSONS, POPULATION CENSUS 1930, BY AGE GROUPS AND COLOR OR RACE

[Males per 100 females]

AH ages

Ttader 1 year. -1 to 5 years... . . . . . . . . . . 0 to 13" years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M to 15 years W to 17 years W to 24 years 25 to 34 years 85 to 44 years 45 to 54 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 to 64 years 55 years and over.

Unknown

All per-sons

102.5

103.1 103.0 102.2 101.9 100.6 96.7 98.8

105.2 109.5 108.4 100.5

122.8

Relief persons

103.4

105.2 103.9 103.2 101.2 102.0 96.2 91.3 99.5

119.4 128.3 121.1

86.0

All white

persons

102.7

103.8 103.6 102.0 102.6

* 101.3 97.6 99.2

105.7 103.6 106.9 100.1

122.1

Relief whites

105.7

105.4 104.5 103.9 103.1 103.5 99.5 94.9

102.7 123.1 130.8 125.9

88.5

All Negro

persons

97.0

98.6 98.9

• 99.0 96.3 95.0 85.3 90,0 95.2

112.5 126.2 103.5

106.0

Relief Negroes

92.7

103.8 100.8 99.1 GL6 94.4 82.2 77.2 85.4

103.0 116.6 99.1

75.2

All other races

123.7

100.0 101.4 102.6 101.6 MM. 3 131.3 146.1 146.6 163.0 154.8 131.2

312.0

Relief other races

103.4

106.2 104.9 106.8 10Q.9 103.2 94.2 93.5

101.6 115.9 115.7 121.3

56.2

_

It is obvious that whereas in the age groups from 18 through 44, the sex ratio is disproportionately less among persons in relief families compared to all persons in 1930, it is disproportionately great in the three age groups above 45 years.

Furthermore, it is especially in the age groups, 18 years and over, that the sex ratio of white persons on relief is disproportionately higher than that of the Negroes or the other races when compared to the sex ratios found in the general population. But below 18 years, this difference is neither so great nor so consistent.

LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA AND OF THE COMPARISONS

The mere facts of numbers of relief persons, their distribution, their characteristics in terms of age. sex, race, and size of family are of relatively little significance unless they can be compared, class for class, with the general population from which they are drawn. For


1 8 UNEMPLOYMENT BELIEF CENSUS

this reason, the preceding analysis has referred the relief group to the only available population data—those of the 1930 population census. Certain limitations to these comparisons and of the data themselves must be held firmly in mind in making interpretations.̂

In the first place, the population data are as of April 1, 1930, the relief data for the month of October 1933. Thus, a considerable period of time elapsed between the collection of the two bodies of data, and it is improbable that the population remained constant either in numbers or in distribution during that period. Under "normal" conditions, an estimate of the population for October 1933 would have been possible on the basis of the average change between the two census periods, 1920 and 1930. There have been so many indications of unusual population disturbances during the depres-sion, however, that such estimates are now considered not only value-less but misleading. Although the fact that these disturbances have occurred is generally recognized, there is, unfortunately, no direct measure of their extent. For lack of anything better, therefore, the relief data have been compared with the census data for 1930. This has undoubtedly introduced weaknesses in certain of the comparisons. The rates based on all classes of the data for the whole United States are presumably fairly accurate. If the total population has increased since 1930, the rates given here may be a slight overestimate. The rates based on specific classes of data may be less accurate if the com-position of the population has changed to any great extent. The fall in the birth rate, for example, may have been sufficiently great to affect the proportions in the several age groups of the population. If this is true, the disproportion of young children in relief families may be even greater than has been indicated. There have been extensive internal migrations since 1930, and there is some evidence that they have caused a net loss of population in cities and a net gain in rural areas. It is not likely, howeve^ that this movement has been uniform for the whole country or that its net effect has been the same with respect to the composition of the population. Age, sex, and race comparisons between small areas must, therefore, be interpreted conservatively, since so many unknown factors are involved.

In the second place, the definitions set up in the Unemployment Relief Census and the exclusion of certain classes of relief persons from this census should be held in mind. Family is defined in terms of the relief unit, and transients have been excluded from this relief cen-sus. The one-person families are not strictly comparable with the population census families, both because of the exclusion of transients from the former and the failure of the latter to classify more accu-rately a large group of persons known as "quasi-families" (residents of hotels, lodging houses, etc.). In this report, therefore, there is no direct comparison between one-person relief families and one-person families in the total population. If an appreciable proportion of the census "quasi-families" comprise more than one person, the com-parisons in this report of families of two or more persons may be in error. With regard to the excessive proportion of large relief families compared with census families, possible changes in family composi-tion and size during the depression should be considered, particularly with reference to possible "doubling-up", which may have been a casual factor in or a by-product of the migrations during the depression.



# In the third place, it is not advisable to consider the relative propor-tion of unemployment relief persons in any locality or in any class as an index of the degree of economic or social distress in that locality or class of the population. One obvious factor interfering with the use of these data as an index is the extent to which other means of relief are used. This is particularly clear-cut in the case of the lower pro-portion of persons of the age group 65 and over among relief persons than among the general population, since various other provisions for old age are made in many areas* The young adult group may not only have found employment to a greater extent than other age groups and, therefore, be under-represented in the relief census, but such organizations as the Civilian Conservation Corps have withdrawn parts of these groups from other relief sources. This is also the age-group likely to be highly represented among transients. As between localities, many factors may cause the marked diiferences noted. In one State there was not a single relief case in 20 counties in a articular part of the State. Upon investigation, this was found to e due to the extensive use of private house-to-house aid. Adminis-

trative diiferences between localities have undoubtedly been important in producing variations in proportions.

In the fourth place, the evaluation of certain of the striking differ-ences found cannot be made because of lack of information about the relief cases themselves. The data obtained in this census represented the only facts that could be collected on a Nation-wide basis at that time. Data regarding previous occupations of persons on relief and other pertinent economic and social factors were unavailable.

METHOD OF COLLECTING DATA

In general, the information secured by this census was not obtained by personal interview but was transcribed from the family case record cards which were on file in local relief offices and which had previously been filled out in connection with the investigation and social-service activities of the local relief agencies. The census data were, therefore, necessarily limited to facts appearing on these case cards. Before the schedule for the Unemployment Kelief Census was constructed, the limits of these data were ascertained through correspondence and conferences with the State relief officials and further advice was ob-tained from research authorities in the fields of relief, statistics, and economics. A preliminary survey of the information readily available in local relief offices and the advice of competent authorities resulted a* a decision to limit the data collected to four major categories, namely, size of relief families, the color or race of the head, and the sex and age of the persons in the families. It was then planned to assemble these basic data as a background for more intensive sample studies of the relief problem.

When the schedule was completed, a series of regional conferences Was held throughout the country with the statisticians of the various State offices to assure the comparability of the results and the rapid completion of the work. The actual transcription of the information from the case cards to the schedules was done in local relief offices followed by a preliminary check in the State offices. The transcrip-tion was begun about November 1,1933, and by the end of the month virtually all schedules had been filled out.


2 0 XTKEMPLOYMBNT BELIEF CENSUS

The schedule was designed to eliminate the necessity for practically all coding. But, to provide uniformity of procedure and interpreta-tion, nine editing and coding offices were established at strategic points in the United States to serve as a clearing house for all sched-ules. The schedules were carefully edited, and the few necessary items coded in these nine offices. The tabulations were made in Washington.

STATES INCLUDED IN THE VARIOUS GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS

The States included in the various geographic divisions are as follows: New England: South Atlantic—Continued

Maine West Virginia New Hampshire North Carolina Vermont South Carolina Massachusetts Georgia Rhode Island Florida Connecticut East South Central:

Middle Atlantic: Kentucky New York Tennessee New Jersey Alabama Pennsylvania Mississippi

East North Central West South Central: Ohio Arkansas Indiana Louisiana Illinois Oklahoma Michigan Texas Wisconsin Mountain:

West North Central Montana Minnesota Idaho Iowa Wyoming Missouri Colorado North Dakota New Mexico South Dakota Arizona Nebraska Utah Kansas Nevada

South Atlantic: Pacific: Delaware Washington Maryland Oregon District of Columbia California Virginia



ALPHABETICAL LOCATOR OF CITIES

In the tables relating to principal cities, the cities are ranked accord-ing to size, New York, the largest city being first and Lowell, Mass*, the smallest city in this group of cities of 100,000 or more being ninety third. To facilitate the location of any particular city, the following alphabetical list is presented with the rank of each city indicated. 35. Akron, Ohio. 64. Albany, N.Y. 32. Atlanta, Ga. 8. Baltimore, Md.

34. Birmingham, Ala. 9. Boston, Mass.

54. Bridgeport, Conn. 13. Buffalo, N.Y. 74. Cambridge, Mass. 68. Camden, N.J. 83. Canton, Ohio. 67. Chattanooga, Tenn. 2. Chicago, 111.

17. Cincinnati, Ohio. 6. Cleveland, Ohio.

28. Columbus, Ohio. 33. Dallas, Tex. 41. Dayton, Ohio. 20. Denver, Colo. 56. Des Moines, Iowa. 4. Detroit, Mich.

90. Duluth, Minn. 73. Elizabeth, N.J. 86. El Paso, Tex. 69. Erie, Pa. 88. Evansville, Ind. 71. Fall River, Mass. 50. Flint, Mich. 72. Fort Wayne, Ind. 48. Fort Worth, Tex. 92. Gary, Ind. 46. Grand Rapids, Mich. 47. Hartford, Conn. 26. Houston, Tex. 21. Indianapolis, Ind. 63. Jacksonville. Fla. 23. Jersey City, N.J. 66. Kansas City, Kans. 19. Kansas City, Mo. 81. Knoxville, Tenn. 57. Long Beach, Calif. 5. Los Angeles, Calif.

24. Louisville, Ky. 93. Lowell, Mass. §1' kynn> Mass. 36. Memphis, Tenn. 78. Miami, Fla.

12. Milawukee, Wis. 15. Minneapolis, Minn. 51. Nashville, Tenn. 18. Newark, N.J. 75. New Bedford, Mass. 49. New Haven, Conn. 16. New Orleans, La. 1. New York, N.Y.

62. Norfolk, Va. 30. Oakland, Calif. 43. Oklahoma City, Okla. 39. Omaha, Nebr. 60. Paterson, N.J. 82. Peoria, 111.

3. Philadelphia, Pa. 10. Pittsburgh, Pa. 25. Portland, Oreg. 37. Providence, R.I. 76. Reading, Pa. 44. Richmond, Va. 22. Rochester, N.Y. 7. St. Louis, Mo.

31. St. Paul, Minn. 59. Salt Lake City, Utah. 38. San Antonio, Tex. 53. San Diego, Calif. 11. San Francisco, Calif. 55. Scranton, Pa. 20. Seattle, Wash. 85. Somerville, Mass. 84. South Bend, Ind. 70. Spokane, Wash. 52. Springfield, Mass. 40. Syracuse, N.Y. 79. Tacoma, Wash. 91. Tampa, Fla. 27. Toledo, Ohio. 65. Trenton, N.J. 58. Tulsa, Okla. 89. Utica, N.Y. 14. Washington, D.C. 77. Wichita, Kans. 80. Wilmington, Del. 42. Worcester, Mass. 61. Yonkers, N.Y. 45. Youngstown, Ohio.



Face of Schedule

r.E.ft.A. form i>ns*i FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION HARRY L. HOPKINS. ADMINISTRATOR

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS OCTOBER 1933

Tfcl* trhtrfute to to be filled out la foil for every unemployment relief case (family, household, or recfdetit mm»fsauly person^ receiving either work relief or direct relief or both from public funds (Federal, State, or local) daring the month of October 1M3. Do not fill out for transient cases, for caaet receiving relief from private fund* only, or for persona receiving widowa' and orphans* pensions, mothers' aid. old-age relief, aid to the blind, or almshouse relief. Use m separate schedule for each family (household), and ror each resident aon-family person.

MEM CAREFULLY THK OCFINITIONS MtlNTEO ON VMS BACK OF THIS SCMtOULC

1. Name of the agency giving reticf to the case..

2. Full name And street address of head of family, or of resident non-family person:

nd u\dm* m*r *» omltwl.)

2. Place of residence of family, or of non-family person:

(a) State.. (o) County.. (e) Location within county (make entry for one of the following):

(1) If living within limit* of any city, village, or other incorporated place, enter n • of such place below:

(2) tf not living within limits of any city, village, or other incorporated place, check (y) here D

4. Color of bead of family, or of non-family person (check (f) one of the following): 1. White • 3. Mexican Q fi. Japanese Q 7. Filipino D 2. Negro D 4. Chinese D 8. Indian Q 8. Other

4 . Relationship, sex, and age of each person in family, or of resident non-family person, who received relief during October 1933. (Enter the head of the family on line 1, followed by the other members, such as " wife", "son ", "grand-daughter", etc. In the event that the relationship cannot be determined, enter the first name or the person. Leave no. unused, lines • between names. If the schedule is filled out for a non-family person, enter first name on line 1. Use a separate sched-ule for each family and for each resident non-family person.)

1

2

3

4

ft

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

RELATIONSHIP TO B E A D O f FAMILY

tU not »TiiioM*. r»r Crtt Dim* «f person)

REX


Back of Schedule

THE UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS

This census is designed to provide information which is essential to the proper administration of relief during the coming year. It is of the utmost importance that all information called for be entered completely and accurately. Informa-tion regarding individual families or persons will be held strictly confidential.

DEFINITIONS

Family or household.—A family or household is a group of related or unrelated persons living together at one address, who are receiving relief and who are considered as one "case" by the agency giving the relief.

Resident nonfamily person.—A resident nonfamily person is any individual receiving relief, not included in a family or household as defined above, who has lived in the State for 1 year or more.

Transient case.—A transient case is a nonfamily person or a family that has lived in the State for less than 1 year. Do not fill out a schedule for transient

TABLE 1.—NUMBER OF RELIEF FAMILIES, OCTOBER 1933, BY COLOR OR RACE, BT GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS

GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION Total

United States >.... 3,186,181

New England.. „ Middle Atlantic £ . - . East North Central ». West North Central-South Atlantic East South Central *. West South Central.-Mountain Pacific

141,224 720,896 728,902 230,041 468,619 291,402 337,364 94,920

172,807

White

2,550,212

136,084 630,112 627,105 203,653 278,266 210,587 230.433 79,778

154.194

Negro

1579,821

5.080 89,758 98,331 25,092

190,123 80,765 81.635 2,249 6,788

OTHER RACES

Total

56,148

60 1,026 3,466 1,296

230 50

125,296 12,899 11,825

Mexi-can

48,345

6 180

1,993 938 26 13

123,022 12 037 110,130

Chi-nese

758

57 47 7

12 1

13 96

522

Japa-nese

100

In-dian

5,455

37 346

1,305 325 179 26

2,196 717 324

Fili-pino

882

5 76 72 13 8 5

56 18

579

All other

658

7 359 36 12 1 4 6 5

228

| Includes 8,092 families, for whom no detailed information is available. , , , * Includes 6,031 white, 698 negro, 2 other races for whom no detailed information is available. * Includes 1,361 families, known to be on relief, but for whom no detailed information is available. * Includes some families, not regular relief clients, but who received surplus commodities to supplement

inadequate incomes.


24 U N E M P L O Y M E N T RELIEF C E N S U S

TABLE 2 . — N U M B E R OP RELIEF FAMILIES, OCTOBER 1933,

GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION AND COLOR OB EACE

United States

White Negro , Other races..

GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS N E W E N G L A N D . -

White . Negro . Other races . . . ,

MIDDLE ATLANTIC White Negro , Other races *

EAST NOETH CENTRAL White Negro , Other races.. m

WEST NORTH CENTRAL.. , white.. . Negro Other races .

SOUTH ATLANTIC White.. Negro Other races

EAST SOUTH CENTRAL.. White Negro . Other races

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL. White. Negro Other races

MOUNTAIN White Negro . . Other races

PACIFIC White. Negro . . . . . . . . . . . . Other races

Total

3,178,089

2,542,820 579,123 66,146

141,224 136,054

5.0S0 €0

714,165 624,081 89,060 1,024

727,541 625,744 98,331 3,466

230,041 203,653 25,092 1,296

468,619 278,266 190,123

230 291,402 210,587 80,765

$0 337,364 230,433 81,635 25,296 94,926 79,778 2,249

12,899 172,807 154,194

6,788 11,825

NUMBER OF FAMILIES COMPRISING

1 person

415,514

323,754 85,621 6,139

26,792 25,619 1,162

11 74,969 62,839 11,969

161 113,095 95,228 17,305

562 33,491 27,703 5,628 160

54,225 26,265 27,923

37 17,584 9,279 8,299

6 37,406 24,297 11,156 1,953 20,152 17,783

687 1,682 37,800 34,741 1,492 1,567

2 persons

557,397

413,731 136,821 6,845

22,673 21,536 1,121

16 115,257 92,264 22,809

184 139,462 110,535 28,414

513 41,703 34,411 7,126 166

81,307 41,321 39,942

44 42,680 26,745 15,931

61,401 39,552 18,780 3,069 15,616 13.434

615 1,467 37,398 33,933 2,083 1,382

3 persons

563,113

445,254 109,592 8,267

21,685 20,810

865 10

129,917 111,881 17,840

196 128,480 109,213 18,750

517 40,995 36,143 4,698 154

82,232 47,152 35,047

33 50,252 35,424 14,819

9 62,303 42,486 15,930 3,887 14,576 12,560

335 1,681 32,673 29,585 1,308 1.780


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS 2 5

BT SIZE AND COLOR OR RACE, BY GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS

NUMBEB OF FAMILIES COMFRISING—continued

4 persons

512,693

422,621 81,729 8,343

20,696 20,080

613 3

124,816 111,705 12,955

156 114,166 101,330 1*406

430 36,603 33,515 2,927

161 72,566 45,098 27,449

19 47,881 35,921

I 11,949 11

56,057 39,665 12,402 3,990

13,613 11,483

209 1,921

26,295 23,824

819 1,652

5 persons

389,609

325,830 56,434 7,545

16,336 15,861

465 10

95,149 86,203 8,810

131 84,955 76,422 8.129

404 27,347 25,403 1.604

140 56,524 37,246 19,251

27 40,032 30,960 9,064

8 42,537 30,623 8,2S8 3,626

10,469 8,687

148 1,634

16,460 14,420

475 1,565

6 persons

276.941

231,993 38,582 6,366

12,138 11,830

304 4

65,932 60,090 5,763

79 58,039 52,534 5,155

360 19,099 17,752 1.213

134 42,428 28,795 13,614

19 31,279 24,734 6,540

5 30,460 21,755 5,646 3,059 7,769 6,157

96 1,516 9,797 8,346

251 1,200

7 persons

187,465

156,178 26,492 4,795

8,266 8,042

221 3

44,066 40,327 3,693

46 37,612 34,005 3,323

279 12,678 11,810

744 124

30,456 20,748 9,686

22 23,443 18,584 4,855

4 20,072 14,096 3,738 2,238 5,264 4,068

64 1,132 5,608 4,498

163 947

8 persons

122,554

100,867 18,116 3,571

5,381 5,232

148 1

28.551 26,103 2,403

40 23,292 20,969 2,119

204 8,110 7.569

433 108

21,113 14,177 6,927

9 16,441 12,979 3,461

1 12,877 8,791 2,480 1.606 3,461 2,579

1 39 843

3,328 2,468

101 759

9 persons

74,060

60,426 11,496 2.138

3,417 3,347

7 0 J

16,851 15,479 1,353

14 13,879 12,458 1,311

110 4,852 4,523

261 68

13,200 8,711 4,477

12 10,673 8,213 2,459

7,354 4,922 1,482

950 2,039 1,510

32 497

1,795 ! 1,263 1 **

486

10 persons

42,299

34,001 7,080 1,218

1,938 1,881

57

9,973 9,182

777 14

7,969 7,168

752 49

2,765 2,567

148 50

7,657 4,838 2,817

2 6,057 4,448 1,609

3,911 2,477

894 540

1,110 819

11 280 919 621

1 15 283

11 persons

20,458

16,233 3,696

529

1,041 1,007

32 2

4,924 4,574

348 2

3,758 3,331

396 31

1,356 1,267

71 18

3,857 2,320 1,533

4 2,806 1,956

850

1,727 1,082

439 206 556 406

141 433 290 18

125

12 or more persons

15,786

11,932 3,464

390

861 839 22

3,760 3,429

330 1

2,834 2,551

266 17

1,042 990 39 13

3,054 1,595 1,457

2 2,274 1,344

929 1

1.259 687 400 172 401 292

4 105 301 205 17 79


2 6 UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS

TABLE 3.—NUMBER OP PEBSONS IN BELIEF FAMILIES, OCTOBER 1933,

GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION, SEX, AMD COLOB OB RACE

NUMBER OF PEBSONS

All ages Under 1 years l t o 5 years

6 to 13 years

United States...

Male.... Female..

White Male.... Female..

Negro Male.... Female..

Other races.. Male.... Female..

12,685,664 296,880 1,612,891

GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS N E W ENGLAND

Male Female

White--Male Female

Negro Male Female.. . . . . . . .

Other races. Male Female.. . . . . . . . .

MIDDLE ATLANTIC Male Female.. . . . .

White Male Female . . . . .

Negro Male . . Female . . . . . . .

Otber races Male Female . . . . .

BAST NORTH CENTRAL... Male Female....

White...___. Male.... Female..

Negro Male . - . Female..

Other races.. Male. Female..

WEST NORTH CENTRAL.. Male Female

White Male Female

Negro Male Female

Other races Male Female

SOUTH ATLANTIC • Male

Fema

FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION - FRASER · 2018. 11. 7. · federal emergency relief...

Documents

Transcript of FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION - FRASER · 2018. 11. 7. · federal emergency relief...